Sotat, LLC v. Arlo Technologies, Inc.
Infringement action filed 26 Apr 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 15 Jun 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10511809B2US9854207B2
- Case no.
- 1:24-cv-00521
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Gregory B. Williams
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 26 Apr 2024 – 15 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 780 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Mobile surveillance system
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Mobile surveillance system
A system and method comprising a mobile device in communication with a server, wherein the server is adapted for receiving surveillance data transferred electronically from a surveillance area. At least one camera is positioned at the surveillance area for capturing surveillance data, wherein the surveillance data comprises metadata comprising at least one of audio, video, images, point in time and location of the surveillance area. The surveillance data is transferred from the server to said mobile device and displayed on the mobile device upon a user request. The surveillance data may be transferred automatically using a combination of a radio, a network, or a base station. A motion detection means can be engaged to the system to detect variations in motion measurements and provide global positioning data at the surveillance area. The system provides automatic updates to a user regarding delivery surveillance data corresponding to the user request.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 17 Dec 2019
- Est. expiry
- 31 Jul 2029
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GARRETT, ANTONIO
- Classification
- H04N7/18
- Prosecution counsel
- Clayton, McKay & Bailey, PC
- Examiner
- NGUYEN, TU T
Mobile surveillance system
A system and method comprising a mobile device in communication with a server, wherein the server is adapted for receiving surveillance data transferred electronically from a surveillance area. At least one camera is positioned at the surveillance area for capturing surveillance data, wherein the surveillance data comprises metadata comprising at least one of audio, video, images, point in time and location of the surveillance area. The surveillance data is transferred from the server to said mobile device and displayed on the mobile device upon a user request. The surveillance data may be transferred automatically using a combination of a radio, a network, or a base station. A motion detection means can be engaged to the system to detect variations in motion measurements and provide global positioning data at the surveillance area. The system provides automatic updates to a user regarding delivery surveillance data corresponding to the user request.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 26 Dec 2017
- Est. expiry
- 18 Sep 2031
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90019294 · EPR
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GARRETT, ANTONIO
- Classification
- H04N7/18
- Prosecution counsel
- Clayton, McKay & Bailey, PC
- Examiner
- NGUYEN, TU
Parties of record
Sotat, LLC
- Core tech
- H04N7/18
- Counsel
- Benjamin D. Bailey · Richard Charles Weinblatt
- Firm
- Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
Arlo Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alan Limbach · Brian A. Biggs · Erin Gibson · Jeff Castellano · Matthew S. Middleton
- Firm
- Biggs Law Firm, LLC, DLA Piper, LLP (US)
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Benjamin D. Bailey | Sotat, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Richard Charles Weinblatt | Sotat, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Alan Limbach | Arlo Technologies, Inc. | Defendant |
| Brian A. Biggs | Arlo Technologies, Inc. | Defendant |
| Erin Gibson | Arlo Technologies, Inc. | Defendant |
| Jeff Castellano | Arlo Technologies, Inc. | Defendant |
| Matthew S. Middleton | Arlo Technologies, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that this case has been resolved to the Parties’ satisfaction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Parties stipulate and agree that the above-captioned action, including all claims and counterclaims, be, and upon approval are, dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.”
Case 1:24-cv-00521 · D. Del. · closed 15 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:24-cv-00521?
1:24-cv-00521 is a patent infringement action brought by Sotat, LLC against Arlo Technologies, Inc., filed on 26 Apr 2024 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 15 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 1:24-cv-00521?
US10511809B2 (“Mobile surveillance system”), assigned to SOTAT, LLC, currently active; US9854207B2 (“Mobile surveillance system”), assigned to SOTAT, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Mobile surveillance system.
How was case 1:24-cv-00521 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that this case has been resolved to the Parties’ satisfaction. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Parties stipulate and agree that the above-captioned action, including all claims and counterclaims, be, and upon approval are, dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:24-cv-00521 take?
780 calendar days, from filing on 26 Apr 2024 to closure on 15 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:24-cv-00521?
Chief Judge Gregory B. Williams presided. Benjamin D. Bailey and Richard Charles Weinblatt are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Sotat. Alan Limbach, Brian A. Biggs, Erin Gibson, Jeff Castellano and Matthew S. Middleton appear for defendant Arlo Technologies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:24-cv-00521 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.