Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd.

Case Overview

This short-lived patent infringement case was part of a broader assertion campaign by Portus Singapore Pte Ltd., a non-practicing entity (NPE), against companies in the smart home and security sector. Portus Singapore sued Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd., a Hong Kong-based manufacturer of security cameras and surveillance systems, alleging infringement of a single patent. The accused products were Reolink's security cameras, network video recorders (NVRs), and related software that allow users to remotely monitor and control their systems. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a venue that at the time was notoriously popular with patent plaintiffs due to procedures favorable to patent holders established by Judge Alan D. Albright.

The patent-in-suit was U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097, which generally describes a system for remotely accessing and controlling a device, such as a camera, over a network. Portus Singapore's complaint alleged that Reolink's products, which allow users to view live feeds and manage their security devices via the internet, utilized the patented technology. The case is one of many initiated by Portus against various technology companies. However, this particular lawsuit against Reolink was terminated just over four months after it was filed, on October 7, 2022, suggesting a swift resolution, likely a settlement, although the specific terms are not public. The filing in the Western District of Texas is notable as it was part of a trend where patent assertion entities flocked to Judge Albright's court, hoping for a faster timeline and a lower probability of cases being transferred or stayed. This trend became so pronounced that it drew scrutiny and led to a July 2022 order mandating the random assignment of patent cases filed in the Waco division, diluting the certainty of having a case heard by Judge Albright.

Legal Developments and Outcome

This litigation was exceptionally brief, lasting just over four months and terminating before any significant pretrial milestones, such as a claim construction hearing, were reached.

• 2022-05-27: Complaint Filed
  Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint against Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleged that Reolink's security cameras, network video recorders, and related software infringed on U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.

• Initial Proceedings
  The docket does not show significant motion practice following the complaint. There is no record of Reolink filing an answer or a motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay the case. This lack of substantive filings often indicates that the parties entered into settlement discussions early in the process, choosing to avoid the costs of further litigation.

• 2022-10-07: Case Terminated
  The case was terminated on October 7, 2022. While the specific docket entry detailing the termination (e.g., a joint stipulation of dismissal) is not available in the search results, the abrupt end of the case strongly suggests a settlement between the parties. The terms of such settlements are typically confidential. The case officially concluded without any substantive rulings from the court on the merits of the infringement claim or the validity of the patent.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings
  There is no public record of any inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings being filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097 by Reolink or any other party in a timeframe relevant to this litigation. The absence of a PTAB challenge, which is a common defense strategy, further supports the likelihood of a quick, private resolution. The patent has, however, been asserted in other district court litigations by Portus.

Plaintiff's Counsel

Based on their representation of Portus Singapore in numerous other patent infringement cases, the counsel of record for the plaintiff was almost certainly from the firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC. Dockets from parallel litigation consistently list the following two attorneys for Portus.

---

Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis - Lead Counsel

• Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Founding Partner), Wilmington, DE.
• Note: With over 20 years of experience, Mr. Stamoulis frequently represents patent holders in federal courts nationwide, including the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas.

Richard C. Weinblatt - Lead Counsel

• Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Founding Partner), Wilmington, DE.
• Note: A registered patent attorney, Mr. Weinblatt focuses on patent litigation and appellate work, having previously practiced at Fish & Richardson P.C.

Defendant's Counsel Not Identified in Public Record

Counsel for the defendant, Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd., did not make a formal appearance on the public docket before the case was terminated on October 7, 2022.

The case was filed on May 27, 2022, and was dismissed just over four months later. This swift resolution suggests that the parties likely reached a settlement or other agreement before any responsive pleadings, such as an answer or a motion to dismiss, were filed by the defendant. In such early-stage dismissals, it is common for defense counsel to be retained and negotiate behind the scenes without ever formally filing a notice of appearance with the court.

Searches of available court records and legal databases for Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd., 6:22-cv-00545 (W.D. Tex.), did not yield any documents identifying the attorneys representing the defendant. Consequently, information regarding their names, firms, and roles is not publicly available for this specific matter.