Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Zmodo Technology

Case Overview and Background

This litigation was part of the inaugural patent assertion campaign by Portus Singapore Pte Ltd., an inventor-controlled entity that operates as a non-practicing entity (NPE), also described as a patent assertion entity. Portus, along with its Australian subsidiary Portus Pty Limited, targets the smart home and Internet of Things (IoT) market. The defendant, Zmodo Technology, is an operating company that develops and sells smart home devices, including internet-connected security cameras, video doorbells, and related cloud services. This case, filed on February 7, 2019, was one of three initial lawsuits in Portus's campaign, with others filed contemporaneously against major players like AT&T (Digital Life) and Vivint, signaling a broad offensive in the home automation sector.

The lawsuit centered on allegations that Zmodo's smart home products, specifically the "Pivot and Pivot Cloud" devices, infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097. The accused products are internet-connected cameras that allow users to remotely monitor their homes and serve as control hubs for other smart devices. The asserted '097 patent, titled "System for remote access of a user premises," generally covers a system that allows a user to monitor and control devices in their home from a remote location. The technology enables this access through a standard web browser, which connects to a provider's network to establish a secure, on-demand connection to a gateway at the user's premises, a foundational concept in the architecture of many modern smart home platforms.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a popular venue for intellectual property disputes, although initial case metadata incorrectly listed the Central District. The litigation is notable as it marked the beginning of a multi-year, multi-defendant assertion campaign by Portus, which has continued to file suits against numerous other technology and retail companies into 2026 using the same family of patents. The case against Zmodo was terminated and is now closed; while specific docket entries detailing the resolution are not widely available, the closure, like many similar NPE cases, likely resulted from a confidential settlement and subsequent voluntary dismissal by the parties. No information detailing a trial or substantive court rulings on the merits is publicly available.

Legal Developments and Outcome

A detailed docket for this case is not widely available in public legal databases, limiting a full chronological account of every filing. However, based on available information, the key stages of the litigation unfolded as follows:

Filing and Early Stages (2019)

• Complaint (2019-02-07): Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. and its Australian subsidiary filed suit against Zmodo Technology, alleging that Zmodo's "Pivot and Pivot Cloud" smart cameras infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. This action was part of a coordinated, multi-front litigation campaign launched by Portus on the same day, with parallel lawsuits filed against AT&T and Vivint in Texas federal courts over the same patent family.
• Subsequent Pleadings: Information regarding Zmodo's Answer and any potential Counterclaims for non-infringement or patent invalidity is not available in the public record.

Case Resolution

• Settlement and Dismissal: The case was terminated and is now closed. While specific filings like a stipulation of dismissal or a settlement agreement are not publicly accessible, the case's closure within months of its filing strongly indicates the parties reached a confidential out-of-court settlement. This is a common outcome in litigation initiated by non-practicing entities (NPEs) like Portus, whose business model is predicated on licensing revenue rather than litigation through trial. No substantive court rulings on motions, claim construction, or the merits of the infringement allegations appear to have been issued.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records shows no inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant challenges were filed against U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097 by Zmodo or any other party during the pendency of this case. The swift settlement likely preempted any effort by the defendant to challenge the patent's validity at the PTAB.

In summary, the litigation was a short-lived engagement that concluded quickly and confidentially, consistent with the pattern of an NPE securing a licensing agreement before significant litigation costs are incurred by either side. The case did not advance to major milestones such as claim construction, summary judgment, or trial.

Counsel for Plaintiff Portus Singapore Pte Ltd.

Based on available information from dockets in other litigation, the attorneys and law firms that have most frequently represented Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. in its broader patent assertion campaign include Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC and William P. Ramey, III of Ramey LLP. However, the specific counsel of record for Portus in the 2019 case against Zmodo could not be definitively identified through publicly available web search results.

Detailed searches for the docket of Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Zmodo Technology, 2:19-cv-02029, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, did not yield a complaint or notice of appearance listing the specific attorneys who represented the plaintiff in this matter. The case was part of Portus's inaugural litigation campaign, which began on February 7, 2019.

While direct evidence for the Zmodo case is not available, counsel from the following firms have appeared for Portus in numerous other, similar patent cases:

• Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, Delaware) have appeared as counsel for Portus in multiple patent infringement cases filed in the District of Delaware. Their firm specializes in patent litigation, representing plaintiffs in high-stakes cases.
• William P. Ramey, III of Ramey LLP (Houston, Texas) has filed numerous patent infringement complaints on behalf of Portus in various Texas federal courts throughout 2026. He is frequently listed as lead counsel in these matters.

It is plausible that attorneys from one of these firms were involved in the Zmodo case, potentially in conjunction with local counsel in Illinois. However, without access to the specific court filings for case 2:19-cv-02029, this remains unconfirmed. No attorneys from other firms, such as Patterson Law Firm, LLC (who represented Portus in a separate legal malpractice action), could be linked to this patent case.

While the public docket for Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Zmodo Technology (2:19-cv-02029) is not readily available through web searches and specific notices of appearance for this case could not be located, counsel for Zmodo Technology in other patent litigation within the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois provides a strong indication of the company's legal representation.

Based on appearances in subsequent patent cases filed against Zmodo in the same venue, the likely counsel is identified below. It is important to note that without direct access to the docket, this information is based on strong circumstantial evidence from parallel litigation.

Defendant's Counsel (Inferred)

• Name: Charles D. Wineland III

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Inferred). Based on his role in other Zmodo patent cases, he likely led the defense strategy.
  • Firm at time of filing (unconfirmed): In-house as General Counsel for meShare, Inc. (a company closely related to Zmodo) or an external firm. Public profiles show he transitioned from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to an in-house role. In a 2022 Zmodo case in the same court, he is listed as counsel without an external firm affiliation noted in the docket.
  • Note on Experience: Wineland has an extensive background in patent and intellectual property law, having started his career at Kirkland & Ellis LLP before moving in-house. He served as General Counsel for meShare, Inc. and later Smartz, demonstrating deep experience within the smart home technology sector.

• Local Counsel:

  • Name: Unknown.
  • Role: Local Counsel. It is standard practice for out-of-state attorneys to retain local counsel, but the identity of a local Illinois firm that may have assisted has not been identified in public records.

This assessment is based on Charles D. Wineland III's appearance as counsel for Zmodo in Moxchange LLC v. Zmodo Technology Corporation Limited, Case No. 2:22-cv-02141, also in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Given that Zmodo used him in a subsequent patent case in the same court, it is highly probable he also represented Zmodo in the Portus matter, which was filed just a few years prior.