Edward D. Ioli Trust et al v. Avigilon Corporation et al, No. 2:10-cv-00605 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2014)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is Defendant Vigilant Video, Inc.’s Motion for Sumary Judgment (Dkt. No. 268), filed October 30, 2012. Having considered the briefing of the parties, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant’s Motion should be and hereby is D ENIED, for the reasons set forth below. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed suit for patent infringement against a large number of defendants on December 30, 2010. On May 14, 2012, Plaintiffs and Defendant Digital Recognition Network (“DRN”) executed a settlement ag reement which Defendant Vigilant Video, Inc.