Eyetalk365 LLC v. August Home Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Eyetalk365, LLC (North Carolina)
  • Defendant: August Home, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC; Klemchuk LLP
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00771, D. Del., 06/16/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s video doorbell, smart lock, and associated products infringe five patents related to entryway communication and monitoring systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the smart home and entryway management sector, involving devices that allow users to remotely view, communicate with, and grant access to visitors at a residence or business.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that other companies in the entryway management industry, including the makers of the "Ring" video doorbell, have taken licenses to Plaintiff's patent portfolio, a fact that may be presented to suggest the portfolio's significance and validity.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,432,638 - "Communication and Monitoring System"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes problems associated with receiving visitors at a home or office, particularly when a resident is absent, noting security risks and the inconvenience for deliveries or service calls (ʼ638 Patent, col. 1:41-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an audio-video communication system comprising a wireless exterior module at an entrance, a computerized controller, and a remote peripheral device like a cell phone (ʼ638 Patent, Abstract). This architecture allows a user to remotely view images of a visitor, engage in two-way audio communication, and monitor the entrance from any location with a network connection, thereby solving the problem of needing to be physically present to interact with visitors (ʼ638 Patent, col. 2:13-36).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides for remote, interactive entryway management, enabling secure and convenient communication between residents and visitors regardless of the resident's physical location (ʼ638 Patent, col. 10:21-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6 (Compl. ¶12).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Transmitting streaming video data wirelessly from an exterior device after a button on its keypad is pressed.
  • Receiving the video data using a software application on a cell phone.
  • Displaying the video on the cell phone.
  • Receiving audio data from the person at the entrance on the cell phone.
  • Receiving and displaying an alert on the cell phone after the button is pressed.
  • Speaking with the person at the entrance through the software application and the exterior device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 9,414,030 - "Communication and Monitoring System"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problems of remote visitor management and security as the ’638 Patent (ʼ030 Patent, col. 1:41-51).
• The Patented Solution: The system described is a detection and viewing system that includes an exterior device, a software application on a peripheral device, and a computer for communication. A key aspect of this patented solution is the integration of an electronically actuated lock that can be opened based on instructions from the software application running on the peripheral device, adding remote access control to the communication and monitoring functions (ʼ030 Patent, col. 20:56-65). Figure 1 illustrates the system architecture, including the personal computer (80) controlling the lock (116) (ʼ030 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This invention integrates remote visual monitoring and communication with remote access control, allowing a user not only to vet a visitor but also to grant entry from afar (ʼ030 Patent, col. 21:3-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 6 and 13 (Compl. ¶26).
• The essential elements of independent claim 6, a system claim, include:
  • An exterior device with a camera, microphone, speaker, RF components, proximity detector, and keypad.
  • A software application running on at least one peripheral device.
  • A computer configured for wireless communication between the exterior device and the peripheral device.
  • The peripheral device is a cellular phone configured to display video, receive audio, display an alert, and allow the user to speak with the person at the door.
  • An electronically actuated lock associated with the door, configured to be opened upon receiving instructions from the software application.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 9,485,478 - "Communication and Monitoring System"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a communication system that facilitates two-way, real-time audio-video communications between a person at an entrance and a second person using a wireless handheld device. It emphasizes the real-time transmission of audio and video from an exterior module to a remote device for live interaction.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 9, and 21 (Compl. ¶40).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the August Doorbell Cam infringes by detecting a person's presence, transmitting real-time streaming video to a smartphone app, and providing a graphical user interface for viewing the video (Compl. ¶41-43).

U.S. Patent No. 9,516,284 - "Communication and Monitoring System"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for receiving a person at an entrance that involves transmitting streaming video from an exterior device after a button is pressed. It focuses on the sequence of actions from a button press to receiving and displaying alerts and media on a remote cellular phone.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 6, and 13 (Compl. ¶53).
• Accused Features: The August Doorbell Cam is accused of infringing by transmitting streaming video wirelessly after a button press, having an electrical connection and a battery, detecting presence via a proximity detector, and enabling two-way communication through a smartphone app (Compl. ¶55-61). The complaint includes a diagram of the Doorbell Cam's wiring to support allegations regarding its physical components (Compl. Fig. 13, p. 19).

U.S. Patent No. 9,554,090 - "Communication and Monitoring System"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method that includes transmitting video data from an exterior device either after a button press or after a person is detected by a proximity detector. A key feature is the system's ability to authorize entrance into a business or residence and actuate a door lock, as well as define a hierarchy for storing associated audio and video data.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 9, and 26 (Compl. ¶68).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the full August "System" (Doorbell Cam, Smart Lock, Connect) of infringing by transmitting video upon button press or proximity detection, enabling entrance authorization via the Smart Lock, and providing a defined hierarchy for storing audio and video data, as shown in an activity log screenshot (Compl. ¶70, ¶77, ¶79-80; Fig. 15, p. 24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the August Doorbell Cam, the August Smart Lock, and the August Connect device, which are collectively referred to as the "System" (Compl. ¶26, ¶68).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the August Doorbell Cam is a device installed at an entryway that can detect a person's presence via motion or a button press (Compl. ¶13, ¶17). It contains a camera, microphone, and speaker to capture and transmit streaming video and audio to a user's smartphone, which runs a software application (Compl. ¶14, ¶16). This application allows the user to see and speak with the visitor remotely (Compl. ¶15, ¶18). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's marketing showing a visitor's image on a smartphone screen, illustrating this core functionality (Compl. Fig. 3, p. 5).
• The August Smart Lock is described as an electronic lock that can be remotely opened after receiving instructions from the user's software application (Compl. ¶33).
• The August Connect is identified as a "Wi-Fi Bridge" that enables remote operation of the Smart Lock (Compl. Fig. 12, p. 15). The complaint positions these products within the competitive "entryway management industry" (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,432,638 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,414,030 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 6 of the ’030 patent recites a "computer" as a distinct element of the system. The complaint alleges this element can be met by a combination of the August Connect device and third-party networking equipment like a router or server (Compl. ¶30). This raises the question of whether the claimed "system" can be formed by combining the defendant's products with equipment that the defendant does not make, sell, or control.
• Technical Questions: The patents describe a "keypad" and its use for entering numeric selections to identify an occupant (ʼ030 patent, col. 10:46-51). The accused August Doorbell Cam has a single button. While a single button meets the literal claim language of a "keypad having one or more buttons," a potential issue is whether the single-button functionality of the accused product is technically equivalent to the multi-selection functionality described for the "keypad" in the patent specifications.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term ('030 Patent, Claim 6): "a computer configured for wireless communication"
• Context and Importance: The identity of this "computer" is central to the infringement theory for the '030 system patent. Plaintiff alleges it can be a collection of network components, including those not sold by Defendant (Compl. ¶30). The case may turn on whether this term is construed to require a single, integrated device provided by the defendant or if it can encompass a distributed system including third-party hardware.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "computerized controller" as a "personal computer 80" that connects to a "wireless router 42" and the Internet (ʼ030 Patent, col. 7:7-14, 38-44). This separation of the computer and router in the description may support an interpretation where the claimed "computer" is the logical controller of the system, which can be composed of multiple discrete network devices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment shown in Figure 1 depicts the "Personal Computer (80)" as the central, distinct hub of the system, running the "GUI Database Application (82)" and directly controlling the lock (116) (ʼ030 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction requiring a dedicated computing device that performs the central control and database functions, not just any collection of network hardware.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all five patents. This allegation is based on Defendant providing instructions on its website and in other documents, such as installation guides, that allegedly lead customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶20, ¶34, ¶47, ¶62, ¶82).
• Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it alleges that Defendant had knowledge of each patent prior to the lawsuit, providing specific "at least as early as" dates for each patent (Compl. ¶21, ¶35, ¶48, ¶63, ¶83). In its prayer for relief, Plaintiff requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285," which provides a basis for seeking enhanced damages and attorneys' fees, often predicated on findings of willful or egregious infringement (Compl. p. 26).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of system scope: can the claimed "system" in patents like the ’030 patent, which requires a "computer," be found to infringe when the plaintiff's theory relies on combining the defendant's products with a user's separately-provided, third-party home networking equipment (e.g., a Wi-Fi router)?
• A key question of claim construction will be the definition of terms like "keypad." The case may explore whether the single-button interface of the accused doorbell performs the same function as the multi-input "keypad" described in the patent specifications, which contemplates numeric entry for selecting different residents.
• An evidentiary focus will be on the history of the technology: given the 2002 priority date, the litigation will likely involve a significant dispute over the state of the art at the time of the invention and whether prior art anticipates or renders obvious the claims to a remote video doorbell system. Plaintiff’s assertion of successful licensing to a major competitor is likely intended to counter anticipated validity challenges.