DCT
1:23-cv-00977
Portus Singapore Pte Ltd v. Schneider Electric USA Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Portus Singapore Pte LTD (Singapore) and Portus Pty Ltd. (Australia)
- Defendant: Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Clayton, Mckay & Bailey, PC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00977, D. Del., 04/04/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Delaware corporation and thus resides in the district. The complaint further alleges that infringing acts, including distribution and sales of the Accused Products, occur within the District of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud-based building management, security, and energy monitoring systems infringe patents related to using a standard web browser to remotely monitor and control devices at a user's premises.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to the architecture of early 'smart home' or 'Internet of Things' (IoT) systems, enabling remote access to local networks via a centralized, web-accessible external network.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long history of communication between the parties, beginning with Defendant's acquisition of a company Portus had dealings with in 2003. Most significantly, Plaintiff alleges that in 2015, it alerted Defendant to its infringement of the '526 patent and provided claim charts, an allegation central to its claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-12-17 | Priority Date for '526 and '097 Patents |
| 2014-12-16 | '526 Patent Issued |
| 2015-01-01 | Alleged notice of infringement of '526 Patent provided to Defendant |
| 2018-05-01 | '097 Patent Issued |
| 2025-04-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,914,526 - "Local and Remote Monitoring Using a Standard Web Browser," Issued Dec. 16, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technological environment where remote monitoring of home automation and security systems was cumbersome, often relying on "non-visual monitoring and control mechanisms" like entering codes on a telephone handset (’526 Patent, col. 1:38-41). Existing browser-based systems assumed the user's premises had a persistent, active connection to the internet, which was not always the case, and lacked a universal, platform-independent interface (’526 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system architecture where a user employs a standard internet browser to access an "extranet" (an external, private network). A "communications server" on this extranet is adapted to interconnect on-demand with a "connection gateway" located at the user's premises (’526 Patent, Abstract). This architecture makes the user's home "effectively appear to them as a website, with all devices, security and otherwise, accessible for monitoring or control" (’526 Patent, col. 2:49-52). A key architectural component is the brokered, on-demand connection initiated by the external server to the local gateway, abstracting the connection details from the end-user.
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a standardized, geographically independent interface for the nascent smart home market, solving the problem of how to reliably and securely access local devices from a remote location using ubiquitous web browser technology without requiring a constant, open connection from the premises to the internet.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-5, 7, 13-19, 22, 23, 25-27, 44-46, 48-50, 57, and 58-63, with claim 57 detailed as an exemplary claim (Compl. ¶¶75, 77).
- Independent Claim 57 is a system claim for remote access of user premises networks, requiring:
- A "first network" external to the user premises, which includes a "first arrangement of processing circuitry" and a "hardware user access browser device."
- A plurality of "second arrangements of processing circuitry" (e.g., gateways), each located at a user premises on a local network.
- The system is configured such that, responsive to a user accessing a URL, the first circuitry uses authorization data to determine which user premises to connect to.
- The first circuitry then "initiates an establishment of a network connection" to the determined second circuitry, creating a "new communications session for a temporary interconnection."
- Through this session, the first network obtains information from the user's premises network and serves it to the user's browser.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶85).
U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097 - "System for Remote Access of a User Premises," Issued May 1, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’526 Patent, the ’097 Patent addresses the same technical challenges: the lack of a standardized, platform-independent method for remotely accessing and controlling on-premise devices that did not require a persistent internet connection from the premises (’097 Patent, col. 2:1-42).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a nearly identical architecture, wherein a user's browser interacts with a remote server that establishes a connection to an on-premise gateway. This allows the user's premises to be monitored and controlled as if it were a website, abstracting the underlying network complexity (’097 Patent, col. 2:64-67). The claims are drafted with slightly different language but capture the same core inventive concept.
- Technical Importance: The patent family represents an early approach to the client-server architecture that now underpins most modern IoT and cloud-based control systems.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-7, 13-21, and 23-25, with claim 1 detailed as an exemplary claim (Compl. ¶¶102, 104).
- Independent Claim 1 is a system claim for remote access, requiring:
- A "first hardware processing circuitry" running an "access browser module."
- A "second hardware processing circuitry" located in a "first network" (external to the premises).
- A "connection gateway" located in, and part of, a local network at the user premises.
- The system is configured such that user input of a URL begins a sequence where the second circuitry serves information from the local network to the first circuitry.
- This sequence requires the transmission of "authentication data" from the first circuitry to the second, which then determines the correct local network to access and establishes a "new communication session."
- The information is obtained from the gateway "without a direct communicative coupling" between the second circuitry and the end device on the local network.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶112).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Defendant's cloud-based solutions for building management, power management, access control, and video management, sold under brand names including Multisight, EcoStruxure, Conext, Wiser, Wiser Air, and EVlink (Compl. ¶60).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these products form a system where on-premise devices such as cameras, thermostats, power meters, and lighting controls are monitored and controlled remotely via an internet web browser or smartphone applications (Compl. ¶60). The system uses cloud-based servers (e.g., "MultiSight Cloud") to connect to on-premise hardware, such as a "MultiSight Gateway" or other networked devices (Compl. ¶¶69-70). A network architecture diagram titled "MultiSight Communications Overview" depicts customer sites connecting through a router/firewall to the "MultiSight Cloud," which in turn connects to managers and external users (Compl. p. 33). These systems are marketed as "cloud-based access control platform[s]" that can operate in a hosted environment (Compl. p. 16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'526 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 57) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first network (a) located external to said user premises... (b) including a first arrangement of processing circuitry... and (c) including a hardware user access browser device | Defendant's External Network (e.g., MultiSight Cloud) includes servers (first processing circuitry) and is accessed by user devices running Schneider apps or a web browser (hardware user access browser device). | ¶77(a) | col. 6:18-40 |
| a plurality of second arrangements of processing circuitry each comprising at least one hardware processor... each... located in a respective one of the user premises | Defendant's system includes on-premise devices like cameras and gateways (second arrangements of processing circuitry), each with a processor and located at a customer site. | ¶77(b) | col. 6:25-33 |
| responsive to user-input of a URL... said first circuitry arrangement subsequently... determines which one of said user premises networks... authorization data indicates authority to at least one of monitor and control | When a user accesses the system via an app or browser, the input acts like a URL, providing authorization data that Defendant's servers use to determine which user's devices to access. | ¶77(g), (h) | col. 12:46-56 |
| initiates an establishment of a network connection to said one of said second circuitry arrangements to create a new communications session for a temporary interconnection | Defendant's servers create a new communications session with the on-premise Connection Gateway to monitor or control devices in the user's home network. | ¶77(i) | col. 7:62-67 |
| obtains information contained within the user premises network from the second circuitry arrangement... and... serves to the user's access browser the information | The server obtains information (e.g., video feeds) from the on-premise gateway and provides it to the user's app or browser. A screenshot shows the 'MultiSight Spotchecker' application displaying camera feeds. (Compl. p. 38). | ¶77(j), (k) | col. 12:1-9 |
'097 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first hardware processing circuitry running an access browser module | User devices (smartphones, computers) running Schneider apps or an internet browser. | ¶104(a) | col. 12:40-45 |
| a second hardware processing circuitry located in a first network | Defendant's servers (e.g., MultiSight Cloud) which are located in an external network. A diagram illustrates the "Seamless Integration" architecture showing a "Cloud server" connecting to on-premise devices. (Compl. p. 17). | ¶104(b) | col. 11:51-57 |
| a connection gateway that is located in, and is part of a local network of, the user premises | On-premise hardware like Defendant's cameras and gateways, which are part of the local user network. | ¶104(c) | col. 11:43-50 |
| the system is configured such that user-input of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)... begins a sequence in which the second hardware processing circuitry responsively serves... information | User login/access via the app (acting as a URL input) initiates a sequence where Defendant's servers provide information from the user's on-premise devices to the user's app. | ¶104(g) | col. 12:46-64 |
| wherein the sequence includes the first hardware processing circuitry transmitting to the second hardware processing circuitry authentication data | The user's app provides login credentials (authentication data) to Defendant's external servers to access the networked components. | ¶104(h) | col. 11:35-41 |
| the sequence further including the second hardware processing circuitry establishing a new communication session between the first hardware processing circuitry and the connection gateway | Defendant's servers create a new communication session with the on-premise gateway to monitor devices, based on the user's authentication. | ¶104(l) | col. 12:54-61 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether claim terms drafted in the 1990s, such as "communications server" and an "extranet," can be construed to read on a modern, distributed, third-party cloud computing infrastructure like Amazon Web Services, which the complaint identifies as part of the accused system (Compl. p. 34).
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on the nature of the network connection. The patents appear to describe the initiation of a connection to a premises that may not be persistently online. It raises the question of whether the accused systems, which typically rely on "always-on" broadband connections, practice the claimed "temporary interconnection" or "new communication session" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "initiates an establishment of a network connection" (’526 Patent, cl. 57) / "establishing a new communication session" (’097 Patent, cl. 1).
Context and Importance: This language is central to the patents' description of an "on-demand" connection. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the patents' scope covers modern systems with persistent physical internet connections.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require a "new" or "temporary" session, which Plaintiff may argue is met whenever its servers open a specific, secure data tunnel or application-layer connection to a gateway in response to a user request, regardless of the underlying physical layer's status.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with cumbersome telephone-based systems, suggesting a focus on creating a connection from a previously disconnected state (’526 Patent, col. 1:38-41). Defendant may argue the term requires establishing a network-layer connection (akin to a dial-up call) where one did not previously exist, not merely opening a new data stream over an existing connection.
The Term: "communications server" (’526 Patent, cl. 1) / "second hardware processing circuitry located in a first network" (’097 Patent, cl. 1).
Context and Importance: This defines the external, non-premise component of the system. Its construction will determine if the claims read on Defendant's use of distributed cloud services.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this component as part of a "virtual private network (VPN)" or "extranet" which "embodies a collection of Internet-accessible resources" (’526 Patent, col. 6:18-24). This language may support a construction covering a distributed, virtualized set of resources rather than a single physical server.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict a single, discrete box labeled "Communications Server" (Fig. 1, item 21). Defendant may argue this, along with the singular term "server," suggests a more centralized hardware architecture than the massively distributed infrastructure of a modern cloud platform.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by providing user manuals, instructional videos, and websites that instruct and encourage customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶88, 97). It further alleges contributory infringement, asserting the products are especially designed for this remote monitoring functionality and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶96).
- Willful Infringement: The claim for willfulness is primarily based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant has been aware of the '526 patent and its alleged infringement since at least 2015, when Plaintiff's representative allegedly contacted Defendant and provided infringement claim charts (Compl. ¶¶58, 87).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technological translation: can claim terms drafted in the 1990s to solve problems of the dial-up era—such as "initiates an establishment of a network connection"—be construed to cover the operation of modern, "always-on" cloud architectures where the distinction between a "disconnected" and "connected" state is fundamentally different?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of notice and intent: will the evidence show that the alleged 2015 communication provided Defendant with knowledge of infringement that was sufficiently clear and specific to give rise to a duty of due care, thereby supporting the allegation of willful infringement?
- The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: does the term "communications server," as described and depicted in the patents, encompass the distributed, multi-tenant, and virtualized nature of the third-party cloud infrastructure that the complaint alleges the accused systems utilize?