DCT

8:22-cv-02932

Edst LLC v. iApartments Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:22-cv-02932, M.D. Fla., 03/16/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Florida corporation with a regular and established place of business in the Middle District of Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart apartment platform, which features a smart thermostat with integrated hub capabilities, infringes a patent related to controlling and securing smart devices in multifamily properties.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns Internet-of-Things (IoT) technology for the multifamily residential market, where integrated systems manage in-unit devices like smart locks and thermostats via a central platform.
  • Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint follows a prior action between the parties (the "First Florida Action") and a related U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation that was terminated. The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of the patent application that led to the patent-in-suit due to these prior proceedings, which may be relevant to allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-10-16 '189 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2020 Plaintiff Quext introduces its line of smart home technology
2022-02-01 "First Florida Action" filed, putting Defendant on notice of related patent application
2022-09-16 Plaintiffs file ITC Investigation complaint
2022-12-20 U.S. Patent No. 11,532,189 issues
2023-03-02 ITC Investigation terminated
2023-03-16 First Amended Complaint filed in the present action

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,532,189 - "Smart Thermostat Hub"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,532,189, "Smart Thermostat Hub," issued December 20, 2022 (’189 Patent). (Compl. ¶22).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a security challenge with "offline" keyless entry systems common in older multifamily properties. While less expensive to deploy than "online" systems, disabling a lost or compromised access credential (like a key fob) for an offline lock requires a physical visit by property management, creating a window of vulnerability. (’189 Patent, col. 2:4-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an "intelligent thermostat" that also serves as a communications hub. It uses a long-range, low-power wide area network (LPWAN) to communicate with a central property management platform, and separate, short-range (non-LPWAN) links to communicate with in-unit smart devices like offline door locks. This architecture creates a "gateway or bridge," allowing the central platform to remotely send commands—such as disabling an access credential—to the thermostat, which then relays the command to the otherwise unreachable offline lock. (’189 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-48).
  • Technical Importance: This dual-radio approach aimed to make advanced property management and security features economically viable for properties lacking expensive, pre-existing Wi-Fi infrastructure, thereby expanding the market for smart-apartment technology. (’189 Patent, col. 1:44-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and notes that it is representative of method claim 22 and computer-readable medium claim 27. (Compl. ¶¶33-34, 45).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A system for controlling smart devices, comprising a user device with a processor.
    • The user device processor is configured to transmit a status request for a smart door lock to a property management platform.
    • The property management platform is at a different location from a "smart thermostat hub" and communicates with it via a bi-directional LPWAN link.
    • The "smart thermostat hub" is in a single housing and includes both a smart hub controller and an HVAC controller.
    • The hub includes a power interface configured to replace an existing thermostat using its wiring.
    • The hub is also configured to communicate with smart devices (like the lock) via a "non-LPWAN communication link."
    • The user's status request causes the platform to send control information to the hub (via LPWAN), which in turn causes the hub to command the lock to retrieve status information (via non-LPWAN).
    • The user device ultimately receives the status information, which is relayed back from the lock through the hub (non-LPWAN) and then the platform (LPWAN).
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "iApartments Smart Home and Smart Access products and services," which include the iApartments "Smart Hub Thermostat," a mobile application, and a cloud-based "Property Management Software (PMS)." (Compl. ¶¶28, 36).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused system as an "enterprise-level smart apartment platform" for multifamily properties. (Compl. ¶34). A key component is the "Smart Hub Thermostat," which the complaint alleges functions as both a thermostat and a central command center for other in-unit smart devices like locks and sensors. (Compl. p. 19; ¶40).
  • The system allegedly uses a long-range communication technology (LTE-M, a type of LPWAN) for the thermostat to connect to the central PMS, and short-range technologies like Z-Wave, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi to connect the thermostat to local devices. (Compl. ¶¶37, 42). The complaint includes a screenshot from the Defendant's website describing its "Smart Hub Thermostat with cellular connectivity" to support this allegation. (Compl. p. 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A system for controlling and securing smart devices within a unit... comprising: a user device associated with an occupant... The iApartments platform is a "system for controlling and securing smart devices." The user device is a resident's or property manager's smartphone running the iApartments app. A screenshot shows the app used for mobile access. (Compl. p. 14). ¶¶34-35 col. 27:20-28
transmit a status request to a property management platform... the status request corresponding to a smart door lock... The user transmits status requests for smart locks via the app to the iApartments "Property Management Software (PMS)," which functions as the platform. ¶36 col. 27:31-36
the property management platform is configured to be communicatively coupled to a smart thermostat hub... via a bi-directional low-power, wide area network (LPWAN) communication link... The PMS (on a server) communicates with the "Smart Hub Thermostat" using LTE-M (CAT M1) cellular technology, which the complaint identifies as an LPWAN. A marketing image states the product will "push out and collect data," suggesting a bi-directional link. (Compl. p. 16). ¶37 col. 27:40-46
the smart thermostat hub is enclosed within a housing and includes one or more other processors configured to implement a smart hub controller and a... (HVAC) controller... The "Smart Hub Thermostat" is described as a single in-unit "Command center for temperature and more," allegedly containing processors for both smart hub and HVAC functions. A visual from Defendant's marketing materials supports this dual functionality. (Compl. p. 19). ¶40 col. 27:51-57
the smart thermostat hub further includes a power interface configured to... replace an existing thermostat... The Smart Hub Thermostat is allegedly configured for "quick installation/setup for retrofits and new construction," which implies it is designed to couple to existing thermostat electrical wiring. ¶41 col. 27:58-64
the smart thermostat hub is configured to be communicatively coupled via a non-LPWAN communication link to the plurality of smart devices... The Smart Hub Thermostat communicates with an "ecosystem" of smart devices, including locks, using non-LPWAN protocols such as Z-Wave, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi. (Compl. p. 21). ¶42 col. 27:65-67
the status request is configured to cause the property management platform to transmit control information to the smart thermostat hub... [which] cause[s] the smart thermostat hub to transmit a command to retrieve status information from the smart door lock... The complaint alleges a specific sequence: a user's status request in the app causes the PMS to transmit control information to the thermostat (via LPWAN), which in turn causes the thermostat to command the lock to retrieve its status (via non-LPWAN). A screenshot of the app showing the lock as "Unlocked" is provided as evidence of this functionality. (Compl. p. 23). ¶44 col. 28:1-8
receive the status information from the property management platform, the status information received by the property management platform from the smart thermostat hub... after retrieval from the smart door lock... The complaint alleges that the lock status ("unlocked") is received by the user device after being relayed from the lock, through the thermostat hub, through the PMS, and finally to the user's app. ¶44 col. 28:9-17

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential point of dispute may be whether the term "smart thermostat hub" as defined in the patent—requiring distinct "smart hub" and "HVAC" controllers—reads on the integrated processing architecture of the accused thermostat. The defense may argue its product is a single-function device with added connectivity rather than the dual-controller system claimed.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement case hinges on proving the specific, multi-step communication pathway recited in the claim. A key factual question will be whether a user's status request on the mobile app directly causes the sequence of (1) an LPWAN transmission from the PMS to the thermostat, followed by (2) a non-LPWAN transmission from the thermostat to the lock. The defense may argue that the actual communication protocol differs from this claimed sequence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "smart thermostat hub"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the invention. Its construction is critical because the infringement analysis depends on whether the accused "Smart Hub Thermostat" embodies the specific dual-controller structure required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether Defendant’s product is merely a thermostat with connectivity or the integrated "hub" envisioned by the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes it as "an intelligent thermostat that can function as a hub," suggesting a functional definition based on its role as a "gateway or bridge." (’189 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-43).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself recites a specific structure: it must be "enclosed within a housing" and include "one or more other processors configured to implement a smart hub controller and a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) controller." (’189 Patent, col. 27:53-57). This explicit structural language may support a narrower construction requiring two distinct, identifiable controllers.

  • The Term: "bi-directional low-power, wide area network (LPWAN) communication link"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the crucial long-range communication link between the central platform and the in-unit hub. The complaint alleges that the accused product's LTE-M cellular connection meets this definition. The term's construction will determine if that technology falls within the claim's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification broadly defines the link as being within an "LPWAN or another type of network topology utilizing low power- or LoRa-based communication links," and provides examples such as NB-IoT and Sigfox. (’189 Patent, col. 6:30-37).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the patent is broad, a defendant could argue that the context of managing offline locks implies certain performance characteristics (e.g., regarding power consumption or data packets) that might be used to argue their specific implementation of LTE-M falls outside the scope as understood by a person of ordinary skill at the time.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It asserts that iApartments, with knowledge of the patent, intentionally encourages infringement by providing instruction materials, user guides, training, and software that instruct partners, customers, and end users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶45-46).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It claims Defendant was aware of the parent patent application (U.S. App. No. 17/576,934) and its claims as early as February 1, 2022, from a prior lawsuit, and received the application's file history on September 15, 2022, months before the ’189 Patent issued. (Compl. ¶¶25, 47, 49).

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused iApartments system operate using the specific, sequential communication pathway recited in Claim 1? The case may turn on evidence demonstrating that a user's request on a mobile app actually causes a transmission from the central platform to the thermostat via LPWAN, which in turn commands the lock via a non-LPWAN link, and that status information follows the reverse path.
  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "smart thermostat hub", which the claim defines as including both a "smart hub controller" and an "HVAC controller" within a single housing, be construed to read on the accused product's architecture? The outcome will depend on whether the court adopts a more functional definition or a stricter structural one requiring two distinct controllers.
  • A key question for damages will be the effect of pre-issuance knowledge: The complaint alleges Defendant knew of the specific patent claims before the patent issued. The court will need to determine if this alleged knowledge gave rise to a duty of care to avoid infringement upon issuance and whether any failure to do so renders the alleged infringement willful.