DCT

1:19-cv-12326

EcoFactor Inc v. Schneider Electric USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-12326, D. Mass., 11/12/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts based on Defendant Schneider Electric USA, Inc. having a regular and established place of business in the district and committing alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Wiser Air Smart Thermostat products and associated services infringe three patents related to the use of data analytics for optimizing the performance and efficiency of HVAC systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue occupies the smart home and energy management sector, where networked devices and remote servers analyze data to reduce energy consumption while maintaining user comfort.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants have been on notice of the asserted patents since at least October 21, 2019, when Plaintiff filed a complaint at the International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging infringement by the same products. Post-filing records indicate that U.S. Patent 8,423,322 underwent ex parte reexamination, resulting in amended claims, and that all claims of U.S. Patent 8,498,753 were cancelled in an inter partes review.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-09-17 Earliest Priority Date for ’497 and ’322 Patents
2009-05-08 Earliest Priority Date for ’753 Patent
2012-03-06 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 8,131,497
2013-04-16 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 8,423,322
2013-07-30 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 8,498,753
2019-10-21 Plaintiff files ITC complaint, alleging notice to Defendants
2019-11-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,423,322: System and method for evaluating changes in the efficiency of an HVAC system (Issued: 04/16/2013)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inability of conventional thermostats to account for dynamic factors that degrade HVAC system efficiency over time, such as clogged filters or refrigerant leaks, which manifest as higher energy bills and suboptimal performance (’322 Patent, col. 3:36-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked system where thermostats report temperature and status data to a central server. This server also collects outside weather data and compares a home's current thermal performance against its own historical data and data from other homes, allowing it to evaluate and diagnose changes in operational efficiency (’322 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:38-52).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables remote, automated diagnostics of HVAC systems, moving beyond simple temperature scheduling to proactive performance monitoring and fault detection (’322 Patent, col. 3:55-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint focuses its allegations on independent claim 1, which was subsequently amended during an ex parte reexamination (’322 C1 Certificate). The elements of the amended claim include:
    • An HVAC control system associated with a structure that receives temperature and status measurements.
    • One or more processors that receive outside temperature data and compare it with the inside temperature over time.
    • One or more databases to store the temperature measurements.
    • The processors compare the HVAC system's performance at a first time with its performance at a second time to determine if operational efficiency has decreased.
    • A pattern of the decrease is compared to stored patterns of specific defects to identify a possible cause.

U.S. Patent No. 8,131,497: System and method for calculating the thermal mass of a building (Issued: 03/06/2012)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent states that conventional thermostats lack a mechanism to account for a building's "thermal mass"—its inherent ability to store and release heat. This property significantly impacts energy efficiency, particularly when trying to optimize HVAC operation around variable, time-based electricity pricing (’497 Patent, col. 3:1-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that calculates a building's effective thermal mass by using a networked thermostat to gather data on inside temperature, outside temperature, and HVAC duty cycles. By processing this information, a remote server can calculate the rates of temperature change when the HVAC system is on and off, which serves as a proxy for thermal mass, and relate these rates to outside temperatures (’497 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-16).
  • Technical Importance: By quantifying a home's thermal mass, the system can enable more sophisticated energy-saving strategies, such as pre-cooling or pre-heating a home during off-peak hours to coast through high-cost periods (’497 Patent, col. 3:16-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 7 (a method claim) (’497 Patent, Compl. ¶22).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An HVAC control system that receives temperature measurements.
    • Databases to store the temperature measurements over time.
    • Processors that receive outside temperature data and are configured to:
      • Calculate rates of temperature change at the location for periods when the HVAC is "on."
      • Calculate rates of temperature change for periods when the HVAC is "off."
      • Relate these calculated rates of change to the outside temperature measurements.
  • Independent claim 7 recites a method with corresponding steps.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,498,753

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,498,753, "System, method and apparatus for just-in-time conditioning using a thermostat," issued 07/30/2013 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the challenge of starting an HVAC system at the optimal moment to reach a desired temperature at a future target time, avoiding the energy waste of starting too early or the discomfort of starting too late (’753 Patent, col. 1:31-44). The solution is a system that uses a building's thermal characteristics and forecasted weather to calculate this "just-in-time" start point and program the thermostat accordingly (’753 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, and 15 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "just-in-time" scheduling and pre-conditioning capabilities of the Wiser Air Smart Thermostat system infringe the ’753 Patent (Compl. ¶29, 31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "Wiser Air Smart Thermostat" and associated products and services as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶11, 20, 29).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "smart thermostat products" that, through their normal and customary use, perform the functions described in the patents (Compl. ¶11, 12). The infringement allegations imply that the Wiser Air system, encompassing both the physical thermostat and its connected services, is capable of collecting and analyzing historical temperature data, HVAC performance, and weather data to optimize its operation for energy efficiency and comfort. The complaint does not contain specific details about the internal software architecture or algorithms of the Accused Products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint repeatedly references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 2, 4, and 6) that compare the asserted claims to the Accused Products; however, these exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint. Accordingly, the infringement allegations are summarized in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

The core of the infringement theory is that the Wiser Air Smart Thermostat system, through its ordinary operation, performs the methods and embodies the systems claimed in the patents-in-suit. For the ’322 Patent, the complaint alleges the system monitors HVAC performance over time to detect drops in efficiency (Compl. ¶13). For the ’497 Patent, it alleges the system necessarily calculates rates of temperature change based on inside/outside temperatures and HVAC status, which amounts to calculating thermal mass (Compl. ¶22). For the ’753 Patent, it alleges the system uses this data to implement "just-in-time" pre-conditioning schedules (Compl. ¶31).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A central factual dispute will likely be the precise nature of the algorithms used by the Wiser Air system. What specific data points does the system collect and analyze, and what specific values does it calculate? The complaint's lack of technical detail on the accused system's operation suggests this will be a primary focus of discovery.
  • Scope Questions: Does the accused system's general performance tracking meet the specific limitation of determining "whether the operational efficiency of the HVAC system has decreased," as required by the amended claim 1 of the ’322 Patent? Similarly, does calculating performance metrics that are influenced by thermal mass equate to the claimed step of calculating "rates of change in temperature" and "relat[ing]" them to outside temperatures as taught in the ’497 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "operational efficiency" (’322 Patent, claim 1; ’497 Patent, claims 1, 7)

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to what the patented systems measure and evaluate. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to mean any general performance metric or narrowly to mean a specific diagnostic value. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the threshold for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification links decreased efficiency to general outcomes like "higher energy bills," which could support a construction covering any metric reflecting overall energy consumption relative to performance (’322 Patent, col. 3:47).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of factors affecting efficiency, such as "clogged filters, refrigerant leaks, [and] duct leakage," and discusses identifying the unique "signature" of each problem (’322 Patent, col. 3:42-48). This may support a narrower construction requiring a system to calculate a value capable of distinguishing between such root causes.

The Term: "relate said calculated rates of change to said outside temperature measurements" (’497 Patent, claims 1, 7)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the crucial analytical step in the ’497 patent. The infringement analysis will turn on what level of technical "relation" is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to demand more than simply collecting two data sets; it suggests a specific computational link must be proven.
  • Intrinsic evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that any algorithm where outside temperature is an input variable used to model or predict inside temperature change inherently "relates" the two, satisfying the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's goal is to isolate the building's thermal properties. This could support a narrower construction requiring an algorithm that normalizes or adjusts the calculated rate of change based on the outside temperature to derive a more stable thermal-mass-like value, rather than merely using it as one of many inputs.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants provide user manuals and online instructions that actively encourage and instruct end-users to operate the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶12, 21, 30).
  • Willful Infringement: The basis for the willfulness allegation is pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendants have had knowledge of the patents and their alleged infringement since at least October 21, 2019, the date Plaintiff filed a related complaint against them at the ITC (Compl. ¶17, 26, 35).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic transparency: does the accused Wiser Air system's software perform the specific analytical steps required by the claims? The case will likely depend on whether discovery uncovers evidence that the system (1) compares HVAC performance over time to explicitly determine a decrease in "operational efficiency" (’322 Patent) and (2) calculates distinct on/off rates of temperature change and formally "relates" them to outside temperatures (’497 Patent).
  • A central legal issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the court construe the term "determine whether the operational efficiency... has decreased"? The dispute will likely focus on whether this requires a specific, diagnostic conclusion (e.g., "efficiency is down 10%") or if it is met by any system that tracks and displays performance trends that implicitly reflect efficiency.
  • The case's trajectory will be shaped by post-filing procedural events: given that the asserted claims of the ’322 Patent have been amended in reexamination and all asserted claims of the ’753 Patent have been cancelled in an inter partes review, a critical question is how these developments will impact the litigation. The cancellation of the ’753 Patent claims likely moots that portion of the lawsuit, focusing the dispute entirely on the two remaining patents, one of which must now be asserted in its amended form.