DCT

1:24-cv-10037

IoT Innovations LLC v. Savant Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-10037, D. Mass., 03/29/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains established and regular places of business in the District of Massachusetts and has committed acts of patent infringement within the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Savant Home Systems smart home platform infringes five patents related to mobile image management, automatic device registration, cross-device data synchronization, wireless communication timing, and IP data classification.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on smart home automation technology, a market focused on integrating disparate home functions like security, lighting, and media into a unified control system accessed via mobile apps and dedicated hardware.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-04-16 Earliest Priority Date, ’266 Patent
2001-09-10 Earliest Priority Date, ’260 Patent
2002-10-03 Earliest Priority Date, ’224 Patent
2002-11-27 Earliest Priority Date, ’464 Patent
2004-06-02 Earliest Priority Date, ’830 Patent
2007-01-16 Issue Date, ’224 Patent
2007-10-09 Issue Date, ’830 Patent
2008-05-27 Issue Date, ’464 Patent
2011-07-05 Issue Date, ’260 Patent
2011-07-05 Issue Date, ’266 Patent
2024-03-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,165,224 - "Image Browsing And Downloading In Mobile Networks," Issued Jan. 16, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of limited memory on mobile devices, which makes it impractical to store a large number of high-resolution digital photographs locally. (’224 Patent, col. 1:20-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to conserve on-device memory by storing only "miniaturized versions" (i.e., thumbnails) of images on the mobile device, while transferring the full-sized images to an "external storage device" like a home computer. (’224 Patent, col. 3:56-65). The user can quickly browse the local thumbnails; selecting one sends a request message (e.g., SMS) to the external device, which then transmits the full-sized image back to the mobile device (e.g., MMS) for viewing. (’224 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This system balanced the desire for on-demand access to high-quality images with the significant memory and bandwidth constraints of early-2000s mobile technology. (’224 Patent, col. 2:50-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶26).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • storing in a mobile device a miniaturized version of an image;
    • transferring the full-sized image to an external storage device;
    • deleting the full-sized image from the mobile device;
    • detecting a user's selection of the miniaturized version;
    • in response, sending a first message over a wireless network requesting the transfer of the full-sized image; and
    • receiving a second message over the wireless network containing the transferred full-sized image. (’224 Patent, col. 13:43-61).

U.S. Patent No. 7,280,830 - "Automatic Registration Services Provided Through A Home Relationship Established Between A Device And A Local Area Network," Issued Oct. 9, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the process of registering newly purchased electronic devices as "often cumbersome," requiring manual software installation, form-filling, and complex network configuration by the user. (’830 Patent, col. 1:15-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention automates this process by having a new device establish a "home" relationship with a local network server. Once this relationship exists, the network server automatically obtains the new device's registration information, establishes a connection with a remote registration server, and transmits the information to complete the registration, all with minimal or no user input. (’830 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-54).
  • Technical Importance: This method aimed to simplify the on-boarding of new network-enabled devices, lowering the technical barrier for consumers and facilitating the growth of multi-device home networks. (’830 Patent, col. 1:31-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶41).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • establishing a "home relationship" between a new wireless device and a network server, such that no additional user configuration is required for communication after the relationship is established;
    • wherein establishing this relationship includes the network server determining the device is a previously known "owned device";
    • automatically obtaining registration information for the new device;
    • establishing a connection between the network server and a remote registration server; and
    • sending the registration information from the network server to the registration server. (’830 Patent, col. 6:40-54).

U.S. Patent No. 7,379,464 - "Personal Digital Gateway," Issued May 27, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses difficulties in maintaining synchronized, up-to-date personal information across multiple, disparate user devices with different capabilities. (’464 Patent, col. 1:56-65). It proposes a "personal digital gateway" that acts as a central hub, using a rule-based engine and device-specific profiles to automatically format, manage, and route data between a user's various devices. (’464 Patent, col. 2:30-44).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1. (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that the Savant Host functions as the claimed "personal digital gateway," using profiles and rule-based engines to manage and communicate data (e.g., for access, configuration, security) between the Savant App and other connected smart home devices. (Compl. ¶¶86-87).

U.S. Patent No. 7,974,260 - "Method Of Transmitting Time-Critical Scheduling Information Between Single Network Devices In A Wireless Network Using Slotted Point-To-Point Links," Issued July 5, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a technical problem in wireless networks like Bluetooth where the transmission of time-critical scheduling information can be delayed if communication channels are occupied. (’260 Patent, col. 2:15-20). The proposed solution is a method of packaging this information in a special data sequence (with a header and payload) and transmitting it in a "time defined contact slot" to ensure its timely, just-in-time reception independent of general network load. (’260 Patent, col. 3:13-41).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 5. (Compl. ¶135).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that the Savant Pro Remote and other Savant devices infringe by transmitting timing control information using a defined data sequence in a data packet within a "time defined contact slot." (Compl. ¶135). Figure 26 of the complaint shows a diagram of the accused Savant Pro Remote. (Compl. Fig. 26).

U.S. Patent No. 7,974,266 - "Method And Apparatus For Classifying Ip Data," Issued July 5, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses a problem in IP networks where source routing—a packet being routed through a series of specified intermediate nodes—can cause incorrect session classification, preventing the packet from receiving its intended Quality of Service (QoS). (’266 Patent, col. 4:21-36). The invention provides a method and router that classify the data not based on the immediate destination in the IP header, but on the "last destination address entry" contained within the packet's routing header, thereby ensuring classification is based on the true final destination. (’266 Patent, col. 1:44-52).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1. (Compl. ¶167).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Savant's IP Video Network products infringe by receiving IP data, classifying it at a first node based on the "last destination address entry" in the data's header, and forwarding it to subsequent nodes where it is similarly classified. (Compl. ¶167).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are components of the "Savant Home Systems," which include the Savant Host, Savant Pro App, Savant Pro Remote, Savant Servers, and the Savant IP Video Network. (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

The Savant system is a home automation platform that integrates control of climate, lighting, entertainment, and security. (Compl. Fig. 2). The Savant Host acts as a central "communication hub," enabling the Savant App on a user's mobile device to communicate with and control other Savant-compatible devices throughout the home. (Compl. Fig. 3). The complaint presents a network diagram showing how a Host, a mobile device running the Savant App, and a remote connect via a local Wi-Fi network. (Compl. Fig. 25). The system is marketed as providing a "single easy-to-use interface for the homeowner." (Compl. Fig. 2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'224 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
storing in the mobile device a miniaturized version of an image ...; transferring the image to an external storage device; [and] deleting the image from the mobile device The complaint's theory focuses on retrieving remote images, implying a miniaturized version or placeholder exists on the mobile app to initiate the request. The Savant Host or server functions as the external storage device. ¶26 col. 3:56-65
detecting selection of the miniaturized version of the image A user of the Savant App selects a camera feed to view, for instance by tapping "Connect" on an incoming call notification from a door entry station. ¶26, Fig. 9 col. 4:40-42
in response to detecting selection ... sending via a wireless communication network a first message requesting transfer of the image to the mobile device When a user selects a camera feed in the Savant App, the app sends a request over the network to the Savant Host/Server to provide the image or video stream. ¶26, Fig. 9 col. 4:1-5
and receiving a second message via the wireless communication network transferring the image to the mobile device The Savant Host/Server responds by sending the requested image or video data to the Savant App, where it is displayed to the user. ¶26, Fig. 9 col. 4:1-5
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention is whether the claim term "image," which the patent describes in the context of static digital photographs, can be construed to read on the live audio and video feeds alleged in the complaint. (Compl. Fig. 9).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory focuses on remote viewing. It raises the question of what evidence the complaint provides that the accused system performs the specific claimed sequence of storing a full image on a mobile device, transferring it, deleting it from the mobile device to save space, and only then requesting it back from external storage.

'830 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
establishing a home relationship between the new wireless device and a network server, such that no additional configuration is required by a user... A new Savant device is added to a Savant system, where it communicates with the Savant Host (the "network server") without requiring further user configuration for network communication. ¶41, Fig. 3 col. 2:46-51
wherein establishing a home relationship includes, determining at the network server, that the wireless device is an owned device, wherein the owned device is previously known... During the setup process, the Savant Host allegedly determines that a new device being added is an authorized "owned device" that is already known to the server. ¶41 col. 2:55-62
automatically obtaining registration information for the new device The Savant Host, via software such as the "Lighting/Keypad Manager," discovers new devices on the network and automatically obtains their information. ¶41, Fig. 14 col. 3:1-4
establishing a connection between a registration server and the network server The Savant Host (network server) establishes a connection with a remote Savant server, which functions as the "registration server." ¶41 col. 3:26-30
and sending the registration information from the network server to the registration server The Savant Host sends the new device's information over the established connection to the remote Savant "registration server" to complete the registration. ¶41 col. 3:45-50
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The definition of "owned device" that is "previously known to the network server" may be a point of dispute. The claim language suggests the server must know of the device before establishing the home relationship, which may create a potential antecedent basis issue or a conflict with how device provisioning typically works.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of a "registration server." A technical question is what evidence demonstrates that the Savant Host sends specific "registration information," as distinct from authentication or operational data, to a remote Savant server that functions as the claimed registration server.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'224 Patent

  • The Term: "external storage device" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to whether the integrated components of the Savant system map onto the patent's architecture. Defendant may argue that the Savant Host is an integral and co-functioning component of the accused system, not an "external" device in the manner of a separate PC to which a user offloads photos.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the external device as potentially being "a personal computer or dedicated storage equipment" and "a personal computer acting as a server for a home network." (’224 Patent, col. 1:23-24; col. 2:60-62). This language may support defining any network-connected server that holds the primary image file as "external" to the mobile device.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background frames the invention as a solution for managing memory on a mobile device by "transfer[ring] files to another device." (’224 Patent, col. 1:21-22). This context, focused on offloading files to free up space, may support a narrower construction limited to physically and functionally separate devices rather than integrated components of a single system.

'830 Patent

  • The Term: "home relationship ... such that no additional configuration is required by a user" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the patent's core concept of automated, user-friendly device setup. The dispute will likely center on how much user activity is permissible during setup before it constitutes "additional configuration."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires no additional configuration "to communicate over the network once the relationship is established." (’830 Patent, col. 6:42-45). Practitioners may argue this language allows for user actions to establish the relationship itself, so long as subsequent network communication is automatic.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background criticizes the "cumbersome" process of "installing the device's software" and other manual steps. (’830 Patent, col. 1:15-20). This may support a narrower view where any multi-step user interaction during the initial setup constitutes the "additional configuration" the patent seeks to avoid.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for the ’224, ’830, and ’464 patents, asserting that Defendant's user guides, instructional materials, and advertising encourage customers to use the Savant products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶27, 42, 88). It also alleges contributory infringement for these patents, claiming the products contain special features not suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶28, 43, 89). The complaint does not include counts for indirect infringement of the ’260 or ’266 patents.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’224, ’830, and ’464 patents based on knowledge acquired at least from the filing of the lawsuit (post-suit knowledge). (Compl. ¶¶29, 44, 90). It also alleges willful blindness based on an asserted "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others." (Compl. ¶¶30, 45, 91). The complaint does not allege willful infringement of the ’260 or ’266 patents.

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

  • Technological Equivalence: A central issue will be whether the functionality of a modern, integrated smart home system can be mapped onto the specific technical problems and solutions described in patents from an earlier technological era. This raises a question of functional equivalence: does streaming video from a networked camera (’224 patent) or classifying proprietary data packets (’266 patent) in the accused system perform in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the methods claimed for managing static photos and routing standard IP packets?
  • Definitional Scope of "Automatic": The case may turn on a question of definitional scope regarding automation. For the device registration (’830 patent) and data synchronization (’464 patent) claims, a key dispute will be the degree of user interaction permitted during setup and operation before the accused system's processes can no longer be considered "automatic" or requiring "no additional configuration" as recited in the claims.
  • Evidentiary Proof of System Architecture: An evidentiary question will be whether discovery shows the accused Savant system operates in the specific manner required by the claims. This includes whether the system offloads, deletes, and then retrieves image data as claimed in the ’224 patent, or whether it sends specific "registration information" to a remote "registration server" as claimed in the ’830 patent, raising a question of potential mismatch in technical operation.