DCT

2:22-cv-00072

Ollnova Tech Ltd v. ecobee Tech ULC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00072, E.D. Tex., 12/27/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, which is subject to suit in any U.S. judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart thermostat systems and wireless sensors infringe four patents related to wireless network architecture, power management, and data communication protocols for building automation systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the smart home and building automation sector, where wireless sensors and controllers are used to manage HVAC systems to improve energy efficiency and user comfort.
  • Key Procedural History: This Second Amended Complaint was filed on December 27, 2022, following an original complaint filed on March 8, 2022. Notably, after the filing of this complaint, an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding was instituted against U.S. Patent No. 8,224,282. The resulting IPR Certificate, issued January 27, 2025, cancelled claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 20-21 of the ’282 Patent, which includes all claims asserted by the Plaintiff in Count I of the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-08-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,860,495 Priority Date
2006-04-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887 Priority Date
2008-01-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,264,371 Priority Date
2008-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,224,282 Priority Date
2010-06-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887 Issued
2010-12-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,860,495 Issued
2012-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,224,282 Issued
2012-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,264,371 Issued
2022-03-08 Original Complaint Filing Date
2022-12-27 Second Amended Complaint Filing Date
2025-01-27 Inter Partes Review Certificate Issued for U.S. Patent No. 8,224,282

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,224,282 - Method and device to manage power of wireless multi-sensor devices, issued July 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the challenge that wireless devices used in building automation systems must operate for extended periods on limited battery power, making power conservation a critical design concern (’282 Patent, col. 1:14-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automation component that contains a multi-sensor package and communicates wirelessly. To save power, the component receives status information from a second component (e.g., a central controller) indicating which sensor data is currently in use or "in control." The component then communicates only the relevant portion of its stored sensor data corresponding to that status, rather than transmitting all data from all its sensors, thereby reducing communication and extending battery life (’282 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:29-44).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make wireless multi-sensor devices more practical for long-term deployment by intelligently minimizing data transmission based on the system's operational needs (’282 Patent, col. 1:14-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-6, 7-12, 13-16, 19-21, and presents independent claim 13 as exemplary (Compl. ¶¶9-10). It should be noted that all of these asserted claims were subsequently cancelled by an IPR certificate issued on January 27, 2025.
  • Exemplary Independent Claim 13 (as asserted in the complaint) includes the following essential elements:
    • An automation component for wireless communication, comprising a multi-sensor package, a wireless communications component, a processor, and a memory.
    • The memory stores sensor data and computer-readable instructions.
    • The instructions program the component to receive a wake-up command from a second automation component.
    • The instructions program the component to communicate stored sensor data related to the sensor data in control at the second automation component.
    • The instructions program the component to receive a power-down command from the second automation component.

U.S. Patent No. 7,746,887 - Dynamic value reporting for wireless automated systems, issued June 29, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes how continuous monitoring and broadcasting of information by wireless devices in an automation system consumes large amounts of power and network bandwidth, which can shorten battery life and create a noisy communication environment (’887 Patent, col. 2:36-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a device that monitors a condition at a certain polling interval but only transmits a report when a meaningful change occurs. A change is deemed meaningful if the sensed value moves "outside a predetermined range" or differs from prior measurements by a significant amount. The device can also dynamically adjust its polling and transmission intervals to further optimize power and bandwidth usage (’887 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-68; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This "report-by-exception" method reduces unnecessary network traffic by transmitting data based on events and changes, rather than on a fixed, continuous schedule, thereby conserving power and bandwidth (’887 Patent, col. 2:48-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 21, with independent claim 1 being exemplary (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • A wireless automation device comprising a transceiver, a sensor, a controller, and a memory.
    • The sensor generates an indicator for a sensed condition.
    • The controller polls the sensor at a polling interval to read the indicator.
    • The memory stores the current reading and at least one prior reading of the indicator.
    • The transceiver transmits the most recent reading in response to detecting "a change in the sensed condition outside a predetermined range."

U.S. Patent No. 7,860,495: Multi-Patent Capsule

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,860,495, Wireless building control architecture, issued December 28, 2010 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a building automation architecture that utilizes two distinct wireless networks with different protocols. A first, lower-level network enables direct, peer-to-peer communication between sensors and actuators (e.g., using 802.15.4) for local control, free of an intervening controller. A second, higher-level network (e.g., using 802.11) facilitates regional control and can override the local operations, creating a distributed and more resilient system (’495 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-36).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6, 10-12 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the ecobee SmartThermostat, which uses Wi-Fi for communication with a main network, and the ecobee SmartSensor, which uses a 915MHz radio to communicate with the thermostat, together create the two-tiered wireless network architecture claimed by the patent (Compl. ¶¶30-31; p. 10-12).

U.S. Patent No. 8,264,371: Multi-Patent Capsule

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,264,371, Method and device for communicating change-of-value information in a building automation system, issued September 11, 2012 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention describes a device and method for managing the communication of "change-of-value" (COV) messages in a building automation system. The system can operate in a "polled" (pull) fashion, where a device responds to a request, or a "pushed" fashion, where a device proactively sends an update when a change occurs. The invention manages these COV updates to optimize network traffic, for instance by aggregating multiple changes into a single update message (’371 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-38).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 13 and dependent claims 1-12 and 14-21 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses ecobee's system, including its scheduling and HVAC monitoring features like "HomeIQ reports," of infringing by communicating change-of-value information between the thermostat and other system components (Compl. ¶¶40-41; p. 15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint names the ecobee SmartThermostat with Voice Control, ecobee Smart Si Thermostat, ecobee3, ecobee4, ecobee Thermostat Premium, ecobee Thermostat Enhanced, ecobee3 Lite, and the ecobee SmartSensor as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶¶9, 29).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products constitute a smart HVAC control system. The thermostat units serve as the central controller, connecting to a user's home Wi-Fi network for internet access and remote control (Compl. ¶11, p. 4). The complaint includes a screenshot from ecobee's website describing how the separate "SmartSensor" provides "enhanced comfort" by enabling occupancy detection and temperature management in specific rooms, not just at the thermostat's location (Compl. ¶11, p. 5). A key technical aspect alleged is the dual-protocol communication: the main thermostat uses dual-band Wi-Fi, while the SmartSensor communicates with the thermostat using a separate 915MHz radio link, which is described as being for "secure, energy-efficient communication" (Compl. ¶31, p. 11-12). The complaint alleges these products are commercially sold and marketed in the U.S. (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references external claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the filing (e.g., Compl. ¶10, ¶20). As such, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the narrative provided in the complaint.

  • '282 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Products meet the limitations of exemplary claim 13 by operating as a multi-sensor device that manages power through selective communication (Compl. ¶10). The theory appears to be that the ecobee system, which includes the main thermostat and one or more remote SmartSensors, functions by receiving commands (analogous to the claimed "wake-up" and "power-down" commands) that cause it to communicate only the data from the sensor that is currently relevant for controlling the HVAC system (analogous to "sensor data in control"), thereby conserving power (Compl. ¶¶9-11). The complaint points to promotional materials that describe how the system uses remote sensors for targeted comfort control as evidence of this capability (Compl. ¶11, p. 5).

  • '887 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The infringement theory for exemplary claim 1 of the '887 Patent is that the Accused Products practice a "report-by-exception" method to save power (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges that the ecobee thermostat and its connected SmartSensors periodically monitor conditions like temperature and occupancy (the "polling interval") but only transmit data wirelessly (the "transmission interval") when a detected value changes significantly enough to require an HVAC adjustment, which Plaintiff maps to the claim limitation of a "change in the sensed condition outside a predetermined range" (Compl. ¶¶19-21). The complaint cites ecobee's "HomeIQ reports" and scheduling features as functionalities that rely on this dynamic value reporting (Compl. ¶21, p. 8).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Viability Questions: A threshold issue for the '282 Patent is the post-filing cancellation of all asserted claims in an IPR proceeding. For the case to proceed on this patent, the plaintiff would need to seek leave to amend its complaint to assert any surviving, unasserted claims.
    • Scope Questions: For the '887 Patent, a key dispute may be whether the term "predetermined range" reads on the operational logic of the ecobee system. The court may need to determine if the system's trigger for communication is a defined "range" as taught by the patent, or a different algorithm, such as a deviation from a single setpoint or a time-based schedule.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Products perform the specific functions of receiving "wake-up" and "power-down" commands as required by claim 13 of the '282 Patent? Similarly, for the '887 Patent, does the complaint show that the system's polling and transmission intervals are distinct and that transmission is triggered specifically by a value moving outside a range, as opposed to other events?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Patent: U.S. Patent No. 8224282

    • The Term: "communicate a portion of the stored sensor data corresponding to the received status information" (from cancelled claim 13)
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's claimed power-saving method. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system’s communication logic qualifies as transmitting a "portion" of data that "corresponds" to specific "status information." Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes a targeted, intelligent data reduction scheme from a generic data update.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept generally, stating the instructions are programmed to "communicate a portion of the stored sensor data corresponding to the received status information to the second automation component" (’282 Patent, col. 2:41-44). This could support a reading that covers any method of sending less than all available data based on some external input.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links this functionality to identifying which sensor is "in control," stating the system may "communicate the flagged sensor data corresponding to the primary sensor and/or sensor value in control of, and provided by, the field panel" (’282 Patent, col. 9:22-25). This could support a narrower construction requiring the "status information" to explicitly identify a controlling sensor.

  • Patent: U.S. Patent No. 7746887

    • The Term: "a change in the sensed condition outside a predetermined range"
    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the specific trigger for transmitting data in the claimed "report-by-exception" scheme. Whether the accused system infringes will depend heavily on whether its communication trigger meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because smart devices use many different algorithms to decide when to communicate, and a narrow definition could place the accused functionality outside the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers to detecting a change "outside a variable range" and the summary notes the condition may be "outside a predetermined range or limit" (’887 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-21). This language suggests the "range" is not limited to a single type of boundary.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 and its description illustrate the concept as a comparison between a current indicator (Vi) and a prior indicator (Vi-j), where the difference is compared to a difference limit (DL) (’887 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 10:18-30). This could support a narrower construction requiring the "range" to be defined by a differential value rather than absolute thresholds.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that ecobee induces infringement of all asserted patents. The factual basis for this allegation is that ecobee provides online instructions, support articles, and other publications that instruct and encourage end-users to install and configure the Accused Products (e.g., a thermostat with one or more SmartSensors) in a way that directly infringes the patents (Compl. ¶¶11, 21, 31, 41).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that ecobee has had knowledge of the asserted patents and the infringing nature of the Accused Products at least since the filing of the original complaint on March 8, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶11, 21, 31, 41). The complaint further alleges that ecobee provides instructions "knowing and intending (or with willful blindness to the fact) that its customers and end users will commit these infringing acts" (Compl. ¶11, p. 5). This forms the basis for a claim of knowing and intentional infringement, which could support a finding of willfulness and a request for enhanced damages.

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

  • Case Viability Post-IPR: The most critical question is the legal and practical impact of the IPR certificate that cancelled all asserted claims of the '282 Patent. Can the Plaintiff successfully amend its complaint to assert any surviving claims, and if so, do those claims read on the Accused Products?
  • Definitional Scope: A central issue for the remaining patents will be one of claim construction. Can the structured, multi-step processes described in the patents, such as the '887 Patent’s specific "report-by-exception" mechanism or the '495 Patent’s distinct two-tier wireless architecture, be interpreted to cover the more generalized, algorithm-driven operation of a modern commercial smart thermostat system?
  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation. Beyond marketing materials, the case will turn on what technical evidence the Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that the accused ecobee systems actually perform the specific steps required by the claims, versus operating according to a different, technically distinct, and non-infringing method.