DCT

2:22-cv-00365

Edst LLC v. Huarifu Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00365, E.D. Tex., 09/16/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) on the basis that the defendants are foreign aliens and may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart thermostat hubs and associated smart home systems, which are imported into the U.S., infringe patents related to using a smart thermostat as a gateway to manage offline smart devices in multi-family properties.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the smart property management market, particularly for multi-family residential buildings, by creating a cost-effective system to remotely control devices like door locks without requiring expensive property-wide Wi-Fi infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint references concurrent litigation, including a patent infringement suit against a U.S. distributor, iApartments Inc., in the Middle District of Florida, and a Section 337 complaint filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission against the defendants. These actions are cited as the basis for Defendants’ alleged knowledge of the asserted patents and their infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-10-16 Priority Date for ’273, ’685, and ’118 Patents
2019-12-06 ’685 Patent Application Filed
2020 Quext IoT Products Introduced
2020-06-25 ’118 Patent Application Filed
2020-10-13 ’685 Patent Issued
2020-11-03 ’273 Patent Issued
2021-11-30 ’118 Patent Issued
2022-09-16 ITC Section 337 Complaint Filed
2022-09-16 Complaint Filed in E.D. Tex.

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,825,273 - "Smart Thermostat Hub"

Issued November 3, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the high cost and complexity of deploying "online" smart door locks in multi-family properties, which require extensive network infrastructure like Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶32; ’273 Patent, col. 1:50-58). Conversely, conventional "offline" door locks are cheaper but require cumbersome and insecure in-person, physical access to manage user credentials (Compl. ¶33; ’273 Patent, col. 1:59-2:12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an intelligent thermostat that doubles as a communication hub (Compl. ¶30). It uses two distinct communication systems: a long-range, low-power link (e.g., LoRaWAN) to communicate with a remote property management platform, and a separate, short-range link (e.g., Bluetooth, ZigBee) to communicate with nearby "offline" door locks and other smart devices within a residential unit (’273 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-39). This architecture allows for the remote management of credentials for offline locks without needing costly local Wi-Fi.
  • Technical Importance: This solution was designed to enable cost-effective deployment of remotely manageable smart access systems in older "Class B and C" multi-family properties that lack modern network wiring (Compl. ¶32; ’273 Patent, col. 4:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts indirect infringement of independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An offline door lock with a sensor, memory, and lock processor.
    • A smart device hub (e.g., a thermostat) comprising one or more processors.
    • A first interface on the hub for communicating with a property management platform via a Wide Area Network (WAN).
    • A second, separate interface on the hub for communicating with the offline door lock via a non-WAN link.
    • The hub processors are configured to receive control information from the platform via the first interface, generate a command (e.g., to disable a credential), and transmit that command to the lock via the second interface.
  • The complaint also asserts direct and indirect infringement of numerous other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶58-59).

U.S. Patent No. 10,803,685 - "Smart Thermostat Hub"

Issued October 13, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’273 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problems related to the cost and security trade-offs between online and offline smart lock systems in multi-family properties (Compl. ¶43; ’685 Patent, col. 1:43-2:20).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’685 Patent describes the same smart thermostat hub solution, which acts as a gateway between a long-range network (LoRaWAN) for back-end communication and a short-range, non-LoRaWAN network for local device control (’685 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-39). This enables remote management functionalities, such as disabling access credentials, for otherwise disconnected "offline" door locks.
  • Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide the security and management benefits of expensive "online" systems at a cost structure suitable for retrofitting older residential buildings lacking pre-existing network infrastructure (Compl. ¶43; ’685 Patent, col. 4:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts indirect infringement of independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An offline door lock with a locking mechanism, sensor, memory, and lock processor.
    • A smart thermostat hub with one or more processors.
    • A first interface on the hub for communicating with a property management platform via a Long Range (LoRa) wide area network (LoRaWAN) link.
    • A second interface on the hub for communicating with the offline door lock via a non-LoRaWAN link.
    • The hub processors are configured to receive control information (identifying credentials to be disabled) from the platform via the LoRaWAN link, generate a corresponding command, and transmit it to the lock via the non-LoRaWAN link.
  • The complaint also asserts direct and indirect infringement of numerous other claims (Compl. ¶¶67-68).

U.S. Patent No. 11,189,118 - "Smart Thermostat Hub"

Issued November 30, 2021

Technology Synopsis

As a continuation of the same parent application, the ’118 Patent shares a common specification with the ’273 and ’685 patents and is directed to the same smart thermostat hub technology (Compl. ¶51). The invention uses a dual-radio system to bridge a long-range management network with local, offline smart devices to enable remote control and security functions in multi-family properties.

Asserted Claims

Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 17-19 (Compl. ¶76). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim directed to a smart hub.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the iApartments, Inc. Smart Home and Smart Access products and services infringe the ’118 Patent (Compl. ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "iApartments, Inc.'s Smart Home and Smart Access products and services" (collectively, "Accused Products"), which are allegedly manufactured overseas by Defendants HSW (Compl. ¶54).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products include "smart thermostat hubs, systems that incorporate these hubs, and components of the hubs" (Compl. ¶7). It does not provide specific technical details on how the Accused Products operate.
  • The products are marketed and sold in the United States for use in the multi-family residential property management industry (Compl. ¶15). A screenshot from the iApartments website lists several major property management brands as customers. This visual evidence depicts the logos of companies such as UBS, Greystar, and Mark-Taylor under the heading "Top multifamily brands choose iApartments" (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes conclusory allegations of infringement and, for a detailed infringement theory, incorporates by reference exhibits from a concurrent ITC Complaint which were not attached to this pleading (Compl. ¶¶58, 67). As the complaint itself does not articulate a narrative infringement theory or provide a claim chart, a detailed analysis or summary chart cannot be constructed based on the provided document. The infringement counts state that the "Accused Products satisfy all limitations of these claims" without explaining how each limitation is met (Compl. ¶¶58, 67).

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patents' claims and the general nature of the allegations, several points of contention may arise:

  • Architectural Questions: A central issue may be whether the Accused Products practice the specific two-tiered communication architecture required by the claims—specifically, using a LoRaWAN or other specified WAN technology for backhaul communication to a central platform, while simultaneously using a separate non-WAN, short-range technology to control the end device (e.g., the door lock).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks factual allegations detailing the specific communication protocols (e.g., LoRaWAN, Bluetooth, ZigBee) used by the Accused Products. An evidentiary question will be whether the accused system's components and communication methods map onto the specific protocols and interfaces recited in the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"offline door lock"

(from ’273 Patent, Claim 1; ’685 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is foundational to the invention, which is centered on adding remote manageability to this specific type of device. The patent's background explicitly distinguishes its claimed invention from both "online door locks" and "conventional offline door locks," suggesting the term has a particular meaning within the patent that may be narrower than its plain and ordinary meaning (Compl. ¶31, ¶33). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself only requires a lock with a processor, memory, and sensor, without explicitly negating any specific type of connectivity (’685 Patent, col. 28:11-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contrasts "offline door locks" with "online door locks" that are connected to a "network communication infrastructure (e.g., a mesh network, a Wi-Fi network, etc.)" (’685 Patent, col. 1:55-58). A defendant may argue this creates a definition by negative limitation, where any lock possessing a persistent connection to a local IP network cannot be an "offline door lock" under the patent's definition.

"a Long Range (LoRa) wide area network (LoRaWAN) communication link"

(from ’685 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term recites a specific, non-generic communication technology. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system uses this exact technology or a different WAN technology.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue this term should be construed to cover other, technically similar low-power wide-area network (LPWAN) technologies under the doctrine of equivalents. The specification mentions other LPWAN examples, such as NB-IoT and Sigfox, which could support an argument that LoRaWAN was exemplary, not strictly limiting (’685 Patent, col. 6:25-29).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the explicit recitation of "LoRaWAN" in the claim, which is a specific industry standard, limits the claim scope to systems that practice that standard literally. The repeated emphasis on LoRaWAN throughout the specification could be used to argue against a broader interpretation (’685 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:5-15).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. It alleges Defendants knowingly induce infringement by their customers (like iApartments) and end-users by providing "user guides, online instruction materials, and websites" (Compl. ¶¶60, 69, 78). It alleges contributory infringement by supplying the smart thermostat hub, which it characterizes as a material component especially adapted for infringement and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶¶61, 70).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ purported knowledge of the asserted patents since at least the filing of a prior lawsuit (the "Florida Action") and the filing of a concurrent ITC complaint (Compl. ¶¶65, 74, 82).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s conclusory allegation of infringement, which relies on incorporating an unprovided external document for factual support, satisfy the plausibility standard required under federal pleading rules?
  • A key technical question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused system actually implement the specific two-network architecture claimed in the patents—a long-range (LoRaWAN) link for remote management and a distinct, non-WAN local link for device control—or does it use a different, more conventional architecture?
  • The case will likely involve a critical question of definitional scope: can the term "offline door lock," which the patent distinguishes from prior art online and offline locks, be construed to read on the accused smart locks, or does the specification's language limit the term to devices lacking any form of local IP network connectivity?