Avant Location Tech LLC v. ecobee Tech ULC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Avant Location Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: ecobee Technologies ULC d/b/a ecobee (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00354, E.D. Tex., 07/31/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, has committed acts of infringement, and has a regular and established place of business in the district. The complaint also asserts that as a foreign corporation, Defendant may be sued in any judicial district, and notes that Defendant has not contested venue in prior litigation in the same district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart home ecosystem, including its thermostats, sensors, and mobile applications, infringes patents related to methods for monitoring a mobile device's presence in a defined "special area" to enable or disable services.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a mobile device's location, in conjunction with local radio signals, to trigger actions within a separate system, a core feature of modern smart home automation and security systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior case, Ollnova Technologies v. ecobee, in which Defendant allegedly did not contest personal jurisdiction or venue in the Eastern District of Texas for the purposes of that action.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,485,621 - “Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area,” issued November 1, 2016 (’621 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Mobile telephone network operators face competition from short-range wireless solutions (e.g., Wi-Fi, DECT) that offer cheaper rates within a small area like a home. The patent describes the challenge for these operators to offer their own location-dependent services or tariffs in such "special areas" without the inflexibility and cost of modifying numerous radio transmission devices in the field (ʼ621 Patent, col. 1:30-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a central server, operated by a "provider of presence related services," electronically stores "checking data" that links a specific mobile station to a "special area." When the mobile station enters this area (defined by a radio signal), it sends an "updating signal" back to the server over the cellular network. The server then uses this signal to enable or disable a related service, such as a special billing rate (ʼ621 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-52). This system architecture allows for flexible management of special areas without modifying the local radio devices.
• Technical Importance: This approach decouples the definition and management of location-based services from the underlying radio hardware, allowing a service provider to centrally and dynamically create, modify, or revoke "special areas" for users. (ʼ621 Patent, col. 2:53-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Electronically storing, in one or more servers of a presence service provider, data that links a mobile station to a special area, where the data includes "checking data" of a radio communication device.
  • The presence service provider is different from the mobile telephone network.
  • Receiving, at the servers, an "updating signal" from the mobile station via the mobile network that is "uncorrelated to any mobile station phone call establishment" and identifies the mobile station's presence in the special area.
  • The servers derive from the updating signal whether the mobile station is present in the special area.
  • Enabling or disabling a "presence related service" based on the mobile station's presence or non-presence.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,622,032 - “Method and System for Monitoring a Mobile Station Presence in a Special Area,” issued April 11, 2017 (’032 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’621 Patent, the invention aims to provide a flexible and secure way for mobile network operators to associate "special areas" with a mobile station to offer location-dependent services (ʼ032 Patent, col. 1:30-51).
• The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on a method where the mobile station itself stores "first checking data" in its memory. It uses this local data to determine if a received radio signal defines a "special area." Upon making this determination, it sends an updating signal to a server. A key feature is that the server can then send "second checking data" back to the mobile station to "modify the special area," allowing for dynamic, remote updates of the zone definition on the device itself (ʼ032 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-52).
• Technical Importance: This method gives the mobile device a more active role in presence detection and allows the service provider to remotely reconfigure the boundaries of a "special area" on the fly by pushing new checking data to the end-user device. (ʼ032 Patent, col. 14:27-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A mobile station stores in memory a "first checking data" and uses it to determine if a received signal is a distinctive defining signal for a special area.
  • A server of a presence service provider receives an updating signal from the mobile station identifying its presence in the special area.
  • The server stores a parameters database with an operating parameter determined by the updating signal.
  • The server sends "second checking data different from the first checking data" to the mobile station to "modify the special area."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the ecobee smart home products and services, including various models of its Smart Thermostats, SmartCamera, SmartSensor for doors and windows, the ecobee mobile application, and related service bundles like Smart Security Complete (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the core of the accused system is the "Arm/Disarm Assist" feature, which works with a service called "Autopilot." This system uses a combination of the user's phone location (via geofencing), Wi-Fi connection status, and information from ecobee sensors to determine if the user is "home" or "away" (Compl. ¶22). Based on this presence detection, the system automatically adjusts thermostat settings or arms/disarms the security system. The complaint presents a system architecture diagram from ecobee's developer documentation, showing a Thermostat, Browser, and API Consumer communicating over the internet with a Communicator, Web Server, and Database (Compl. ¶24, p. 10). A screenshot from the ecobee app shows a user setting a geofence radius around a location to define the "home" area (Compl. ¶23, p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’621 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent describes the "provider of presence related services" in the context of a mobile telephone network operator offering special tariffs (ʼ621 Patent, col. 1:30-45). A question for the court will be whether ecobee, a smart home device manufacturer, constitutes such a provider and whether its automated comfort settings constitute a "presence related service" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the server to store "checking data of the first radio communication defining device." The complaint alleges this device is an ecobee sensor and the checking data is the sensor data sent to the thermostat and then to the servers (Compl. ¶26). A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the ecobee servers store and link this specific sensor data to the mobile station's identifier for the purpose of defining the special area, as opposed to simply using the phone's GPS-based geofence signal as the primary trigger.

’032 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The term "checking data" in the patent is linked to signals that define an area, such as base station IDs or wireless device IDs (ʼ032 Patent, col. 10:31-40). The complaint maps this to a user-defined geofence (a set of GPS coordinates and a radius). The court may need to determine if a GPS-defined geofence constitutes "checking data" as described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires the server to send "second checking data" to the mobile station to modify the area. The complaint alleges this happens when a user edits the geofence in the app (Compl. ¶42). A factual question will be whether the technical process of a user editing a setting in an app, which then syncs with a server, constitutes the server sending different data to the mobile station for modification, or if it is more accurately described as the mobile station sending new data to the server. The directionality of the data flow is a critical distinction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’621 Patent, Claim 1: "special area"

• Context and Importance: This term's scope is central. The patent's background frames it in the context of a mobile network operator defining zones like airports, business centers, or rural environments for special tariffs (ʼ621 Patent, col. 3:11-15, col. 7:37-41). The complaint applies it to a user's home, defined by a geofence (Compl. ¶22). Practitioners may focus on this term to argue whether a small, user-defined smart home geofence falls within the scope of what was invented.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not limit the "special area" to any particular size or type, stating only that it is defined by the "coverage" of a "distinctive defining signal" (ʼ621 Patent, col. 21:10-12). This could support a reading that includes any geographically or technically defined zone.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses examples tied to mobile network operator commercial strategies, such as offering different billing rates in "industrial areas or business districts" (ʼ621 Patent, col. 7:39-41) or a user's "holiday cottage" (ʼ621 Patent, col. 11:19-20), suggesting the context is broader than a single residence's immediate perimeter.

’032 Patent, Claim 1: "modify the special area"

• Context and Importance: Infringement of this claim hinges on whether the accused system performs this step. The complaint alleges that a user changing the geofence radius in the app from 1000m to 100m constitutes modification (Compl. ¶42). The definition will determine if this user action maps to the claimed step.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general. An argument could be made that any server-involved action that results in a change to the boundaries of the special area on the mobile device meets this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes modification as the operator sending data to "add more" checking data or "deactivate a special area" by sending a "deactivation signal" to erase checking data from the mobile device's database (ʼ032 Patent, col. 14:27-67). This may support a narrower construction requiring the addition or deletion of discrete identifiers, rather than merely adjusting a parameter like the radius of a circle.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. The factual basis for inducement is Defendant's alleged provision of instructions, product manuals, technical support, and marketing materials that encourage and instruct customers on how to use the accused geofencing features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 43).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents, with the complaint asserting knowledge "at least as of the filing date of this complaint" (Compl. ¶16). This frames the allegation primarily around potential post-suit infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "special area" and "provider of presence related services," which are rooted in the patent's context of large-scale mobile telephone network management, be construed to cover a consumer smart-home manufacturer and the user-defined geofence around a single home?
• A second key question will be one of technical mechanics and directionality: does the accused ecobee system—which combines phone GPS, Wi-Fi, and sensor data—operate according to the specific claim architectures? In particular, for the ’032 patent, does a user editing a geofence radius in an app constitute the server sending "second checking data" to the mobile device to "modify the special area," or is the data flow primarily from the device to the server?
• A final evidentiary question will be the role of the sensor data: for the ’621 patent, what evidence will show that the ecobee servers specifically use data from the "SmartSensor" as the "checking data" to validate a mobile station's presence in the special area, as required by the claim, rather than relying predominantly on the phone's own GPS location relative to the geofence?