DCT

2:25-cv-00333

IoT Innovations LLC v. BH Security LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00333, E.D. Tex., 04/02/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, employs individuals residing in the district, and conducts substantial business there, including offering the accused products and services. The complaint points to a corporate partnership with a local professional sports team as an example of Defendant's business activities in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s home security platform and systems infringe seven patents related to various foundational networking, data transmission, and device management technologies.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit cover a range of technologies including IP data classification, device synchronization, automatic device registration, and methods for modulating and managing data across networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving the asserted patents, or relevant licensing history.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-06-27 Earliest Priority Date (’761 Patent)
2000-06-30 Earliest Priority Date (’762 Patent)
2001-04-16 Earliest Priority Date (’173 Patent)
2001-07-09 Earliest Priority Date (’872 Patent)
2002-11-27 Earliest Priority Date (’102 Patent)
2004-06-02 Earliest Priority Date (’830 Patent)
2004-06-30 Earliest Priority Date (’798 Patent)
2007-07-17 ’173 Patent Issued
2007-08-28 ’102 Patent Issued
2007-09-25 ’761 Patent Issued
2007-10-09 ’830 Patent Issued
2008-07-01 ’798 Patent Issued
2008-08-05 ’872 Patent Issued
2009-04-28 ’762 Patent Issued
2022-10-28 Defendant announces partnership with Allen Americans Hockey Club
2025-04-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,246,173 - "Method And Apparatus For Classifying IP Data," issued July 17, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In packet-switched networks employing 'source routing,' where the sender specifies the path a packet must take, the destination address field in the packet header may temporarily point to the next intermediate router, not the true final destination. This can confuse network protocols like RSVP, which rely on the final destination address to apply specific Quality of Service (QoS) rules, potentially causing the packet to not receive its required service level. (’173 Patent, col. 4:27-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a network node (e.g., a router) to correctly classify a data packet for QoS purposes by examining the source routing information contained within the packet's header. Specifically, the node looks at the last address in the list of specified intermediate nodes, which represents the packet's true final destination, allowing for proper classification even while the packet is still in transit. (’173 Patent, col. 4:51-59, col. 5:6-14).
  • Technical Importance: This method enables resource reservation and QoS protocols to function correctly in networks that use source routing, ensuring data streams are properly identified and managed according to their service requirements. (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶30).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • A method of classifying Internet Protocol (IP) data to be sent from a source apparatus to a destination apparatus in a packet switched network.
    • Receiving said data at a first node, the data comprising a header comprising a list of at least one intermediate node to be visited on a way to the destination apparatus.
    • Classifying said data at said first node based on an entry in said header.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 7,263,102 - "Multi-Path Gateway Communications Device," issued August 28, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of creating, accessing, and maintaining up-to-date personalized information (e.g., contact lists, security credentials) across a user's various personal devices, such as a home computer and a wireless phone, each with different software, hardware, and data formats. (’102 Patent, col. 1:56 - col. 2:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "personal digital gateway" that serves as a centralized interface for a user's devices. The gateway uses a database of "rule-based profiles" to categorize data for different functions—such as access, configuration, security, and management—and to manage communications with a plurality of connected devices, effectively creating a virtual personalized network for the user's data. (’102 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55 - col. 3:11).
  • Technical Importance: The gateway provides a system to automate the management and synchronization of data across a user's ecosystem of personal electronics, improving data consistency and accessibility. (Compl. ¶37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶40).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • A personal digital gateway comprising a database of rule-based profiles for communicating data, categorizing the data as associated with an access agent, configuration agent, security agent, and management agent.
    • A processor that associates a rule-based profile with a selected communications device.
    • A communications interface enabling data communication with a plurality of diverse devices (e.g., wireless phone, computer, PDA).
    • A memory device that is removable from the personal digital gateway.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 7,274,761 - "Device Synchronisation Over A Network," issued September 25, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of synchronizing the real-time clocks of separate devices over a network. The invention provides for a device that can read its own real-time clock at a specific instance of a common time reference (shared by other devices on the network) and transmit that clock value and instance identification to another device, allowing the receiving device to synchronize its own clock. (Compl. ¶54, ¶58).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1. (Compl. ¶57).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Brinks Home Hubs, IQ 2.0 Control Panels, and the Brinks Home App infringe by synchronizing their real-time clocks to a common time reference and transmitting clock values across the network. (Compl. ¶58).

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 October 9, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for automatically registering a new wireless device with a network. The process involves establishing a "home relationship" between the new device and a network server, where the server recognizes the device as "owned," and then automatically obtaining and sending registration information to a registration server without requiring user configuration. (Compl. ¶64, ¶68).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1. (Compl. ¶67).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to perform a method of automatic device registration by establishing a "home relationship" between new wireless devices (e.g., sensors) and a network server (e.g., a hub), determining the device is "owned," and automatically transmitting registration data. (Compl. ¶68).

U.S. Patent No. 7,394,798 - "Push-To Talk Over Ad-Hoc Networks," issued July 1, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses improving communication between network nodes by grouping them and using direct connections to save network resources. The invention describes a method where network nodes can temporarily form groups and send and receive information between the groups using a direct radio connection. (Compl. ¶81, ¶85).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 16. (Compl. ¶84).
  • Accused Features: The Brinks Home Hubs and IQ 2.0 Control Panels are accused of infringing by forming temporary groups of network nodes (e.g., sensors and hubs) and communicating information between them via direct radio connections. (Compl. ¶85).

U.S. Patent No. 7,408,872 - "Modulation Of Signals For Transmission In Packets Via An Air Interface," issued August 5, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: The invention is directed to a method for modulating signals for transmission in packets over an air interface. The described method involves receiving pluralities of bits, creating bit pairs by adding a "set bit" with a fixed value, and mapping these bit pairs to values according to a selected modulation scheme. (Compl. ¶98, ¶102).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1. (Compl. ¶101).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to perform the claimed modulation method when transmitting signals in packets via an air interface, such as between the Brinks Home Hubs, Control Panels, and the App. (Compl. ¶102).

U.S. Patent No. 7,526,762 - "Network With Mobile Terminals As Browsers Having Wireless Access To The Internet And Method For Using Same," issued April 28, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for managing software upgrades for terminals on a network. The system uses a configuration server that receives an upgrade message, identifies users and terminal servers requiring the upgrade, and distributes it. The server can also determine which terminals have not yet received the upgrade and provide it upon terminal activation. (Compl. ¶108, ¶112).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 7. (Compl. ¶111).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to form an infringing system where a configuration server (part of the Brinks Home platform) manages and distributes partial software upgrades to terminal servers (e.g., hubs) for subsequent distribution to terminals (e.g., control panels). (Compl. ¶112).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The Accused Products include the Brinks Home security platform and systems, specifically identifying the Brinks Home IQ 2.0 Control Panels (e.g., Qolsys IQ Panel2), Brinks Home Hubs, and the Brinks Home App, along with associated hardware and software. (Compl. ¶21, ¶31, ¶58).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products constitute a home alarm and security platform through which Defendant provides security and control services to customers. (Compl. ¶21-22). Functionally, the system involves networked control panels, hubs, sensors, and a mobile application that communicate to manage device registration, data synchronization, software updates, and data transmission. (Compl. ¶31, ¶58, ¶68, ¶85, ¶102, ¶112). The complaint alleges Defendant actively advertises and sells these products in the district, referencing a press release about a marketing partnership with the Allen Americans hockey team. (Compl. ¶12; p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references Exhibits A-G as containing "Evidence of Use" for each asserted patent but does not attach these exhibits. The following summary is based on the narrative infringement theories provided in the body of the complaint.

’173 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving said data at a first node, the data comprising a header comprising a list of at least one intermediate node to be visited on a way to the destination apparatus; The Brinks Home IQ 2.0 Control Panels receive Internet Protocol (IP) data within a packet switched network, where the data includes a header listing intermediate nodes for routing. ¶31 col. 2:46-53
and classifying said data at said first node based on an entry in said header. The Control Panels classify the received IP data based on an entry in the data's header. ¶31 col. 5:6-14
  • Identified Points of Contention (’173 Patent):
    • Technical Questions: A primary factual question is whether the Accused Products' standard processing of IP packets constitutes "classifying said data...based on an entry in said header" in the specific manner contemplated by the patent. The patent's specification ties this "classifying" to resolving a specific problem with QoS protocols like RSVP. (Com. ¶27; ’173 Patent, col. 4:5-44). The dispute may focus on whether the accused classification performs this specific function or is merely part of standard network routing.

’102 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a database of personal digital gateway rule-based profiles for communicating data..., the rule-based profile categorizing the data as at least one of (1) data associated with an access agent, (2) data associated with a configuration agent, (3) data associated with a security agent, and (4) data associated with a management agent; The Accused Products allegedly function as a personal digital gateway that uses a database of rule-based profiles to categorize and communicate data according to the four specified agent types. ¶41 col. 3:4-11
a processor communicating with a memory device, the processor associating a personal digital gateway rule-based profile with the selected communications device; The Accused Products use a processor to associate these rule-based profiles with various connected communications devices. ¶41 col. 3:8-10
and a communications interface between the personal digital gateway and, the selected communications device, wherein the personal digital gateway enables communication of the data with each communications device of the plurality of communications devices... The Accused Products possess a communications interface that enables communication with a wide range of devices, including wireless devices, phones, and computers. ¶41 col. 3:10-21
and wherein the memory device is removable from the personal digital gateway. The Accused Products allegedly contain a memory device that is removable. ¶41 col. 5:13-14
  • Identified Points of Contention (’102 Patent):
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether a home security hub can be construed as a "personal digital gateway" as described in the patent, which focuses on managing a user's personal information (contacts, calendar) across personal devices (PDA, phone). (’102 Patent, col. 1:56 - col. 2:15).
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused system actually uses "rule-based profiles" that map to the four specific agent types claimed. Furthermore, the claim limitation requiring a "removable" memory device raises a critical factual question regarding the physical construction and functionality of the Accused Products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term (’173 Patent): "classifying said data ... based on an entry in said header"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core inventive step. The case will likely hinge on whether the Defendant's routine handling of IP packets constitutes this specific act of "classifying," particularly in the context of Quality of Service management as described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim refers broadly to "an entry in said header," which could be argued to cover any decision-making based on header information. (’173 Patent, col. 8:67).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention as a solution to a problem where resource reservation protocols (RSVP) fail due to source routing. This context suggests the "classifying" may be limited to actions taken specifically for QoS purposes based on the packet's true final destination. (’173 Patent, col. 4:5-44, col. 4:54-59).

  • Term (’102 Patent): "personal digital gateway"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the accused apparatus itself. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the patent's claims, which are rooted in the context of personal data synchronization, can read on a modern home security system.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and claims describe the gateway in broad terms as an interface between "different communications devices, networks, and systems" to provide "universal access to and management of personalized information." (’102 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Background of the Invention" section focuses narrowly on the problem of sharing contact information between a user's wireless phone and home PC. A party could argue the term should be construed in light of this specific problem, limiting its scope to devices centered on personal information management rather than home automation or security. (’102 Patent, col. 2:1-15).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the ’102, ’830, ’798, and ’872 patents. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant allegedly providing instructions and advertising that guide end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶42, ¶69, ¶86). The contributory infringement allegations assert that the Accused Products have special features with no substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶43, ¶70, ¶87).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’102, ’830, and ’798 patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the lawsuit, and on an alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which Plaintiff characterizes as willful blindness. (Compl. ¶44-45, ¶71-72, ¶88-89).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the context of early 2000s technology, such as "personal digital gateway" (’102 Patent) and network data "classifying" for QoS purposes (’173 Patent), be construed to cover the distinct functions and architecture of a modern, cloud-enabled home security system?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Brinks Home platform perform the specific, multi-step methods required by the patent claims? The complaint's high-level allegations will require detailed technical evidence to establish, for instance, that the system uses a "removable" memory device as claimed (’102 Patent) or automatically registers devices by establishing a "home relationship" with a server that recognizes the device as "owned" (’830 Patent).