DCT

6:20-cv-00080

EcoFactor,

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00080, W.D. Tex., 01/31/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business in the district and maintains at least one regular and established place of business, a sales and retail location, in Waco, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart home energy management systems infringe four U.S. patents related to using network and sensor data to intelligently control and monitor residential HVAC systems.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the smart thermostat market, where systems use data analytics, machine learning, and network connectivity to optimize energy consumption while maintaining user comfort.
  • Key Procedural History: Post-filing, all claims (1-20) of U.S. Patent No. 10,534,382, one of the four patents-in-suit, were cancelled as a result of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. The patents-in-suit also share a common lineage, with the '382 Patent being a continuation in a family that includes the '492 Patent, and the '327 and '488 patents sharing a common priority application.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-08-03 Earliest Priority Date for ’488 and ’327 Patents
2008-07-14 Earliest Priority Date for ’492 and ’382 Patents
2012-05-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,180,492 Issues
2013-04-02 U.S. Patent No. 8,412,488 Issues
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,738,327 Issues
2020-01-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,534,382 Issues
2020-01-31 Complaint Filed
2020-10-22 IPR Proceeding Filed against the ’382 Patent (IPR2021-00054)
2024-02-01 IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling All Claims of ’382 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,180,492

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,180,492, titled “System and method for using a networked electronic device as an occupancy sensor for an energy management system,” issued on May 15, 2012. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that conventional programmable thermostats are difficult to use, leading most owners not to program them, which wastes energy. (’492 Patent, col. 1:49-60). It further notes that while motion-sensor-based systems used in hotels can save energy, a single sensor is ineffective in a larger residential home where occupants may be present but not in the sensor's line of sight. (’492 Patent, col. 2:1-16).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using activity on existing networked electronic devices—such as a personal computer or a gaming console—as an indicator of a home's occupancy. (’492 Patent, Abstract). A remote server detects this user activity (e.g., keystrokes or cursor movement) and can automatically adjust the thermostat from an "unoccupied" to an "occupied" setting, sometimes after prompting the user for confirmation via the device's interface. (’492 Patent, col. 3:21-44; Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for implementing smart, occupancy-based HVAC control without requiring the cost and complexity of installing new, dedicated motion sensors throughout a home. (’492 Patent, col. 2:17-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 10. (Compl. ¶15).
  • Essential elements of claim 10 include:
    • A thermostat with at least two setpoints: one for a non-occupied structure and one for an occupied structure.
    • One or more networked electronic devices with a GUI that receive user input (e.g., cursor movement, keystrokes).
    • Activity on these devices indicates a potential need to change the thermostat setpoint.
    • A networked application that determines if the devices are in use while the thermostat is in a non-occupied state.
    • The application, based on user preference, prompts the user with an electronic notice to confirm whether to maintain the non-occupied setpoint or change to the occupied setpoint.
    • The application receives user input in response to the prompt and acts accordingly.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,412,488

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,412,488, titled “System and method for using a network of thermostats as tool to verify peak demand reduction,” issued on April 2, 2013. (Compl. ¶24).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Electric utilities running peak demand reduction (PDR) programs, where consumers are incentivized to reduce energy use during peak hours, need a way to verify that participants are actually complying (e.g., that their air conditioners are off). (’488 Patent, col. 1:21-27). Unidirectional communication systems like pagers cannot provide this verification, and installing "smart meters" for this purpose is expensive and complex. (’488 Patent, col. 2:54-col. 3:19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a verification system where a remote processor collects inside temperature data from a networked thermostat and outside temperature data from another source. (’488 Patent, Abstract). It uses this data to estimate a predicted rate of temperature change for the structure. By comparing this prediction to the actual measured temperature change during a PDR event, the system can determine with a high degree of confidence whether the HVAC system was actually turned off, thereby verifying compliance. (’488 Patent, col. 4:1-17).
  • Technical Importance: This technology offered utilities a data-driven method to verify residential PDR compliance without the significant capital expenditure of deploying advanced metering infrastructure to every home. (’488 Patent, col. 3:20-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶29).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An HVAC control system that receives temperature measurements from inside a structure.
    • One or more processors that receive outside temperature measurements from a different source.
    • The processors compare the inside and outside temperatures over time to derive an estimation for the rate of change of the inside temperature.
    • The processors then compare a recorded inside temperature with this estimation to determine whether the HVAC system is "on or off."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,738,327

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,738,327, titled “System and method for using a network of thermostats as tool to verify peak demand reduction,” issued on May 27, 2014. (Compl. ¶37).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’488 Patent, describes a system for controlling an HVAC system's operational status. Remote servers receive inside temperature data from a thermostat and outside temperature data, use this information to estimate the structure's thermal response, and can then send a signal to the thermostat to change its setting in response to a demand reduction request. (’327 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-52).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of the patent and quotes language from independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶42, 45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Vivint system, with its remote servers that analyze internal and external temperature data to control the thermostat and can be instructed to reduce energy use via a mobile app, infringes the ’327 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶42-45).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,534,382

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,534,382, titled “System and method for using a wireless device as a sensor for an energy management system,” issued on January 14, 2020. (Compl. ¶50).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the same family as the ’492 Patent, describes a system for controlling an HVAC system based on occupancy. (’382 Patent, Related U.S. Application Data). The system uses one or more processors to receive data from at least one sensor in a building (e.g., temperature) and a second data from an external source (e.g., the Internet), determines occupancy, and controls the HVAC system based on that determination. (’382 Patent, Abstract). As noted in the procedural history, all claims of this patent were cancelled in an IPR proceeding initiated after the complaint was filed. (’382 IPR Cert.).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of the patent and quotes language from independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶56, 57).
  • Accused Features: The Vivint system is accused of infringing by using processors to receive data from sensors and external sources (like the internet), determining building occupancy, and controlling the HVAC system accordingly, with user control provided via a mobile application. (Compl. ¶¶56-63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as Defendant's products and services, including the Vivint Element, CT200, and CT100 thermostats, and the SkyControl panel and associated cloud technology and mobile applications. (Compl. ¶11).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Instrumentalities comprise a smart home energy management system. (Compl. ¶2). The system is described as using machine learning and "big-data analytics" to process data from in-home sensors (e.g., motion, door/window sensors), user geolocation, and external sources like weather data to learn a homeowner's patterns and preferences. (Compl. ¶¶2, 16, p. 8 text). Based on this analysis, the system automatically adjusts thermostat settings for different states such as "Home," "Away," "Sleep," and "Vacation" to conserve energy while maintaining comfort. (Compl. p. 6 screenshot). A screenshot in the complaint shows the Vivint Sky Mobile App, which provides a graphical user interface for setting these states and other preferences. (Compl. p. 7, screenshot). Another screenshot shows a user interface for creating a daily temperature schedule. (Compl. p. 10, screenshot). The complaint alleges the system is commercially significant, with Vivint's "Sky" feature being a "built-in machine learning feature that automates your home's temperature settings." (Compl. p. 6 screenshot).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,180,492 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A system for altering the setpoint on a thermostat for space conditioning of a structure comprising: at least one thermostat having at least a first temperature setpoint associated with a non-occupied structure, and at least a second temperature setpoint associated with the existence of occupants in said structure. The accused system controls a thermostat with different temperature settings based on whether the user is home, using states such as "Home," "Away," and "Vacation." A screenshot shows distinct temperature setpoints for these different states. (Compl. p. 7). ¶16 col. 9:1-6
one or more electronic devices having at least a graphic user interface...wherein activity of one or more networked electronic devices indicates whether said thermostat should be changed from said first temperature setpoint to said second temperature setpoint. The Vivint SkyMobile Application provides a graphic user interface for altering setpoints. The complaint alleges the system uses "tracking geolocation and your in-home sensors" to determine when to change the temperature. (Compl. p. 6). ¶17 col. 9:7-19
an application...determines whether said one or more electronic devices are in use and in response, whether said thermostat is set to said first temperature setpoint that indicates said structure is not occupied. The system's cloud platform and machine learning algorithms process data from sensors and user behaviors to learn occupancy patterns and automatically adjust the temperature. (Compl. p. 8). ¶18 col. 9:23-30
said application prompting said one or more users based on said determining that said one or more of said user's input should be obtained, wherein said application provides electronic notice...whether to keep said first temperature setpoint or change to said second temperature setpoint... The complaint alleges the "Sky" system can "transition from making a suggestion to just taking an action," which it contends constitutes the claimed prompting and providing of electronic notice. (Compl. p. 9). ¶19 col. 9:36-49
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 10 recites "activity of one or more networked electronic devices" and provides examples of "cursor movement, keystrokes or other user interface actions." The complaint’s infringement theory relies heavily on "tracking geolocation" and data from "in-home sensors." (Compl. p. 6). A key question for the court will be whether the claim term "activity," in the context of the patent, can be construed broadly enough to encompass passive data collection like geolocation, or if it is limited to the active user inputs exemplified in the claim language.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the system provides the specific "prompting" and "notice" sequence required by the claim. (Compl. ¶19). However, the supporting evidence describes a system that can make "intelligent suggestions" or "automatically transition from making a suggestion to just taking an action." (Compl. ¶19, p. 5, p. 9). It may be a point of contention whether this general "suggestion" functionality meets the specific claim requirement of providing notice that the thermostat is in a non-occupied state and asking for user input on whether to change it.

U.S. Patent No. 8,412,488 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system for monitoring the operational status of an HVAC system comprising: at least one HVAC control system associated with a first structure that receives temperature measurements from at least a first structure conditioned by at least one HVAC system. The Accused Instrumentalities include a thermostat that receives temperature measurements from inside the building it services. A diagram of the Vivint Element thermostat shows it measures "Room Temp." (Compl. p. 14). ¶30 col. 10:1-6
one or more processors that receive measurements of outside temperatures from at least one source other than said HVAC system. The accused system receives outside temperature data from the internet. A screenshot of the thermostat's user interface shows an "Outside Temp Screen." (Compl. p. 15). ¶31 col. 10:7-9
wherein said one or more processors compares the inside temperature of said first structure and the outside temperature over time to derive an estimation for the rate of change in inside temperature of said first structure in response to outside temperature... The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities "will compare internal temperature and external temperature and, other factors, to calculate the rate of change of inside temperature." (Compl. ¶32). ¶32 col. 10:10-14
and wherein said one or more processors compare an inside temperature recorded inside the first structure with said estimation for the rate of change in inside temperature of said first structure to determine whether the first HVAC system is on or off. The complaint alleges that the system uses the aforementioned calculation "to determine when to turn the HVAC system on or off." (Compl. ¶32). ¶32 col. 10:14-17
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Functional Questions: The claim requires that the system's processors use the derived thermal estimation to "determine whether the first HVAC system is on or off." The patent's context suggests this determination is for verification purposes. (’488 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges the accused system uses its calculation to "determine when to turn the HVAC system on or off." (Compl. ¶32). This raises the question of whether an algorithm for scheduling future state changes is the same as, or necessarily performs, the claimed function of determining the system's current operational status.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’492 Patent

  • The Term: "activity of one or more networked electronic devices" (Claim 10)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's premise of using existing devices as occupancy sensors. The scope of "activity" will define whether the claim covers modern smart home ecosystems that rely on passive data (like geolocation) or is limited to systems monitoring direct user interactions with a device's interface. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations hinge on a broad interpretation that includes geolocation. (Compl. p. 6).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions monitoring "activity on the computers or other consumer electronic devices" and refers to "keystrokes, cursor movement or other inputs," which could be argued to not be an exhaustive list. (’492 Patent, col. 3:37-39).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself provides specific examples: "cursor movement, keystrokes or other user interface actions." (’492 Patent, col. 9:12-14). The specification's detailed examples also focus on direct user interactions with devices like computers and televisions, which may suggest the term is limited to such active engagement. (’492 Patent, col. 6:42-56).

For the ’488 Patent

  • The Term: "determine whether the first HVAC system is on or off" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the ultimate purpose of the claimed calculation. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system performs this specific determination. The dispute may turn on the distinction between determining the system's current state (on/off) versus deciding when to change its future state.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that to intelligently determine "when to turn the HVAC system on or off," as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶32), a system must first know its current "on or off" status, thereby implicitly performing the claimed step.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title and background focus on "verifying peak demand reduction." (’488 Patent, Title). The specification explains that by comparing predicted and actual temperature changes, "it is possible to infer that the air conditioning has not, in fact been shut off." (’488 Patent, col. 4:11-17). This context of verification suggests the term refers to a specific diagnostic function to ascertain the current state, not a general control function for scheduling.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges inducement of infringement by "providing information and instructions on the use of the Accused Products" and contributory infringement by providing components "especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the patent." (Compl. ¶¶13-14, 27-28, 40-41, 53-54).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the asserted patents "from a date no later than the date of filing of this complaint" and has been "willfully blind" to its infringement. (Compl. ¶¶12, 26, 39, 52). This alleges only post-suit knowledge, which may form a basis for post-suit willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "activity of...electronic devices" in the '492 Patent, which the patent exemplifies with direct user inputs like keystrokes and cursor movements, be construed to cover the passive collection of "geolocation" data from a mobile phone as alleged in the complaint?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional distinction: does the accused system's machine-learning algorithm, which is alleged to determine when to turn an HVAC system on or off for operational efficiency, perform the specific function required by the '488 Patent—using a thermal model to determine the current on/off status for the purpose of verifying compliance with a demand-response event?
  • A significant procedural question will surround the impact of the post-filing IPR decision that cancelled all claims of the '382 Patent. This event eliminates one of the four asserted patents from the case entirely, which may influence the strategic considerations and potential valuation of the remaining claims.