DCT

2:23-cv-00522

Snap One LLC v. AVA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00522, D. Utah, 08/14/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah because a substantial part of the events occurred there, Defendant AVA has its principal place of business in the District, and a forum selection clause in a prior agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Josh.ai designates the venue.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smart home remote controls and associated automation systems infringe five patents, misappropriate trade secrets, and copy the trade dress of Plaintiff's Neeo Remote product line.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the high-end custom home automation industry, involving integrated control systems for lighting, media, and other smart home devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex business history, starting with Plaintiff's 2019 acquisition of NEEO AG, the original developer of the Neeo Remote. Plaintiff alleges that former NEEO and Snap One employees, including NEEO's founder, started Defendant AVA and developed a competing product using Plaintiff's intellectual property. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Josh.ai, a partner under separate SDK and distribution agreements, collaborated with AVA to create another infringing remote and gain unauthorized access to Plaintiff’s Control4 ecosystem. Plaintiff states it sent notice letters to AVA in March 2022 and to Josh.ai in July 2023 regarding these issues.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-10-09 ’338 Patent Priority Date
2008-06-13 ’623 Patent Priority Date
2009-07-22 ’137 Patent Priority Date
2015-01-01 Neeo Remote first announced for presale (approx.)
2015-04-13 ’984 Patent Priority Date
2017-04-03 Snap One and Josh.ai enter SDK Agreement
2019-02-01 Snap One acquires NEEO AG
2019-07-11 ’426 Patent Priority Date
2019-11-01 Snap One releases upgraded Neeo Remote (approx.)
2020-09-30 NEEO founder Raphael Oberholzer’s employment with Snap One terminates
2021-03-31 Consultancy agreement with Mr. Oberholzer’s company terminates
2021-08-01 Snap One and Josh.ai enter Distributor Agreement (approx.)
2022-02-01 AVA announces release of the AVA Remote (approx.)
2022-03-01 Snap One sends demand letter to AVA (approx.)
2022-09-01 AVA and Josh.ai partner (approx. "fall of 2022")
2023-06-27 Josh.ai announces release of the Josh Remote
2023-07-14 Snap One sends notice letter to Josh.ai
2023-08-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,877,623 - "Dynamic interface for remote control of a home automation network"

  • Issued: December 29, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the complexity and cumbersomeness of universal remote controls, which often rely on large, pre-programmed, and difficult-to-update internal databases to control a wide variety of audio/visual and home automation components (US10877623B2, col. 1:12-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "smarter" remote control system where the central automation controller, which holds the master menu database, dynamically sends limited portions, or "extracts," of that database to the remote control (US10877623B2, col. 2:1-6). These extracts are tailored to the remote's specific capabilities (e.g., display size, available buttons) and are downloaded in response to the user's real-time navigation, reducing the memory and processing burden on the remote itself (US10877623B2, col. 11:20-34).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for a simpler, less expensive remote control hardware design that can still navigate complex control schemes and be easily updated, as the system intelligence resides primarily in the central controller rather than the remote.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 24 (Compl. ¶155).
  • Claim 24 (Remote Control):
    • A display device for displaying menu items.
    • User input controls for navigating the menu items.
    • A transceiver for communicating with an automation controller.
    • A processor and memory.
    • The processor is configured to:
      • Communicate remote control capacity limitations to the automation controller.
      • Dynamically receive database extracts from the controller in response to user navigation.
      • The extracts define displayable menu items and input control function mappings.
      • The number and length of menu items are selected by the controller based on the remote's capacity limitations.

U.S. Patent No. 8,375,137 - "System and method for streaming audio using a send queue"

  • Issued: February 12, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of latency and network congestion in streaming media systems, which can cause delays and interruptions ("stuttering" or "jitter") when a user initiates playback, particularly in multi-room audio setups (US8375137B2, col. 1:29-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a media server that uses a "send queue" to pre-buffer a defined length of a media stream (US8375137B2, Abstract). Upon an "activation event" from a client device (e.g., the user pressing play), the server can immediately transfer a block of this pre-buffered data (e.g., multiple frames in a single packet) to fill the client's local user buffer, allowing playback to start almost instantly without waiting for the stream to establish in real-time (US8375137B2, col. 2:54-60; col. 18:18-24).
  • Technical Importance: This server-side pre-buffering technique improves the user experience by minimizing the perceptible delay between a user command and the start of media playback.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶184).
  • Claim 1 (System):
    • A streaming media system configured to prepare to stream media.
    • A media server to send media packets for a media stream.
    • A framer in the media server to divide frames of the stream into packets.
    • A media client to receive and playback the packets.
    • A send queue in the server configured to store an amount of the packetized media stream.
    • The send queue is configured to fill the media client's user buffer upon an activation event by transferring multiple frames from the send queue in a single packet.

U.S. Patent No. 11,140,426 - "Streaming media multiplexing with a media proxy"

  • Issued: October 5, 2021
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for managing multi-party audio communications, such as a home intercom system. It uses a central "media multiplexer" and a "media proxy" to establish a one-to-many broadcast call and subsequently switch to a one-to-one communication channel if a single participant chooses to respond (Compl. ¶207; US11140426B2, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶212).
  • Accused Features: The "Josh User Communication Features," including intercom and announcement capabilities, found in the Josh Core, Josh Nano, and Josh Micro products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 209-210).

U.S. Patent No. 7,886,338 - "System and method for controlling access to local services without losing failover capibilty [sic]"

  • Issued: February 8, 2011
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for managing networked devices, like smart light switches, that can operate in different states. It teaches putting a device into an intermediate state (e.g., a "privacy mode") to restrict its operation, and using a timer-based failover procedure that allows the device to change state even if it loses communication with the central controller (Compl. ¶234; US7886338B2, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶239).
  • Accused Features: The "Josh Control Devices," such as the Josh Core, Nano, and Micro, are accused of infringing with features that allow the devices to be put into a privacy mode via a physical disconnect switch (Compl. ¶¶ 236-237, 241). The complaint includes a marketing image from Josh.ai's website describing its "Privacy is paramount" feature, which includes a disconnect switch on the Josh Nano (Compl. ¶240, p. 58).

U.S. Patent No. 10,756,984 - "Method and apparatus for creating and managing network device port VLAN configurations"

  • Issued: August 25, 2020
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the configuration of Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs) on a network switch. It describes a single-page graphical user interface (GUI) that provides a visual representation of the switch's ports and allows a user to assign ports to different VLANs, an improvement over prior text-based, multi-page interfaces (Compl. ¶260; US10756984B2, col. 2:4-13).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶265).
  • Accused Features: The Josh Core device, which is alleged to have "multiple VLAN support" and a GUI for configuring network ports, is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 262, 265, 267).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are primarily the "AVA Remote" and the "Josh Remote," along with their associated systems and components (collectively the "Infringing Remotes") (Compl. ¶8). The complaint also accuses the AVA Streamer, AVA Speakers, Josh Core, Josh Micro, and Josh Nano products (Compl. ¶¶ 98-99, 181, 209, 236).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are high-end, touchscreen-based universal remote controls and voice control hubs for the custom-installed smart home market (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 29). The complaint alleges these remotes integrate with and control home automation networks, stream audio to multiple rooms, and provide intercom functionality (Compl. ¶¶ 151, 180, 208). A key allegation is that the AVA and Josh Remotes were jointly developed and are physically and functionally similar to Snap One's Neeo Remote, leveraging its hardware, firmware, and industrial design (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7). The complaint provides a side-by-side photographic comparison of the Neeo Remote, Josh Remote, and AVA Remote to illustrate their alleged similarity (Compl. ¶141, p. 35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'623 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 24) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A remote control...comprising a display device... The Infringing Devices include a display device that displays a menu to a user. ¶157 col. 12:4-12
user input controls for navigating through the menu items... The user can navigate through menu items by scrolling and selecting items on the display. ¶158 col. 12:4-12
a transceiver for communicating with the automation controller... The Infringing Devices include a transceiver for communicating with the remote and associated automation components. ¶158 col. 9:48-51
a processor and memory capacity... The Infringing Devices include memory capacity. ¶158 col. 10:20-21
the processor configured to... communicate remote control capacity limitations...to the automation controller... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. col. 11:5-13
the processor configured to... dynamically receive one or more database extracts from the automation controller in response to user navigation... The Infringing Devices present menu items from the automation controller and allow user navigation through scrolling and selecting. ¶158 col. 12:14-23
wherein a number and length of the menu items are selected by the automation controller based on the remote control memory capacity limitations... The complaint alleges different automation devices have different control options that use respective mappings as a user scrolls and selects between devices on the user interface. ¶153 col. 11:5-13

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the architecture of the accused systems, which are based on modern operating systems, meets the specific client-server dynamic described in the patent. The patent appears focused on a resource-constrained remote ("client") receiving data from a more powerful "automation controller." It is a question for the court whether the processing architecture of the accused Android-based remotes fits this claimed model.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that menu mappings change as a user scrolls, but it does not specify whether this is a result of "dynamically receiving database extracts" from a separate controller as claimed, or a function of software running locally on the remote itself. The analysis may turn on evidence of how and when data is actually transmitted between the accused remotes and their associated control hubs.

'137 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A streaming media system configured to prepare to stream media... The AVA System is a streaming media system configured to prepare to stream audio. ¶185 col. 1:1-3
a media server... to send out media packets for an audio media stream... The AVA System includes a media server, the AVA Streamer, that sends out media packets for an audio media stream. ¶186 col. 2:40-42
a framer in the media server to divide the frames of a media stream into packets... The AVA System includes a framer in the media server to divide frames into packets. ¶187 col. 5:41-43
a media client...to receive the media packets...to playback the frames... The AVA System includes a media client, the AVA Speaker, to receive packets and playback the frames. ¶187 col. 3:12-16
a send queue in the server configured to store an amount of the packetized media stream... The AVA System includes a speaker to store an amount of the packetized media stream provided by the AVA Streamer. ¶188 col. 2:54-56
the send queue configured to fill the media client's user buffer upon an activation event by transferring multiple frames from the send queue in a single packet. The AVA System fills the speaker's buffer by transferring multiple frames from a send queue of the AVA streamer in a single packet. ¶188 col. 2:57-60

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "send queue" may be pivotal. It is a question for the court whether this term requires a specific server-side architectural component as described in the patent's embodiments, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any form of server-side buffering.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the AVA system "fills the speaker's buffer," but does not provide specific technical evidence that this is achieved by "transferring multiple frames... in a single packet" from a dedicated "send queue" upon an "activation event," as required by the claim. The case may require expert testimony on the specific data transfer protocol and buffering mechanism used by the AVA Streamer and Speaker products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’623 Patent

  • The Term: "dynamically receive... database extracts... in response to user navigation"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused remotes perform this specific action. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused system's behavior—updating a menu during scrolling—is caused by the claimed dynamic downloading of data "extracts," or by some other local software function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional and does not specify a particular protocol. The specification notes that the method is an improvement over remotes with large, pre-programmed, static databases, suggesting the invention could cover various methods of on-demand menu population (US10877623B2, col. 1:20-30).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and flow diagrams consistently depict a specific protocol where the remote sends a "GET ITEM" request to the controller, which responds with a "SET ITEM" message containing the new menu data (US10877623B2, Fig. 4a). This may suggest the "dynamic receiving" must follow this request-response model.

For the ’137 Patent

  • The Term: "send queue"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the key component of the patented solution. Infringement will depend on whether the accused AVA Streamer contains a component that meets the definition of a "send queue." Practitioners may focus on the structural and functional requirements of this element.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim describes the "send queue" functionally as being "configured to store an amount of the packetized media stream" and to "fill the media client's user buffer." This functional language could arguably read on a variety of server-side buffering mechanisms.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and Figure 5b describe the send queue as a specific buffer containing packets with timestamps (ts) that cover a defined time window, enabling the server to "immediately fill a client's user buffer" (US8375137B2, Abstract; col. 5:48-55). This may support a narrower construction requiring a pre-populated, time-indexed buffer distinct from a standard streaming buffer.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants intentionally encourage users to infringe by promoting, advertising, and providing instructions for the infringing products and their uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 162, 190, 217, 243, 269). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating Defendants supply components (software and hardware) that are especially made for use in an infringing manner and are not staple articles of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 164-165, 192-193, 219-220, 245-246, 271-272).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged for all patent claims. The allegations are based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents, arising from the shared employment history of key personnel at AVA and Snap One, Defendants' positions in the industry, and a July 14, 2023 notice letter sent to Josh.ai (Compl. ¶¶ 171-172, 199-200, 226-227, 252-253, 278-279). Plaintiff also notes it provides constructive notice via a patent marking website (Compl. ¶167).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Do the accused products, built on modern software platforms, operate in a manner that maps onto the specific technical solutions claimed in patents filed between 2007 and 2019? For example, does the accused AVA audio system utilize the specific "send queue" architecture of the ’137 Patent, or a more common form of network buffering that falls outside the claim scope?
  • A second central question will be one of knowledge and intent: How will the extensive factual background—including the departure of key employees from Plaintiff to form Defendant AVA, and the pre-existing partnership agreements with Defendant Josh.ai—influence the court's view on the allegations of willful patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets?
  • A third question will be one of functional equivalence: Does the user interface of the accused remotes achieve a similar result to that described in the '623 patent (a changing menu during scrolling) through a fundamentally different technical method (e.g., local processing vs. dynamic database downloads), and if so, does that difference create a non-infringing design?