ecobee Technologies ULC v. EcoFactor Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00969
• Patent #: 8,596,550
• Filed: May 5, 2022
• Petitioner(s): ecobee Technologies ULC
• Patent Owner(s): EcoFactor, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 17-23

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Apparatus for Detecting Manual Changes to a Thermostatic Controller Set Point
• Brief Description: The ’550 patent relates to an HVAC control system that detects user-initiated manual changes to temperature setpoints and incorporates that information to adapt its long-term, automated programming. The system uses stored internal and external temperature data to predict a rate of temperature change within a structure, which informs the calculation of scheduled setpoints.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 17-23 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ehlers (Application # 2004/0117330) and Wruck (Application # 2005/0040250).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ehlers taught nearly all limitations of independent claim 17. Ehlers described a smart HVAC system with a communicating thermostat, a remote processor (gateway node), and a network that stores indoor and outdoor temperature data. Critically, Ehlers taught using this data to calculate a "thermal gain rate" (a rate of change of temperature) to predict and optimize HVAC performance. Ehlers also disclosed learning from user inputs via "set point pattern change tracking" to modify control algorithms. Petitioner asserted that Wruck was added to explicitly teach the final limitation: comparing automated setpoints with actual setpoints. Wruck described detecting a manual override by calculating the "delta" between a temporary, user-entered setpoint and the scheduled setpoint, displaying the new setpoint only if the delta is non-zero.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wruck's explicit comparison method with Ehlers' learning system to implement the "set point pattern change tracking" functionality. To learn from a user's manual changes as Ehlers suggested, the system must first reliably detect that a change has occurred. Wruck provided a known and logical method for doing so by comparing the scheduled setpoint with the user-entered one.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because combining the predictable software and networking concepts of Ehlers and Wruck was a straightforward implementation of known technologies to achieve a desired, predictable result.

Ground 2: Claims 17-23 are obvious over Ols in view of Boait and Wruck.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ols (Patent 8,374,725), Boait (U.K. Application # GB 2432016), and Wruck (Application # 2005/0040250).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this combination also taught all limitations of claim 17. Ols described a networked climate control system that used learning algorithms and historical data, including outdoor conditions, to adjust parameters and compute setpoints. To strengthen the teaching of calculating scheduled programming based on a predicted rate of change, Petitioner introduced Boait. Boait taught a control unit that explicitly calculated a house's thermal properties ("thermal capacity Q" and "heating load L") based on overnight temperature drops and heating temperature rises. It used these properties and the external temperature to predict a rate of change and calculate the optimal start time for the heating system. Wruck was again used to supply the teaching of comparing automated and actual setpoints to detect a manual change, a feature contemplated by Ols but not explicitly detailed.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ols and Boait to improve the accuracy of scheduled programming. While Ols taught a general learning system, Boait provided a specific, physics-based model for using a predicted rate of change to determine a heating schedule. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Boait’s more precise predictive method into Ols’ broader control system. Further, a POSITA would add Wruck's comparison logic as a known and simple technique to implement the manual override detection functionality described in Ols.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success was expected, as the combination involved applying known engineering principles (Boait's thermal modeling) to a known type of control system (Ols) and using a standard programming technique (Wruck's comparison) to enable a desired feature.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Stipulated Terms: Petitioner proposed that the Board adopt several constructions stipulated to by the Patent Owner in a prior ITC investigation. These included construing "compare" as "analyze/analyzing to determine one or more similarities or differences between" and "rate of change of temperatures inside the structure" as "the difference between inside temperature measurements divided by the span of time between the measurements."
• "database": Petitioner argued that under its plain and ordinary meaning, a "database" is simply "an organized collection of data." This construction is important because the prior art references disclosed storing various data elements in memory on system nodes or servers without always using the specific term "database." Petitioner contended that a POSITA would understand that these organized collections of stored data meet the claim limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors. The core argument was that the co-pending district court litigation was in its very early stages. Petitioner highlighted that the trial date was set for more than 19 months after the petition's filing, meaning neither the court nor the parties had yet invested substantial resources. Petitioner also asserted that the merits of the petition were exceptionally strong, weighing against denial.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 17-23 of Patent 8,596,550 as unpatentable.