PTAB

IPR2022-00983

ecobee Technologies ULC v. EcoFactor Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Controlling Climate Control Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’550 patent describes methods for controlling HVAC systems by detecting manual, user-initiated changes to a thermostat's setpoint and using that information to modify the thermostat's long-term programming. The system accesses stored internal and external temperature data to predict a rate of temperature change, which is then used to calculate and update automated setpoints.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-16 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 all primary elements of the challenged claims. Ehlers disclosed a smart thermostat system that collected and stored indoor and outdoor temperature data to calculate a "thermal gain rate"—a rate of temperature change based on outside temperatures. Ehlers used this rate to predict future temperature changes and automatically adjust scheduled setpoints to optimize energy use and comfort. Ehlers also explicitly taught "set point pattern change tracking" where the system learns from a user's manual inputs and overrides to modify its control algorithms over time. Petitioner contended that Wruck reinforced the obviousness of detecting a manual setpoint change, as it explicitly taught detecting a manual override by calculating a "delta" (a difference value) between a user's temporary setpoint and the scheduled setpoint.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wruck's specific method for detecting a setpoint change with Ehlers's advanced learning system. Ehlers taught a system that learns from user changes, and Wruck provided a simple, known, and effective means for detecting those changes using a difference value. Implementing Wruck's straightforward detection method would be an obvious way to provide the input needed for Ehlers's learning algorithm.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining the references merely involved applying a known mathematical comparison (Wruck's delta calculation) to a known type of learning system (Ehlers) to improve its functionality. The technology was predictable and the integration was a matter of routine programming.

Ground 2: Claims 9-16 are obvious over Ehlers in view of Wruck and Harter.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ehlers (Application # 2004/0117330), Wruck (Application # 2005/0040250), and Harter (Patent 7,784,704).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on the same core teachings of Ehlers and Wruck as Ground 1 but added Harter to address the specific limitation in claim 9 of "changing the second automated setpoint at the second time based on at least one rule for the interpretation of said manual change." Petitioner asserted that Harter taught a hybrid thermostat that learns a user's manual setting habits to program itself. Harter explicitly disclosed a "rule" for this learning process: it looked for patterns, such as three consecutive days of similar manual setpoint adjustments at similar times. Upon detecting such a pattern, the system would create a "learned daily setpoint" and automatically adjust future schedules accordingly, directly teaching the claimed rule-based interpretation of manual changes.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, starting with Ehlers's general concept of a learning thermostat, would be motivated to consult a reference like Harter for a more detailed and robust implementation of the learning feature. Harter provided a concrete, specific algorithm (a rule) for how to interpret user behavior and update long-term programming, making it an obvious supplement to Ehlers’s broader disclosure.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in this combination because Harter simply provided a specific method for implementing the "learning" concept already disclosed in Ehlers. Integrating Harter's pattern-recognition rule into Ehlers's system was a predictable design choice for making the learning function more effective.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "database": Petitioner argued that a POSITA would understand this term's plain and ordinary meaning as "an organized collection of data," not requiring any specific structure beyond that.
  • "rate of change of temperatures inside the structure": The parties had previously stipulated in related litigation that this term means "the difference between inside temperature measurements divided by the span of time between the measurements."
  • "difference value based on comparing...": The parties had stipulated this means "a value indicating the difference between at least one of the actual setpoints at the first time and the first automated setpoint for the thermostatic controller."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv. The parallel district court litigation was in its early stages, with a trial date set for more than 19 months after the petition was filed. Petitioner contended that neither the court nor the parties had invested substantial resources, there was minimal overlap in issues at this early stage, and the petition presented strong merits for unpatentability.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of the ’550 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.