18 unchanged sentences
On October 30, 2018 and November 5, 2018, the PTO issued final office actions in the pending reexaminations rejecting all claims being examined as unpatentable over the prior art.
+Added: Nine claims asserted in the litigation were found unpatentable in the PTO rejections.
Vivint appealed these rejections to the PTAB on March 29, 2019 and April 4, 2019.
−Removed: On February 28, 2020, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the rejections in one of the reexaminations.
+Added: The PTAB issued decisions affirming the rejections on February 28, 2020 and May 4, 2020.
+Added: Vivint appealed one of these decisions to the Federal Circuit on July 1, 2020, and requested rehearing from the PTAB on the other decision.
On December 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued an order regarding the inter partes review of three of the remaining patents in suit that vacated, reversed and remanded the PTAB’s ruling with regard to the construction of a term (“communication device identification code”) as requested by Alarm.com and affirmed the PTAB’s May 2017 rulings invalidating certain of the Vivint patents in all other respects.
On July 24, 2019, the PTAB issued further decisions with respect to two of the remaining patents in suit, finding additional claims unpatentable in view of the Federal Circuit’s December 20, 2018 decision.
−Removed: One of the claims asserted in the litigation was found unpatentable in the July 14, 2019
+Added: One of the claims asserted in the litigation was found unpatentable in the July 14, 2019 decisions.
Vivint appealed the July 24, 2019 decisions to the Federal Circuit on September 25, 2019.
−Removed: On April 16, 2020, the U.S.
−Removed: District Court, District of Utah issued an order granting a temporary stay of the litigation, to expire on August 10, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and based on the stipulation of both parties.
+Added: Oral argument of the appeal is scheduled for December 8, 2020.
Should Vivint prevail in proving Alarm.com infringes one or more of its patent claims, we could be required to pay damages of Vivint’s lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty for sales of our solution.
13 unchanged sentences
Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question.
−Removed: The administrative law judge presiding over the investigation has set March 15, 2021 as the target date for completion of the investigation.
+Added: The administrative law judge presiding over the investigation scheduled an evidentiary hearing to begin on November 16, 2020 and set March 15, 2021 as the target date for completion of the investigation.
On November 11, 2019, EcoFactor filed a lawsuit against us in U.S.
6 unchanged sentences
EcoFactor is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees.
−Removed: We have not yet been served with the complaint.
+Added: On October 27, 2020, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until January 25, 2021 in light of the related ITC investigation.
Should EcoFactor prevail in the ITC investigation, Alarm.com thermostats manufactured abroad could be excluded from importation into the United States.
6 unchanged sentences
We filed our reply on July 22, 2020.
−Removed: The matter remains pending.
+Added: On August 6, 2020, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
On July 29, 2020, a putative class action was filed against Alarm.com Incorporated d/b/a ICN Acquisition, among other defendants, by Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc.
2 unchanged sentences
The complaint seeks statutory damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief.
−Removed: We have agreed to waive service of the complaint, and our response is due September 29, 2020.
+Added: We have agreed to waive service of the complaint, and our response is due November 20, 2020.
In addition to the matters described above, we may be required to provide indemnification to certain of our service provider partners for certain claims regarding our solutions.
17 unchanged sentences
Applied Capital and Mr.
−Removed: reached settlement and stipulated to dismissal of the New Mexico State Court action on October 31, 2019.
+Added: Fox reached settlement and stipulated to dismissal of the New Mexico State Court action on October 31, 2019.
Applied Capital filed its Second Amended Complaint on January 27, 2020 and ADT answered, adding a claim of inequitable conduct, on February 10, 2020.
−Removed: The court issued its claim construction order on August 12, 2019, fact discovery closed on November 12, 2019, expert discovery closed on March 9, 2020, and summary judgment and Daubert motions briefing closed on June 3, 2020.
−Removed: The pretrial conference is scheduled for September 30, 2020, and trial is set for October 19, 2020.
+Added: The court issued its claim construction order on August 12, 2019, fact discovery closed on November 12, 2019, expert discovery closed on March 9, 2020, and summary judgment and Daubert motions briefing closed on June 3, 2020 and are pending.
+Added: The pretrial conference is scheduled for March 22, 2021, and trial is set for April 5, 2021.
On July 2, 2020, Portus Singapore Pte.
1 unchanged sentence
Ltd., or Portus, sued ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services in U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the Western Di strict of Texas.
+Added: District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Portus alleges that ADT’s sales of ADT Pulse directly and indirectly infringe U.S.
1 unchanged sentence
Portus is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees.
−Removed: ADT’s response to the complaint is due August 31, 2020.
−Removed: On March 4, 2019, Varatec, LLC, or Varatec, sued ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services in U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
−Removed: Varatec, LLC v.
−Removed: ADT , LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services , N.D.
−Removed: Illinois Case No.
−Removed: 1-19-cv-01543.
−Removed: Varatec alleges that ADT’s sales of ADT Pulse directly and indirectly infringe U.S.
−Removed: 7,792,256, which was assigned to Varatec.
−Removed: Varatec seeks a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, and attorneys’ fees.
−Removed: On May 23, 2019, ADT filed a motion seeking to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, on the basis that the asserted patent fails to claim patent eligible subject matter.
−Removed: On July 3, 2019, third-party Unified Patents Inc.
−Removed: filed a petition seeking inter parties review of the asserted patent by the PTAB.
−Removed: After the completion of briefing of ADT’s motion to dismiss, the parties agreed to stay the case pending resolution of the inter partes review, and the court granted the parties’ motion on August 14, 2019.
−Removed: Unified Patent’s petition for inter parties review was instituted on December 31, 2019 and is currently pending.
−Removed: Varatec filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed.
−Removed: 41(a) on April 15, 2020, and the court has ratified the dismissal.
+Added: ADT answered the complaint on August 31, 2020.
+Added: The claim construction hearing is set for March 19, 2021.
+Added: The court has not yet otherwise entered a schedule.
Should the plaintiffs prevail on the claims that one or more elements of ADT’s products infringe, we could be required to indemnify ADT for damages in the form of a reasonable royalty or ADT could be enjoined from making, using and selling our solution if a license or other right to continue selling our technology is not made available to us or we are unable to design around such patents, and required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us.
4 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.