21 unchanged sentences
The PTAB issued decisions affirming the rejections on February 28, 2020 and May 4, 2020.
−Removed: Vivint appealed one of these decisions to the Federal Circuit on July 1, 2020, and requested rehearing from the PTAB on the other decision.
+Added: Vivint appealed these decisions to the Federal Circuit on July 1, 2020 and April 26, 2021.
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.
2 unchanged sentences
Vivint appealed the July 24, 2019 decisions to the Federal Circuit on September 25, 2019.
−Removed: Oral argument of the appeal is scheduled for December 8, 2020.
+Added: On April 13, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decisions.
+Added: On February 12, 2021, we filed an action in U.S.
+Added: District Court, Eastern District of Virginia challenging the refusal by the PTO to proceed with additional reexaminations of the remaining patent claims asserted in the lawsuit.
+Added: The PTO has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
+Added: The PTO’s motion is scheduled to be heard on May 28, 2021.
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.
2 unchanged sentences
Even if we were to prevail, this litigation could continue to be costly and time-consuming, divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations and dissuade potential customers from purchasing our solution, which would also materially harm our business.
−Removed: During the course of litigation, we anticipate announcements of the results of hearings and motions, and other interim developments related to the litigation.
+Added: During the course of the litigation, we anticipate announcements of the results of hearings and motions, and other interim developments related to the litigation.
If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the market price of our common stock may decline.
6 unchanged sentences
and others as respondents.
−Removed: We answered the complaint on December 19, 2019.
+Added: We answered the
+Added: complaint on December 19, 2019.
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 scheduled an evidentiary hearing to begin on November 16, 2020 and set March 15, 2021 as the target date for completion of the investigation.
+Added: An evidentiary hearing was held in November 2020.
+Added: On April 20, 2021, the administrative law judge presiding over the investigation issued a final initial determination finding in favor of Alarm.com.
+Added: That decision is subject to review by the ITC commissioners and the federal courts.
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: On October 27, 2020, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until January 25, 2021 in light of the related ITC investigation.
+Added: On January 19, 2021, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until May 19, 2021 in light of the related ITC investigation.
+Added: On March 9, 2021, the PTO ordered ex parte reexamination of one of the patents asserted in the lawsuit, at Alarm.com’s request.
Should EcoFactor prevail in the ITC investigation, Alarm.com thermostats manufactured abroad could be excluded from importation into the United States.
1 unchanged sentence
While we believe we have valid defenses to EcoFactor’s claims, the outcome of these legal claims cannot be predicted with certainty and any of these outcomes could result in an adverse effect on our business.
−Removed: On May 8, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us by Craig Hicks in the U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or the TCPA, and the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act, or the VTPPA.
−Removed: The complaint seeks statutory damages under the TCPA and VTPPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorneys' fees.
−Removed: We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 2, 2020, and plaintiff filed his response on July 16, 2020.
−Removed: We filed our reply on July 22, 2020.
−Removed: 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.
1 unchanged sentence
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the TCPA.
−Removed: 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 November 20, 2020.
+Added: The complaint sought statutory damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief.
+Added: The matter was resolved in December 2020.
+Added: On January 27, 2021, the Court entered an order dismissing the case.
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.
3 unchanged sentences
Applied Capital, Inc v.
−Removed: The ADT Corporation et al.
+Added: The ADT Corporation et al., D.
New Mexico Case No.
13 unchanged sentences
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 and are pending.
−Removed: The pretrial conference is scheduled for March 22, 2021, and trial is set for April 5, 2021.
+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.
+Added: The pretrial conference is scheduled for June 2, 2021, and trial is set for June 16, 2021.
On July 2, 2020, Portus Singapore Pte.
6 unchanged sentences
ADT answered the complaint on August 31, 2020.
−Removed: The claim construction hearing is set for March 19, 2021.
−Removed: The court has not yet otherwise entered a schedule.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: The parties have reached settlement and have filed a stipulation for dismissal.
+Added: On February 25, 2021, Vivint filed a lawsuit against ADT LLC a/k/a ADT LLC of Delaware d/b/a ADT Security Services in U.S.
+Added: District Court, District of Utah, alleging that ADT Pulse, Control, and Blue each infringe one or more of six patents owned by Vivint.
+Added: Vivint is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees.
+Added: Vivint filed an amended complaint on March 24, 2021.
+Added: ADT answered the amended complaint on April 30, 2021 and asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of all the patents in question, and inequitable conduct as to one of the patents.
+Added: 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 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.
The outcome of these legal claims cannot be predicted with certainty.
3 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.