29 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: The PTO has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
−Removed: The PTO’s motion is scheduled to be heard on May 28, 2021.
+Added: District Court, Eastern District of Virginia granted the PTO’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction on June 22, 2021.
+Added: We appealed the dismissal to the Federal Circuit on June 24, 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.
−Removed: Since all remaining patent claims in the litigation have expired, Vivint shall not be entitled to injunctive relief as a remedy in this matter.
+Added: Since all remaining patent claims in the litigation have
+Added: expired, Vivint shall not be entitled to injunctive relief as a remedy in this matter.
While we believe we have valid defenses to Vivint’s claims, any of these outcomes could result in a material adverse effect on our business.
9 unchanged sentences
and others as respondents.
−Removed: We answered the
−Removed: complaint on December 19, 2019.
+Added: We answered the complaint on December 19, 2019.
Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question.
1 unchanged sentence
On April 20, 2021, the administrative law judge presiding over the investigation issued a final initial determination finding in favor of Alarm.com.
−Removed: That decision is subject to review by the ITC commissioners and the federal courts.
+Added: On July 20, 2021, the ITC commissioners issued a decision affirming the ruling in favor of Alarm.com and terminated 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: On January 19, 2021, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until May 19, 2021 in light of the related ITC investigation.
On March 9, 2021, the PTO ordered ex parte reexamination of one of the patents asserted in the lawsuit, at Alarm.com’s request.
−Removed: Should EcoFactor prevail in the ITC investigation, Alarm.com thermostats manufactured abroad could be excluded from importation into the United States.
+Added: On May 10, 2021, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of the same patent and subsequently stayed the ex parte reexamination pending the conclusion of its review.
+Added: On May 13, 2021, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until September 3, 2021 in light of the related ITC investigation.
Should EcoFactor prevail in its district court lawsuits we could be required to pay damages and/or a reasonable royalty for sales of our solution, we could be enjoined from making, using and selling our solution if a license or other right to continue selling such elements is not made available to us, and we could be required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us.
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 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.
−Removed: and Sidney Naiman in the U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the TCPA.
−Removed: The complaint sought statutory damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief.
−Removed: The matter was resolved in December 2020.
−Removed: On January 27, 2021, the Court entered an order dismissing the case.
+Added: On July 22, 2021, Causam Enterprises, Inc., or Causam, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S.
+Added: District Court, Western District of Texas, alleging that Alarm.com’s smart thermostats infringe four U.S.
+Added: patents owned by Causam.
+Added: Causam is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
+Added: Our response is due on September 13, 2021.
+Added: On July 28, 2021, Causam filed a complaint with the ITC naming Alarm.com Incorporated, Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., and EnergyHub, Inc., among others, as proposed respondents.
+Added: The complaint alleges infringement of the same four patents Causam asserted in district court.
+Added: Causam is seeking a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist order.
+Added: The ITC has not yet instituted an investigation into the allegations.
+Added: Should Causam prevail in an ITC investigation, Alarm.com thermostats manufactured abroad could be excluded from importation into the United States.
+Added: Should Causam prevail in its district court lawsuit we could be required to pay damages and/or a reasonable royalty for sales of our solution, we could be enjoined from making, using and selling our solution if a license or other right to continue selling such elements is not made available to us, and we could be required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us.
+Added: While we believe we have valid defenses to Causam’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.
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.
12 unchanged sentences
Among other things, ADT has asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents-in-suit.
−Removed: On April 5, 2019, Applied Capital filed a lawsuit for breach of contract against Rodney Fox, the inventor of the patents-in-suit, in the Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo in New Mexico State Court (No.
+Added: On April 5, 2019, Applied Capital filed a lawsuit for breach of contract against Rodney Fox, the inventor of
+Added: the patents-in-suit, in the Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo in New Mexico State Court (No.
D-202-CV-2019-02841).
5 unchanged sentences
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 June 2, 2021, and trial is set for June 16, 2021.
−Removed: On July 2, 2020, Portus Singapore Pte.
−Removed: and Portus Pty.
−Removed: Ltd., or Portus, sued ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services in U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the Western District of Texas.
−Removed: Portus alleges that ADT’s sales of ADT Pulse directly and indirectly infringe U.S.
−Removed: 8,914,526 and 9,961,097, which were assigned to Portus.
−Removed: Portus is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees.
−Removed: ADT answered the complaint on August 31, 2020.
−Removed: The parties have reached settlement and have filed a stipulation for dismissal.
+Added: The parties reached settlement and the court dismissed the case on May 27, 2021.
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.
3 unchanged sentences
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.
−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 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: On June 25, 2021, ADT filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking judgment in its favor as to five of the six asserted patents on the grounds that the claimed inventions are directed to ineligible subject matter.
+Added: Should Vivint 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.
2 unchanged sentences
Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.
+Added: For a description of our legal proceedings, see Note 12 to our condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information.
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.