13 unchanged sentences
In July 2018, the Federal Circuit issued orders affirming the PTAB’s March 2017 decisions that invalidated all challenged claims of two patents.
−Removed: District Court, District of Utah lifted the stay on the litigation on June 26, 2017, with Vivint proceeding with its case on four of the six patents in its complaint.
+Added: District Court, District of Utah lifted the stay on the litigation on June 26, 2017.
+Added: Discovery closed on October 29, 2021.
No trial date has been set.
6 unchanged sentences
Vivint appealed these decisions to the Federal Circuit on July 1, 2020 and April 26, 2021.
+Added: On September 29, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued a decision as to one of the reexaminations finding that the PTO erred in granting reexamination and ordered the reexamination dismissed.
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.
8 unchanged sentences
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
−Removed: 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 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.
14 unchanged sentences
On July 20, 2021, the ITC commissioners issued a decision affirming the ruling in favor of Alarm.com and terminated the investigation.
+Added: EcoFactor appealed the ITC decision to the Federal Circuit on September 20, 2021.
On November 11, 2019, EcoFactor filed a lawsuit against us in U.S.
1 unchanged sentence
EcoFactor is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees.
−Removed: On December 26, 2019, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit pending the conclusion of the related ITC investigation.
+Added: On December 26, 2019, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until the ITC investigation described above is finally resolved.
On May 26, 2020, EcoFactor filed a second lawsuit against us in U.S.
3 unchanged sentences
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: 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.
−Removed: On May 13, 2021, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until September 3, 2021 in light of the related ITC investigation.
+Added: On May 10, 2021, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of the same
+Added: patent and subsequently stayed the ex parte reexamination pending the conclusion of its review.
+Added: On September 28, 2021, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit in light of EcoFactor’s appeal of the ITC decision and pending lawsuits that EcoFactor brought against other defendants that are scheduled for trial in January 2022.
+Added: A joint status report regarding the progress of the related cases is due by March 28, 2022.
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.
4 unchanged sentences
Causam is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
−Removed: Our response is due on September 13, 2021.
+Added: We have not yet responded to the complaint.
+Added: On September 3, 2021, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until the ITC investigation described below is finally resolved.
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.
1 unchanged sentence
Causam is seeking a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist order.
−Removed: The ITC has not yet instituted an investigation into the allegations.
+Added: On August 27, 2021, the ITC instituted an investigation into Causam’s allegations naming Alarm.com Incorporated, Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., EnergyHub Inc.
+Added: and others as respondents.
+Added: We answered the complaint on October 4, 2021.
+Added: Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question.
+Added: The administrative law judge presiding over the hearing has scheduled an evidentiary hearing in the investigation to begin on June 29, 2022.
+Added: The target date for completion of the investigation is March 16, 2023.
Should Causam prevail in an ITC investigation, Alarm.com thermostats manufactured abroad could be excluded from importation into the United States.
3 unchanged sentences
For example, we are incurring costs associated with the indemnification of our service provider ADT, LLC in ongoing patent infringement suits.
−Removed: On July 13, 2016, Applied Capital, Inc., or Applied Capital, filed a lawsuit against ADT, LLC, the ADT Corporation, and Icontrol Networks, Inc.
−Removed: District Court, the District of New Mexico.
−Removed: Applied Capital, Inc v.
−Removed: The ADT Corporation et al., D.
−Removed: New Mexico Case No.
−Removed: 1-16-cv-00815.
−Removed: Icontrol was dismissed without prejudice on May 22, 2017.
−Removed: Applied Capital alleges that ADT’s sales of ADT Pulse directly and indirectly infringes U.S.
−Removed: 8,378,817 and 9,728,082, which were allegedly purchased by Applied Capital.
−Removed: Applied Capital is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees.
−Removed: ADT answered Applied Capital’s amended complaint on July 16, 2018.
−Removed: 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
−Removed: the patents-in-suit, in the Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo in New Mexico State Court (No.
−Removed: D-202-CV-2019-02841).
−Removed: Fox counterclaimed, alleging that he is the rightful owner of the patents-in-suit.
−Removed: Based on the dispute of ownership, on October 15, 2019, ADT filed a motion to stay in this matter pending its resolution.
−Removed: Applied Capital and Mr.
−Removed: Fox reached settlement and stipulated to dismissal of the New Mexico State Court action on October 31, 2019.
−Removed: 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 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.
4 unchanged sentences
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: The motion has been fully briefed and is pending decision.
+Added: On August 6, 2021, the parties to the case stipulated to the dismissal of Vivint’s claims as to one of the six patents, leaving five in the case.
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.
5 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.