5 unchanged sentences
Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question.
−Removed: On August 19, 2016, the U.S.
−Removed: District Court, District of Utah stayed the litigation pending inter partes review by the U.S.
−Removed: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, of five of the patents in suit.
−Removed: In March 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to two patents finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
−Removed: In May 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions relating to the remaining three patents that found certain claims unpatentable, while certain other claims were not found to be unpatentable.
−Removed: Vivint appealed the decisions to the U.S.
−Removed: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the Federal Circuit, and we cross-appealed.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: In 2017 and 2019, the U.S.
+Added: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, issued final written decisions in inter partes reviews finding all or some of the claims in five of the asserted patents unpatentable.
+Added: These decisions were affirmed on appeal.
Discovery closed on October 29, 2021.
+Added: Vivint has moved for partial summary judgment and Alarm.com has moved for summary judgment;
+Added: both motions are pending decision.
No trial date has been set.
−Removed: In September 2017, the U.S.
−Removed: Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, ordered ex parte reexaminations of certain claims of two of the remaining patents in suit, at our request.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Nine claims asserted in the litigation were found unpatentable in the PTO rejections.
−Removed: Vivint appealed these rejections to the PTAB on March 29, 2019 and April 4, 2019.
−Removed: The PTAB issued decisions affirming the rejections on February 28, 2020 and May 4, 2020.
−Removed: Vivint appealed these decisions to the Federal Circuit on July 1, 2020 and April 26, 2021.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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 decisions.
−Removed: Vivint appealed the July 24, 2019 decisions to the Federal Circuit on September 25, 2019.
−Removed: On April 13, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decisions.
−Removed: On February 12, 2021, we filed an action in U.S.
−Removed: 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: District Court, Eastern District of Virginia granted the PTO’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction on June 22, 2021.
−Removed: 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.
4 unchanged sentences
If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the market price of our common stock may decline.
−Removed: On October 22, 2019, EcoFactor, Inc., or EcoFactor, filed a complaint with the U.S.
−Removed: International Trade Commission, or ITC, naming Alarm.com Incorporated and Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., among others, as proposed respondents.
−Removed: The complaint alleges that Alarm.com’s smart thermostats infringe three U.S.
−Removed: patents owned by EcoFactor.
−Removed: EcoFactor is seeking a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist order.
−Removed: On November 22, 2019, the ITC instituted an investigation into EcoFactor’s allegations naming Alarm.com Incorporated, Alarm.com Holdings, Inc.
−Removed: and others as respondents.
−Removed: We answered the complaint on December 19, 2019.
−Removed: Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question.
−Removed: An evidentiary hearing was held in November 2020.
−Removed: On April 20, 2021, the administrative law judge presiding over the investigation issued a final initial determination finding in favor of Alarm.com.
−Removed: On July 20, 2021, the ITC commissioners issued a decision affirming the ruling in favor of Alarm.com and terminated the investigation.
−Removed: EcoFactor appealed the ITC decision to the Federal Circuit on September 20, 2021.
−Removed: On November 11, 2019, EcoFactor filed a lawsuit against us in U.S.
−Removed: District Court, District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of the same three patents asserted against us in the ITC.
−Removed: EcoFactor is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees.
−Removed: On December 26, 2019, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until the ITC investigation described above is finally resolved.
−Removed: On May 26, 2020, EcoFactor filed a second lawsuit against us in U.S.
−Removed: District Court, District of Massachusetts, alleging Alarm.com’s products and services infringe four additional U.S.
+Added: On January 10, 2022, EcoFactor, Inc., or EcoFactor, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S.
+Added: District Court, District of Oregon, alleging Alarm.com’s products and services directly and indirectly infringe five U.S.
patents owned by EcoFactor.
EcoFactor is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees.
−Removed: 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
−Removed: patent and subsequently stayed the ex parte reexamination pending the conclusion of its review.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: A joint status report regarding the progress of the related cases is due by March 28, 2022.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: We moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim on March 28, 2022.
+Added: EcoFactor had previously asserted two of the same patents against us in an October 2019 complaint with the U.S.
+Added: International Trade Commission, or ITC.
+Added: In July 2021, the ITC found in favor of Alarm.com.
+Added: EcoFactor appealed the decision but withdrew its appeal in December 2021.
+Added: Two of the other three asserted patents are currently in ex parte reexamination proceedings at the PTO, and all claims of the third were found unpatentable by the PTAB in inter partes review on April 18, 2022.
+Added: Also on April 18, 2022, the district court stayed the case at the request of the parties pending the disposition of other proceedings involving the asserted patents, including the reexamination proceedings.
+Added: Should EcoFactor prevail in its 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.
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.
20 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: District Court, District of Utah, alleging that ADT Pulse, Control, and Blue each infringe one or more of six patents owned by Vivint.
+Added: District Court, District of Utah, alleging that ADT Pulse, Control, and Blue each infringe one or more patents owned by Vivint.
Vivint is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees.
−Removed: Vivint filed an amended complaint on March 24, 2021.
−Removed: 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: 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.
−Removed: The motion has been fully briefed and is pending decision.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: Vivint filed a second amended complaint on March 8, 2022.
+Added: ADT answered the second amended complaint on March 22, 2022 and asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of all five asserted patents.
+Added: The case is currently in discovery, and no trial date has been set.
+Added: Two of the asserted patents are under inter partes review at the PTAB, and ADT has filed petitions for inter partes review for the three other asserted patents for which decisions on institution are pending.
+Added: ADT moved to stay the case pending the outcome of the inter partes reviews on March 9, 2022.
+Added: The motion remains pending.
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.