Item 1. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
On June 2, 2015, Vivint, Inc., or Vivint, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court, District of Utah, alleging that our technology directly and indirectly infringes six patents that Vivint purchased. Vivint is seeking permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. We answered the complaint on July 23, 2015. Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question. In 2017 and 2019, the U.S. 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. These decisions were affirmed on appeal. Discovery closed on October 29, 2021. Vivint has moved for partial summary judgment and Alarm.com has moved for summary judgment; both motions are pending decision. No trial date has been set.
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. 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. 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. 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.
On January 10, 2022, EcoFactor, Inc., or EcoFactor, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S. 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. We moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim on March 28, 2022. EcoFactor had previously asserted two of the same patents against us in an October 2019 complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, or ITC. In July 2021, the ITC found in favor of Alarm.com. EcoFactor appealed the decision but withdrew its appeal in December 2021. 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. 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.
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.
On July 22, 2021, Causam Enterprises, Inc., or Causam, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, alleging that Alarm.com’s smart thermostats infringe four U.S. patents owned by Causam. Causam is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. We have not yet responded to the complaint. 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. The complaint alleges infringement of the same four patents Causam asserted in district court. Causam is seeking a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist order. On August 27, 2021, the ITC instituted an investigation into Causam’s allegations naming Alarm.com Incorporated, Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., EnergyHub Inc. and others as respondents. We answered the complaint on October 4, 2021. Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question. The administrative law judge presiding over the hearing has scheduled an evidentiary hearing in the investigation to begin on June 29, 2022. 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. 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. 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. For example, we are incurring costs associated with the indemnification of our service provider ADT, LLC in ongoing patent infringement suits.
47
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. 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. Vivint filed a second amended complaint on March 8, 2022. ADT answered the second amended complaint on March 22, 2022 and asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of all five asserted patents. The case is currently in discovery, and no trial date has been set. 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. ADT moved to stay the case pending the outcome of the inter partes reviews on March 9, 2022. 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. The outcome of these legal claims cannot be predicted with certainty.
We may also be a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of business. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we currently believe that the final outcome of these ordinary course matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business. 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. For a description of our legal proceedings, see Note 12 to our condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information.
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.