13 unchanged sentences
Three of the patents were found unpatentable in reexamination.
−Removed: EcoFactor appealed the decision with respect to one of the patents to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 9, 2024, EcoFactor has until October 3, 2025 to appeal the rejection of the second patent to the Federal Circuit, and EcoFactor appealed the rejection of the third patent to the U.S.
−Removed: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, filing its appeal brief on June 10, 2024.
+Added: EcoFactor appealed the decision with respect to one of the patents to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 9, 2024, the decision with respect to the second patent was affirmed by the U.S.
+Added: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, on August 1, 2025, and EcoFactor is appealing the rejection of the third patent to the PTAB, having filed its appeal brief on June 10, 2024.
Ex parte reexamination of a fourth patent concluded on August 23, 2023 after the claims were amended.
8 unchanged sentences
On September 3, 2021, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until the ITC investigation described below is finally resolved.
+Added: Two of the four patents at issue have been found invalid by the PTAB and those decisions were upheld by the Federal Circuit on September 5, 2025 and October 15, 2025.
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.
−Removed: Causam is seeking a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist order.
+Added: Causam sought 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.
6 unchanged sentences
Causam did not appeal the ITC decision with respect to Alarm.com and EnergyHub.
−Removed: Oral arguments on the appeal are scheduled for September 3, 2025.
−Removed: 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: The appeal was dismissed as moot on October 15, 2025, based on the Federal Circuit’s affirmance, on the same day, of a PTAB decision that found the patent at issue in the appeal is invalid.
+Added: Once all appeal proceedings are completed, which we expect will occur either in the fourth quarter of 2025 or the first quarter of 2026, Causam may seek to lift the stay of the district court action.
+Added: Should Causam choose to pursue the district court lawsuit, and prevail, then 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.
2 unchanged sentences
SkyBell is seeking injunctive relief, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, a constructive trust, and an order that Alarm.com assign to SkyBell the alleged trade secrets.
−Removed: We have not yet responded to the complaint.
+Added: On August 25, 2025, we moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations.
Should SkyBell 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, we could be required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us, and we could be required to assign, transfer, and return any SkyBell trade secret that we are found to improperly possess.
1 unchanged sentence
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.
−Removed: For example, we incurred costs associated with the indemnification of our service provider Central Security Group – Nationwide, Inc.
−Removed: (d/b/a Alert 360), or CSG, in an ongoing patent litigation.
−Removed: In 2018, Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP, or Ubiquitous, brought suit against CSG in U.S.
−Removed: District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging infringement of two U.S.
−Removed: The case was stayed by agreement of the parties for several years while the patents in
−Removed: suit were challenged before the PTAB.
−Removed: In January 2021, the PTAB deemed 42 out of 46 claims of the two asserted patents unpatentable.
−Removed: Ubiquitous appealed a portion of the PTAB’s findings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
−Removed: The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s ruling on August 8, 2023.
−Removed: As a result, only four patent claims remain at issue and the Northern District of Oklahoma case is no longer stayed.
−Removed: The case is currently in the discovery phase.
−Removed: The court held a claim construction hearing on December 12, 2024, and rendered a claim construction opinion on May 20, 2025.
−Removed: A hearing on dispositive motions, including for summary judgment, is scheduled for April 15, 2026.
−Removed: A trial is scheduled for July 6, 2026.
−Removed: Should Ubiquitous prevail on its infringement claims, we could be required to indemnify CSG for damages in the form of a reasonable royalty or of Ubiquitous’s lost profits.
−Removed: CSG 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 if we are unable to design around such patents, and we could be required to pay ongoing royalties and comply with unfavorable terms if such a license is made available to us.
−Removed: 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.
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.