Item 1. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
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 a permanent injunction, enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. 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. We moved to dismiss the Oregon case for failure to state a claim on March 28, 2022. 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. These proceedings include four ex parte reexamination proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and one inter partes review. Three of the patents were found unpatentable in reexamination. 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. 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. On April 18, 2022, all claims of a fifth patent were found unpatentable by the PTAB in inter partes review, and all claims were canceled on February 1, 2024.
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. 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. 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. 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. An evidentiary hearing in the investigation was held from June 28, 2022 through July 1, 2022. On February 16, 2023, the ITC issued a final decision in favor of Alarm.com and EnergyHub. Causam filed an appeal of the ITC decision on April 14, 2023. Causam did not appeal the ITC decision with respect to Alarm.com and EnergyHub. 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. 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.
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.
On July 3, 2025, SkyBell Technologies, Inc., or SkyBell, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that Alarm.com misappropriated SkyBell’s trade secrets relating to video doorbells. 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. 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. While we believe we have valid defenses to SkyBell’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.
60
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.
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 13 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.