12 unchanged sentences
Patent and Trademark Office and one inter partes review.
−Removed: Two of the patents were found unpatentable in reexamination, and 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, while its time to appeal the second decision has not yet expired.
−Removed: The ex parte reexamination of a third patent is still ongoing, and ex parte reexamination of a fourth patent concluded on August 23, 2023 after the claims were amended.
−Removed: On April 18, 2022, all claims of a fifth patent were found unpatentable by the U.S.
−Removed: Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, in inter partes review, and all claims were canceled on February 1, 2024.
+Added: Three of the patents were found unpatentable in reexamination.
+Added: The decision with respect to one of the patents was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or Federal Circuit, on January 21, 2026, EcoFactor filed an appeal of the decision with respect to the second patent with the Federal Circuit on November 20, 2025, and EcoFactor is appealing the rejection of the third patent to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, having filed its appeal brief on June 10, 2024.
+Added: Ex parte reexamination of a fourth patent concluded on August 23, 2023 after the claims were amended.
+Added: 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.
4 unchanged sentences
Causam is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
−Removed: We have not yet responded to the complaint.
−Removed: On September 3, 2021, the court issued an order staying the lawsuit until the ITC investigation described below is finally resolved.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: On August 27, 2021, the ITC instituted an investigation into Causam’s allegations naming Alarm.com Incorporated, Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., EnergyHub Inc.
−Removed: and others as respondents.
−Removed: We answered the complaint on October 4, 2021.
−Removed: Among other things, we asserted defenses based on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question.
−Removed: An evidentiary hearing in the investigation was held from June 28, 2022 through July 1, 2022.
−Removed: On February 16, 2023, the ITC issued a final decision in favor of Alarm.com and EnergyHub.
−Removed: Causam filed an appeal of the ITC decision on April 14, 2023.
−Removed: Causam did not appeal the ITC decision with respect to Alarm.com and EnergyHub.
−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: Causam had previously asserted the same four patents against us in a July 2021 complaint with the ITC.
+Added: In February 2023, the ITC found in favor of Alarm.com and Causam’s appeal of the decision with respect to one patent 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: Separately, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision finding a second of the asserted patents invalid on September 5, 2025.
+Added: Before we responded to Causam’s district court complaint, the court issued a stay of the case until the ITC investigation was finally resolved.
+Added: Now that the appeal proceedings have been completed in the ITC investigation, Causam may seek to pursue the district court lawsuit.
+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.
+Added: On July 3, 2025, SkyBell Technologies, Inc., or SkyBell, filed a lawsuit against us in U.S.
+Added: District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that Alarm.com misappropriated SkyBell’s trade secrets relating to video doorbells.
+Added: 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.
+Added: On August 25, 2025, we moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
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: 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 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, but has not yet rendered a claim construction opinion.
−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.
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.