07
May
By John Presper

On May 3, 2022, ALJ Monica Bhattacharyya issued the public version of Order No. 18 (dated April 22, 2022) granting Respondent Vivint, Inc.’s (“Vivint”) motion for summary determination of no violation of Section 337 in Certain Residential Premises Security Monitoring and Automation Control Panels, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1273).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a June 30, 2021 complaint filed by ADT LLC and The ADT Security Corporation of Boca Raton, Florida (collectively, “ADT”) alleging a violation of Section 337 by Vivent in the unlawful importation and/or sale in the U.S. of certain residential premises security monitoring and automation control panels, and components thereof, by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,976,937 and U.S. Patent No. 9,286,772 (“the ’772 patent”).  See our August 5, 2021 post for more details regarding the complaint and Notice of Investigation.

According to the Order, only claims 2-4 of the ‘772 patent remain in the investigation.  Claim 2 depends from unasserted claim 1, and claims 3 and 4 depend directly or indirectly from claim 2.  The term “processor” appears in claims 1 and 2 and is the subject of the ID.  Vivint argued that it is entitled to summary determination of no violation for two reasons.   First, Vivint asserted that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the asserted claims are anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/010217 to Raji (“Raji”) under its proposed construction of the “processor” limitation.  Alternatively, Vivint argued that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the only accused product—Vivint’s Smart Hub panel—does not infringe the asserted claims under ADT’s proposed construction of “processor.”  The parties disagreed whether the claims require “at least one processor” that is configured to perform all the functions recited in claims 1 or 2 (as ADT and the Commission Investigative Staff argued), or whether the claims can be satisfied by multiple processors performing the recited functions collectively (as Vivint asserted).  ALJ Bhattacharyya agreed with ADT and the Commission Investigative Staff that the “processor” limitation requires at least one processor configured to perform all of the functions recited in claims 1 and 2, including the “monitor the premises power supply” function; however, the ALJ also agreed with Vivint that there is no genuine factual issue that the accused Smart Hub panel does not have at least one processor so configured.  Accordingly, the motion was granted.

Share