Alarm.com Loses Patent Infringement Case In opposition to SecureNet

0
0
Alarm.com Loses Patent Infringement Case Against SecureNet


A jury discovered SecureNet Applied sciences had not infringed three patents and that no damages for misplaced income and affordable royalties had been attributable to Alarm.com.

WILMINGTON, De. — Alarm.com (Nasdaq: ALRM) has misplaced its bid for hundreds of thousands of {dollars} in damages in a patent infringement case referring to good house safety and automation networking.

A jury discovered Feb. Eight that SecureNet Applied sciences didn’t infringe three of Alarm.com’s patents, awarding no damages within the five-day U.S. District Courtroom for the District of Delaware trial.

Based mostly in Florida, SecureNet producers a B2B software-as-a-service (SaaS) answer for suppliers of interactive providers within the safety, good house, MSO well being & wellness and power verticals.

The eight-member jury stated SecureNet had not infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,931, 8,478,844 and eight,473,619 and that no damages for misplaced income and affordable royalties had been attributable to Alarm.com.

Alarm.com had sought $20 million in damages on its claims that SecureNet had infringed patents referring to interactive gateway expertise utilizing a touchscreen and an off-site server that will enable separate house safety and automation techniques to be managed from a single interface, stories Legislation360.com.

Alarm.com argued that SecureNet’s cellular app interface and use of a back-end server infringed claims of the three patents. Nevertheless, SecureNet’s legal professional countered that the defendant’s product in query concerned software program and never the {hardware} units coated by the patents.

“You didn’t see a single line of code from SecureNet’s server. You didn’t see a single line of code type SecureNet’s app. Not one. The one factor SecureNet makes is software program…,” SecureNet Legal professional Erik B. Milch of Cooley LLP instructed the jury. “We’re speaking about patent claims for units that SecureNet doesn’t make.”

Milch additionally argued the ’931 patent was invalid as a result of it was apparent to an individual of affordable talent within the trade, however the jury’s verdict disagreed, discovering that the patent was legitimate, Legislation360 stories.

Alarm.com Legal professional James C. Yoon of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC expressed to the jury that SecureNet grew to become conscious of the patents no later than 2014 — and sure earlier than — when Alarm.com predecessor iControl Networks filed its authentic patent go well with in opposition to the corporate, Legislation360 stories.

iControl dropped that go well with a couple of months later after agreeing to work with SecureNet on a licensing settlement for the expertise, Yoon stated, however that deal by no means got here to fruition and the litigation was refiled in 2015.

Alarm.com’s place was that SecureNet instantly and willfully infringed the patents at situation within the case and induced third events to infringe through the use of SecureNet’s infringing merchandise in their very own units that had been then offered to householders, Yoon stated.





Supply hyperlink

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.