United States District Court, D. Delaware
ALARM.COM, INC., ET AL. Plaintiffs,
SECURENET TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant.
ORDER CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NQS. 7,
885, 635; 8, 073, 931;8, 473, 619; and 8, 478, 844.
considering the submissions of the parties and hearing oral
argument on the matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that, as used in the asserted claims of U.S. Patent
Numbers 7, 885, 635 ("the '635 Patent"), 8,
073, 931 ("the '931 Patent"), 8, 473, 619
("the '619 Patent"), and 8, 478, 844 ("the
1. The term "automatically" and variants
including "automatically establishing, "
"automatically discovering, "
"automatically. . . integrating, "
"automatically installs, "
"automatically configures" in the
'619, '844, '931, and '635 patents is
construed to mean "without user
2. The term "gateway" in the
'619 and '844 patents is construed to be "a
device at a first location for interconnecting a local area
network and a separate security panel at a first location to
a server at a second location."
3. The term "connection management
component" in the '619 and '844 patents
is construed as a means-plus-function term. The
claimed functions are: "automatically
establishing a wireless coupling with a separate security
system" and "forming a security network by
automatically discovering the security system components of a
security system and integrating communications and functions
of the security system components into the security
network." The corresponding structure
is: "software executing on a processor using the
algorithms shown in Figures 12 and 14."
 All docket citations refer to Civil
Action No. 15-807-GMS. The abbreviation "Tr."
refers to the transcript from the Markman Hearing on
March 20, 2018, D.I. 91.
 The disputed term should be construed
as "without user input" because that construction
comports with both the description of the term in the
asserted patent and its plain and ordinary meaning. "In
some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as
understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily
apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such
cases involves little more than the application of the widely
accepted meaning of commonly understood words."
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted).
Defendant indicated at the Markman Hearing
that if "without user input, " is synonymous with
without human input or intervention then they are "fine
with that in terms of what the plain and ordinary meaning
might be." Markman Hr'g Tr. 29:8-13. The
parties agree that "automatically" requires no user
input and that "there is no need to manually reprogram
the security system components during the discovering and
integration stage." Markman Hr'g Tr.
15:2-5. The parties also agree that the meaning of
"user" or "user input" means human beings
and that no human input or intervention is allowed.
Markman Hr'g Tr. 17:2-6; 29:8-13, 31:1,
37:21-38:17. Because the parties have agreed that
"user" means no human intervention, the court gives
the term its plain and ordinary meaning of "without user
The parties' dispute centers on
whether the "gateway" is separate from an existing
security panel. Markman Hr'g Tr. 42:21-25. Prior
to the Markman, the parties agreed that
"security system" means "a security panel and
one or more components operatively coupled to the
security panel." (D.I. 85.) Defendant argues that the
"operatively" adjective means the security system
must be operable. Markman Hr'g Tr. 43:16-18.
Defendant argues that the security panel is separate from the
gateway based on the intrinsic evidence, Plaintiffs'
statements during inter partes review
("IPR") proceedings, and the disavowal in prior
litigation by Plaintiffs. Markman Hr'g Tr.
43:1-2, 19-20. The court is cognizant of Defendant's
argument that Plaintiffs asserted a different proposed
construction of this term in previous litigation, but decides
the construction in the instant case based on intrinsic
evidence. That said, the claims indicate that the
"gateway" is separate from the security system.
'619 Patent, Claim 1; Markman Hr'g Tr.
44:19-22. Claim 1 states that:
a gateway located at a first location; a
connection management component coupled to the gateway and
automatically establishing a wireless coupling with a
security system installed at the first location . .
'619 Patent, Claim 1. The claim, therefore,
suggests that the "security system" is already
"installed" when the "gateway"
establishes a connection to the security system. Similarly,
Claim 1 of the '844 Patent explains that the security
system exists when the "gateway" is coupled to the
local area network ("LAN") and says "wherein
the first location includes a security system
comprising a plurality of security system components. .
." '844 Patent, Claim 1. The specification adds
further support that the "gateway" is separate from
the "security panel" explaining that:
... an iHub gateway (also referred to herein
as the gateway, the iHub of the iHub client) that couples
or integrates into a home network (e.g., LAN) and
communicates directly with the home security
'619 Patent at 4:34-47. The court, therefore,
finds that the "gateway" is separate from the
security system based on the intrinsic record and construes
the term to mean "a device at a first location for
interconnecting a local area network and a separate security
panel at a first ...