United States District Court, D. Delaware
ALARM.COM, INC. and ICN ACQUISITION, LLC, Plaintiffs;
SECURENET TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendant.
B. Matterer and Kenneth L. Dorsney, MORRIS JAMES LLP,
Wilmington, DE; Ian R. Liston, WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI, P.C., Wilmington, DE; James C. Yoon (argued), Ryan R.
Smith (argued), Christopher D. Mays, and Mary A.
Procaccio-Flowers, WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Palo
Alto, CA, attorneys for Plaintiffs.
B. Blumenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, MORRIS, NICHOLS,
ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erik B. Milch and
Frank Pietrantonio, COOLEY LLP, Reston, VA; Rose Whelan
(argued), and Naina Soni (argued), COOLEY LLP, Washington,
DC, attorneys for Defendant.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment. (D.I. 175). The parties have fully briefed
the issues. (D.I. 176, 182, 198). The Court heard oral
argument on December 3, 2018. (D.I. 208). After considering
the briefing and arguments, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and
DENIES-IN-PART Defendant's Motion.
predecessor-in-interest iControl Networks, Inc. filed this
suit against Defendant SecureNet Technologies LLC on
September 11, 2015. (D.I. 1). The suit asserted United States
Patent Nos. 7, 855, 635 ("the '635 patent"), 8,
473, 619 ("the '619 patent"), 8, 478, 844
("the '844 patent"), and 8, 073, 931 ("the
'931 patent"). (Id. ¶¶ 3-7). The
patents-in-suit are generally related to integrating an alarm
system with an external security network and other
interfaces. ('635 patent, Abstract; '619 patent,
Abstract; '844 patent, Abstract; '931 patent,
23, 2016, Plaintiffs Alarm.com and ICN Acquisition
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") entered into an Asset
Purchase Agreement with iControl Networks to purchase the
patents-in-suit. (D.I. 177 at 209). Plaintiff ICN is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Plaintiff Alarm.com. (D.I. 186
¶ 2). On March 8, 2017, Plaintiff ICN completed its
acquisition of the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 177 at 209, 255).
On March 29, 2017, the Court substituted Alarm.com and ICN
for iControl as Plaintiffs in this action. (D.I. 28).
Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 30,
2018. (D.I. 175).
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party has the initial burden
of proving the absence of a genuinely disputed material fact
relative to the claims in question. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). Material facts are
those "that could affect the outcome" of the
proceeding, and "a dispute about a material fact is
'genuine' if the evidence is sufficient to permit a
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving
party." Lamont v. New Jersey, 637 F.3d 177, 181
(3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The burden on the
moving party may be discharged by pointing out to the
district court that there is an absence of evidence
supporting the non-moving party's case. Celotex,
477 U.S. at 323.
burden then shifts to the non-movant to demonstrate the
existence of a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87
(1986); Williams v. Borough of West Chester, Pa.,
891 F.2d 458, 460-61 (3d Cir. 1989). A non-moving party
asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed must support such
an assertion by: "(A) citing to particular parts of
materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations . . ., admissions, interrogatory
answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the
materials cited [by the opposing party] do not establish the
absence ... of a genuine dispute ... ." Fed.R.Civ.P.
determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists,
the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in
that party's favor. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380 (2007); Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180,
184 (3d Cir. 2007). A dispute is "genuine" only if
the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 247-49. If the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient
showing on an essential element of its case with respect to
which it has the burden of proof, the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex
Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.
112 requires that "a patent's claims, viewed in
light of the specification and prosecution history, inform
those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention
with reasonable certainty." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
Instruments, Inc.,572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014); see
also 35 U.S.C. § 112 ("The specification shall
conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor
. .. regards as the invention."). The requirement that
patent claims be definite requires that patents be
"precise enough to afford clear notice of what is
claimed, thereby apprising the public of what is still open
to them." Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 909 (cleaned
up). "Indefiniteness is a question of law"
appropriate for summary judgment. Eli Lilly & Co. v.
Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc.,845 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed.
Cir. 2017). A claim term "is indefinite if its language
'might mean several different things and no informed and
confident choice is available among the contending
definitions.'" Media Rights Techs., Inc. v.
Capital One Fin. Corp.,800 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed Cir.
2015) (quoting Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 911 n.8).
However, "[b]readth is not ...