Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alarm.com, Inc. v. SecureNet Technologies LLC

United States District Court, D. Delaware

December 21, 2018

ALARM.COM, INC. and ICN ACQUISITION, LLC, Plaintiffs;
v.
SECURENET TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendant.

          Mary 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.

          Jack 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.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Currently 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.[1]

         I. Background

         Plaintiffs' 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, Abstract).

         On June 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).

         II. Legal Standard

         "The 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.

         The 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. 56(c)(1).

         When 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.

         III. Discussion

         A. Indefiniteness

         Section 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.