Backertop Licensing v. August Home: Smart Lock Patents, Contempt, and a $53,000 Fine
Backertop Licensing LLC asserted three smart lock and mobile connectivity patents against August Home’s smart lock and app products in Delaware. The case became notable not for a patent ruling on the merits but for civil contempt proceedings against plaintiff’s sole owner — culminating in a Federal Circuit-affirmed $53,000 fine and judgment for the defendant.
A patent licensing case overtaken by contempt and court-ordered sanctions
Filed on April 28, 2022, in the District of Delaware before Judge Colm F. Connolly, this action saw Backertop Licensing LLC — a patent assertion entity whose sole owner and managing member is Lori LaPray — allege infringement of three patents by August Home, Inc., targeting the company’s smart lock hardware, Connect bridge devices, and the August Home mobile application. The asserted patents cover wireless connectivity and remote access features central to the smart home lock segment.
The case closed on November 20, 2025, with judgment on the merits entered for defendant August Home. However, the proceedings were dominated by contempt proceedings against Ms. LaPray arising from her refusal to comply with court orders requiring her personal appearance. The District Court found her in civil contempt in August 2023 and imposed a daily fine of $200 per court day she failed to appear. The Federal Circuit affirmed that contempt order in Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., 107 F.4th 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Ms. LaPray ultimately appeared on September 18, 2024, by which point accumulated fines totalled $53,000, and a formal judgment for that amount was entered against her personally in favour of the United States.
The 1,302-day duration reflects the extended contempt litigation that ran in parallel with — and ultimately overshadowed — the underlying patent merits. The public record suggests the structural pressure exerted by Judge Connolly’s ownership-disclosure regime was a significant driver of the plaintiff’s non-compliance; the outcome is consistent with a pattern of PAE cases in Delaware where beneficial-owner transparency requirements have caused plaintiff entities to falter. The ultimate merits disposition for August Home remains based on a judgment rather than a claim construction or validity ruling, leaving the patent landscape somewhat unsettled for third parties.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 1302 days
1,302 days — roughly 3.6 years from filing to close, above median for D. Del. patent cases
Judgment for defendant: what the contempt-driven outcome means for both parties
Judgment on the merits — not a claim-by-claim patent ruling
The basis of termination is ‘judgment on the merits for defendant,’ but the case history suggests the path to that judgment was driven by procedural collapse rather than a conventional Markman or invalidity ruling. Civil contempt by the plaintiff’s owner, affirmed by the Federal Circuit, effectively disabled Backertop from prosecuting its claims, enabling the court to enter judgment in August Home’s favour without a full patent merits adjudication.
Procedural defendant winBackertop loses its claims and its owner faces a $53,000 personal judgment
Beyond losing the infringement action, Lori LaPray faces a $53,000 civil contempt judgment entered against her personally — not against the LLC — payable immediately to the U.S. District Court for Delaware. This personal liability exposure is unusual and signals the seriousness with which Judge Connolly treated non-compliance. The three asserted patents remain nominally in force but their litigation value is severely diminished by this outcome.
Personal contempt liabilityAugust Home obtains judgment without a merits fight on patent validity
August Home secured a favourable judgment without needing to prevail on infringement or validity grounds. While commercially advantageous, the absence of a formal invalidity ruling means the three asserted patents are not invalidated and could theoretically be re-asserted by a new owner or in a different jurisdiction. August Home’s counsel at Baker & Hostetler navigated the contempt proceedings effectively, achieving dismissal-equivalent relief.
Win without invalidity rulingSmart lock IP risk persists — these patents were never invalidated
Competitors and product teams in the smart lock and connected home segment should note that US10728382B2, US9332385B1, and US9654617B2 emerged from this litigation without any claim construction or validity determination. The patents remain in the USPTO register and could be acquired and re-asserted. Companies commercialising wireless smart lock systems or companion mobile apps should conduct FTO analysis on these patents independently of this litigation outcome.
Patents still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Backertop Licensing, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10728382B2, US9332385B1, and US9654617B2 covering smart lock and mobile connectivity technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | August Home, Inc. | Company | August Home, Inc. — maker of the August Smart Lock, Connect bridge, and August Home mobile appSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David L. Finger | Attorney | Counsel for Backertop Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jimmy C. Chong | Attorney | Counsel for Backertop Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ronald W. Burns | Attorney | Counsel for Backertop Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Chong Law Firm PA | Law Firm | Representing Backertop Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeremy Douglas Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for August Home, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo J. Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for August Home, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker & Hostetler, LLP | Law Firm | Representing August Home, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text focuses almost exclusively on the contempt proceedings rather than patent merits. The court’s judgment establishes personal financial liability for Ms. LaPray at $53,000 — accrued at $200 per open court day from August 23, 2023 until her appearance on September 18, 2024. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance in 107 F.4th 1335 gave the District Court authority to enter that judgment as a final monetary order. The underlying infringement claims appear to have been resolved by a merits judgment for defendant consistent with the plaintiff’s inability to prosecute the case, rather than by any ruling on claim construction, invalidity, or non-infringement.
US10728382B2, US9332385B1 & US9654617B2 — Smart Lock Connectivity & Mobile Access Patents
The three asserted patents — US10728382B2 (application no. US16/172085), US9332385B1 (application no. US14/621636), and US9654617B2 (application no. US15/065286) — sit at the intersection of wireless connectivity, mobile application control, and smart lock hardware integration. The application filing dates span the mid-2010s, a period of rapid commercialisation of Bluetooth- and Wi-Fi-enabled residential lock systems. The patents collectively appear to cover remote access, device-to-app communication protocols, and bridge connectivity — core features of modern smart lock ecosystems.
From a competitive standpoint, these patents target functionality that is now standard in smart home access products offered by August Home, Schlage, Yale, and numerous IoT platform players. The fact that they were asserted against August Home’s flagship app and Connect bridge products suggests they map to commercially deployed features rather than niche implementations. No claim construction order was issued in this case, leaving claim scope undefined — a significant consideration for any competitor performing FTO analysis or product clearance work in the smart lock space.
Should your smart lock or connected home product be cleared against these patents?
Any company developing or commercialising wireless smart lock hardware, companion mobile applications, or IoT connectivity bridges should treat US10728382B2, US9332385B1, and US9654617B2 as live FTO concerns. This litigation produced no invalidity ruling and no claim construction — the patents are legally intact. Product teams working on Bluetooth access control, remote unlock features, or hub/bridge connectivity architectures are squarely in scope of the technology domain these patents appear to cover.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim language from these three patents against your product’s technical specifications, identify prior art that could support a validity challenge, and surface any recent assignment or licensing activity that could indicate new enforcement intent. Given the PAE context and the potential for patent reassignment following Backertop’s litigation collapse, proactive clearance analysis is advisable before expanding into the U.S. market with smart lock or connected access products.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10728382B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar smart lock and connected home patent cases in Delaware and the Federal Circuit
Explore related patent infringement actions involving smart lock, mobile connectivity, and IoT access control technology litigated in the District of Delaware and the Federal Circuit.
What this case signals for smart home IP enforcement and PAE litigation
This case illustrates how judicial transparency requirements in Delaware can neutralise PAE campaigns before reaching merits — and why that matters for defendants and portfolio acquirers.
Delaware’s disclosure regime is an increasingly potent defence tool
Judge Connolly’s standing orders requiring PAEs to identify beneficial owners proved decisive here. Backertop’s refusal to comply triggered contempt findings that ultimately collapsed the case. Defendants facing PAE suits in Delaware should treat disclosure motions as high-leverage early-stage tactics, not administrative formalities.
A defendant win via contempt is not the same as patent invalidation
August Home’s judgment provides strong protection in this specific litigation but creates no estoppel or res judicata shield against the patents themselves. Any acquirer of these three smart lock patents could re-assert them against August Home or other smart lock manufacturers. Portfolio monitoring of US10728382B2, US9332385B1, and US9654617B2 is warranted.
Backertop v August — key questions answered
The case closed on November 20, 2025, with judgment on the merits entered for defendant August Home. The outcome was driven by civil contempt proceedings against Backertop’s sole owner, Lori LaPray, who refused to comply with court orders requiring her personal appearance. A $53,000 contempt judgment was entered against her personally. No patent invalidity or non-infringement ruling was issued.
Backertop asserted three patents: US10728382B2, US9332385B1, and US9654617B2. These patents cover smart lock connectivity, remote mobile access, and wireless communication systems relevant to August Home’s smart lock hardware, Connect bridge products, and the August Home mobile application.
Judge Connolly found Ms. LaPray in civil contempt on August 21, 2023, for failing to comply with court orders dated May 31 and July 10, 2023, and for refusing to appear personally before the court. A daily fine of $200 per open court day was imposed beginning August 23, 2023. She ultimately appeared on September 18, 2024, by which point the fine totalled $53,000.
Yes. The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s contempt order in Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., 107 F.4th 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2024), issuing its mandate to the District Court on August 22, 2024. The affirmance confirmed the District Court’s authority to impose personal financial sanctions on Ms. LaPray for her non-compliance.
Yes. The case closed without any claim construction, invalidity, or non-infringement ruling. The patents — US10728382B2, US9332385B1, and US9654617B2 — were never found invalid or unenforceable and remain in force at the USPTO. They could be acquired by another entity and re-asserted against smart lock and connected home product manufacturers in future proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.