DaVinci Lock v. SpiderDoor: Consent Judgment & Permanent Injunction in Smart Storage Lock Dispute
DaVinci Lock, LLC and DaVinci Lock Self Storage, Inc. filed suit against SpiderDoor, LLC in the Northern District of Alabama alleging infringement of three smart self-storage lock patents. After 782 days, the case closed with a Consent Judgment: SpiderDoor admitted infringement and accepted a permanent injunction barring further sale or use of its accused products.
Smart storage lock portfolio enforced to a permanent injunction in Alabama
DaVinci Lock, LLC and its affiliated operating entity DaVinci Lock Self Storage, Inc. filed suit on 17 March 2023 in the Northern District of Alabama against SpiderDoor, LLC, a competitor in the smart self-storage access-control market. The complaint asserted infringement of three issued U.S. patents — US11232513B2, US11663650B2, and US12014294B2 — covering smart lock technology and software-driven access methods. The accused products included SpiderDoor’s ‘Spider Over Locks,’ its tenant-facing mobile app, and its admin and manager software platform.
The case closed on 7 May 2025 through a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction — a negotiated court order in which SpiderDoor admitted that its accused products practise and infringe one or more of DaVinci’s asserted patents, and expressly declined to contest the validity or enforceability of those patents. Judgment was entered for DaVinci on all infringement claims. SpiderDoor, its agents, and all those acting in concert with it are permanently enjoined from further infringement and from any further use, sale, or offer for sale of the accused products. A separate confidential settlement agreement governs financial terms.
The 782-day duration suggests protracted pre-trial activity, consistent with multi-patent litigation involving software and hardware claim construction disputes, though the public record does not disclose whether a Markman hearing occurred. The Consent Judgment outcome — rather than a contested verdict — suggests the parties reached commercial accommodation, with SpiderDoor accepting the injunction likely in exchange for confidential financial terms. The scope of the permanent injunction, which extends to SpiderDoor’s software platform and mobile apps as well as its hardware overlay locks, signals the breadth of DaVinci’s patent coverage across the self-storage access-control stack.
Filing to Consent Judgment in 782 days
782 days — above the median for patent cases resolved before trial in district court
Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction: what the ruling means for both parties
A Consent Judgment is an admission, not just a settlement
Unlike a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal, a Consent Judgment is a formal court-entered order carrying the full force of a judicial ruling. SpiderDoor did not merely agree to walk away — it acknowledged infringement of the asserted patents on the record, accepted permanent injunctive relief, and conceded DaVinci’s ownership and the patents’ validity. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce compliance, meaning any future breach can trigger immediate court action without filing a new lawsuit.
Binding court orderDaVinci secures enforceability acknowledgment across all three patents
DaVinci obtains a judicially enforceable injunction backed by SpiderDoor’s on-record admission of infringement and non-contest of patent validity. This strengthens DaVinci’s enforcement posture against any other competitor in the smart self-storage lock space: the patents have now been tested in adversarial litigation without a validity challenge surviving. The confidential settlement agreement suggests financial compensation on top of injunctive relief, though the precise figure is not public.
Portfolio enforcement winSpiderDoor exits its accused product line under permanent injunction
SpiderDoor is permanently barred from further infringement and from selling, using, or offering its Spider Over Locks hardware and associated tenant and admin software apps. Any breach triggers DaVinci’s right to immediate injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees without further merits litigation. SpiderDoor’s strategic path forward requires either designing around DaVinci’s three-patent portfolio or licensing — options the confidential settlement may already address. The company’s entire self-storage access stack appears to be within the injunction’s scope.
Full product-line injunctionDaVinci’s three-patent stack raises the barrier for smart storage lock entrants
The Consent Judgment signals that DaVinci’s overlapping hardware and software patent portfolio is both valid and enforceable, having survived adversarial litigation without a validity challenge. Competitors deploying smart overlay locks, tenant-facing mobile apps, or remote admin platforms in the self-storage sector should treat these three patents as active enforcement risk. The court’s retained jurisdiction further amplifies deterrence: DaVinci can act swiftly if any market entrant’s product overlaps with the enjoined product categories.
Active enforcement postureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Davinci Lock, LLC | Company | Smart self-storage lock developer and operator — holder of US11232513B2, US11663650B2, and US12014294B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | DaVinci Lock Self Storage, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SpiderDoor, LLC | Company | Smart access-control technology provider for the self-storage sector; maker of Spider Over Locks and related softwareSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Shores | Attorney | Counsel for Davinci Lock, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Pruet , III | Attorney | Counsel for Davinci Lock, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meghan Salvati Cole | Attorney | Counsel for Davinci Lock, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Matthews | Attorney | Counsel for Davinci Lock, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Van Arnam | Attorney | Counsel for Davinci Lock, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lightfoot Franklin & White, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Davinci Lock, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Williams Mullen | Law Firm | Representing Davinci Lock, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chirayu Madhu Shah | Attorney | Counsel for SpiderDoor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric J. Breithaupt | Attorney | Counsel for SpiderDoor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joel T. Beres | Attorney | Counsel for SpiderDoor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John G Dana | Attorney | Counsel for SpiderDoor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy Dylan Reeves | Attorney | Counsel for SpiderDoor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | BOMAR LAW FIRM, LLC | Law Firm | Representing SpiderDoor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | GORDON DANA GILMORE & MANER LLC | Law Firm | Representing SpiderDoor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones & Walden, LLC | Law Firm | Representing SpiderDoor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McGlinchey Stafford PLLC | Law Firm | Representing SpiderDoor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Stites & Harbison, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing SpiderDoor, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Corey L Maze | Judge | Alabama Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Consent Judgment is notable for its breadth: SpiderDoor’s admissions cover both hardware (Spider Over Locks) and software (tenant and admin apps), confirming infringement across DaVinci’s full asserted portfolio. The express non-contest of validity is significant — it forecloses SpiderDoor from later arguing the patents are invalid in any enforcement proceeding under this judgment. The court’s retained jurisdiction provision is a deliberate enforcement mechanism, giving DaVinci an expedited path to contempt proceedings rather than fresh litigation if SpiderDoor or its affiliates resume the enjoined conduct.
US11232513B2, US11663650B2, US12014294B2 — smart self-storage lock and access-control patents
The three asserted patents — US11232513B2, US11663650B2, and US12014294B2 — cover a layered self-storage access-control system spanning physical smart overlay lock hardware and the digital infrastructure that operates it, including tenant-facing mobile applications and administrator management platforms. The application dates span from early 2021 (US17/151609) through 2023 (US18/196007), reflecting a deliberate strategy of building continuation coverage as the commercial product evolved. The technical domain sits at the intersection of IoT hardware, mobile software, and cloud-based facility management.
For the self-storage sector, this portfolio is strategically significant because it captures value across the entire access-control stack rather than a single component. A competitor cannot simply design around the hardware claims by switching to a software-only model without potentially triggering the method claims, and vice versa. The consecutive application dates and continuation-style filing suggest DaVinci is actively prosecuting further claims, meaning the portfolio may expand. Any self-storage technology provider building smart lock or remote access functionality should monitor DaVinci’s prosecution activity closely.
Should you run an FTO against US11232513B2, US11663650B2, and US12014294B2?
Any company developing or commercialising smart overlay locks, tenant-facing mobile access apps, or remote admin platforms for the self-storage market should treat these three patents as active clearance obligations. The Consent Judgment confirms the patents are enforceable and have withstood adversarial litigation. Product teams building IoT-enabled lock hardware, mobile unlock flows, or facility management dashboards in this sector face genuine infringement risk if they have not mapped their feature set against DaVinci’s claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specification against the claims of US11232513B2, US11663650B2, and US12014294B2 simultaneously, flagging overlapping claim elements and identifying prosecution history that may define the scope of each patent. Eureka also monitors DaVinci’s pending applications so your R&D team receives alerts when new claims issue that could affect your design roadmap — before a cease-and-desist letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11232513B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar smart lock and IoT access-control patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving smart lock, IoT access-control, and self-storage technology patents litigated in U.S. district courts, including the Northern District of Alabama.
What this case signals for the smart self-storage access-control IP landscape
DaVinci’s win across hardware and software claims in one consent judgment marks a significant enforcement moment for smart lock IP in the self-storage sector.
Three-patent hardware-software stack creates a high clearance bar for competitors
DaVinci’s asserted portfolio spans both physical smart lock devices and the software layers — tenant apps, admin platforms — that operate them. Any self-storage access-control product touching both hardware and app-based management should be evaluated against all three patents before launch or commercial scaling.
Consent Judgment without validity challenge signals patent robustness
SpiderDoor expressly declined to contest validity or enforceability. For competitors and investors, this is a signal — not a guarantee — that DaVinci’s claims survived adversarial scrutiny. A subsequent IPR petition remains theoretically available to third parties, but the litigation record offers no ready invalidity ammunition.
Davinci v SpiderDoor — key questions answered
The case closed on 7 May 2025 with a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction entered in favour of DaVinci Lock. SpiderDoor admitted infringement of all three asserted patents, did not contest their validity, and accepted a permanent injunction barring further use, sale, or offer of its Spider Over Locks hardware and associated software products.
DaVinci Lock asserted three U.S. patents: US11232513B2 (application US17/151609), US11663650B2 (application US17/963296), and US12014294B2 (application US18/196007). All three cover aspects of smart self-storage lock and access-control technology, spanning hardware overlay lock devices, tenant mobile app access methods, and remote admin management software.
The accused products were SpiderDoor’s Spider Over Locks hardware, the SpiderDoor tenant mobile app, the SpiderDoor admin and/or managers app, and the SpiderDoor Software platform. SpiderDoor admitted in the Consent Judgment that these products practice the methods of and infringe one or more of DaVinci’s asserted patents.
The permanent injunction prohibits SpiderDoor, its agents, employees, and all those in active concert with it from further infringement of any claims of the three asserted patents, and from any further use, sale, or offer for sale of the accused products. A breach entitles DaVinci to immediate injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees without filing a new lawsuit, as the court retained enforcement jurisdiction.
No. The Consent Judgment expressly states that SpiderDoor does not dispute the validity and enforceability of the asserted patents, or DaVinci’s ownership thereof. This on-record non-contest is significant for DaVinci’s enforcement posture: it forecloses SpiderDoor from raising invalidity as a defence in any future enforcement proceeding under this judgment, and provides a signal — though not a binding precedent — of patent robustness to the wider market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.