Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
EcoFactor v. Ecobee et al. | Patent Lawsuit 337-TA-1185

EcoFactor, Inc v. Ecobee, Ltd. et al.

337-TA-1185 United States International Trade Commission Closed 4 patents
Get a prior-art report

Other action filed 2 May 2023 in the United States International Trade Commission and closed 4 Dec 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case withdrawn.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
337-TA-1185
Verdict cause
Other action
Court
United States International Trade Commission
Court level
ITC
Case region
District of Columbia
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
2 May 2023 – 4 Dec 2023
Duration
216 days
Basis of termination
Case Withdrawn
Products & marks
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 337-TA-1185, United States International Trade Commission. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US20020138450A1 Inactive App. US10/018371

Electronic payment method and device

The present invention relates to a process and device for electronic payment which comprises an operation of opening a communication session between a first user terminal and a merchant server, on a first communication support, such as the Internet. During said communication session, the user terminal constitutes a single use payment certificate. The user receives, on a second terminal, such as a mobile phone, confidential information such as a password and transmits it to the first support. The correspondence between the information transmitted to the second terminal and that transmitted by the first terminal is verified and if there is correspondence the payment is validated.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
26 Sep 2002
Earliest priority
19 Apr 2000
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06Q20/00G07F7/08
Prosecution counsel
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
US8498753B2 Active App. US12/773690

System, method and apparatus for just-in-time conditioning using a thermostat

Systems and methods for reducing the cycling time of a climate control system. For example, one or more of the exemplary systems can receive from a database a target time at which a structureis desired to reach a target temperature. In addition, the system acquires the temperature inside the structure and the temperature outside the structure at a time prior to the target time. The systems use a thermal characteristic of the structure and a performance characteristic of the climate control system, to determine the appropriate time prior to the target time at which the climate control system should turn on based at least in part on the structure, the climate control system, the inside temperature and the outside temperature. The systems then set a setpoint on a thermostatic controller to control the climate control system.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
30 Jul 2013
Earliest priority
8 May 2009
Est. expiry
5 Aug 2030
Validity challenges
4 on recordIPR2020-01504 · Patentability · filed by Google LLCIPR2020-01504 · Other · filed by Google LLCIPR2020-01504 · filed by Google LLCIPR2021-00792 · filed by Ecobee, Inc.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G05D23/00
Prosecution counsel
Tanner IP, PLLC
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS ORTIZ
US8498753B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8498753B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

2 more

The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Defendant

Ecobee, Ltd.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Not recorded
Firm
Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC, Jenner & Block LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Venable LLP, White & Case LLP, Williams, Simons & Landis PLLC
Also named
Vivant, Inc. · Daikin Industries, Ltd. · Alarm.com Incorporated · Google, LLC · Schneider Electric USA, Inc. · Schneider Electric, SE · Ecobee, Ltd. · Daikin North America, LLC · Ecobee, Inc · Daikin America, Inc.

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Participant Disposition: Petition Withdrawn”

Case 337-TA-1185 · United States International Trade Commission · closed 4 December 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 337-TA-1185?

337-TA-1185 is a patent other action brought by EcoFactor, Inc against Ecobee, Ltd., filed on 2 May 2023 in the United States International Trade Commission. The case closed on 4 December 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 337-TA-1185?

US20020138450A1 (“Electronic payment method and device”), assigned to MAGIC AXESS, currently inactive; US8498753B2 (“System, method and apparatus for just-in-time conditioning using a thermostat”), assigned to ECOFACTOR, INC., currently active; USD407039S (“Wire support for lights”), assigned to OPENIANO, RENATO, MARTINEZ; US8432322B2 (“Electronic devices with capacitive proximity sensors for proximity-based radio-frequency power control”), assigned to APPLE INC..

How was case 337-TA-1185 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case withdrawn. The termination text reads: “Participant Disposition: Petition Withdrawn”

How long did case 337-TA-1185 take?

216 calendar days, from filing on 2 May 2023 to closure on 4 December 2023.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 337-TA-1185 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 337-TA-1185 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.