Portus Singapore v. Control4 Corporation
Infringement action filed 4 Jun 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah and closed 5 Jun 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US8914526B1US9961097B2
- Case no.
- 2:26-cv-00522
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Utah
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Utah
- Chief judge
- Tena Campbell
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 4 Jun 2026 – 5 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 1 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- 4Sight subscription Internet Services · Composer and OVRC remote-support services · Control4 App services · Control4 Cloud services · Control4 EA-series controllers · Control4 OS and Navigator interfaces · Control4 account and authorization systems · Control4 mobile applications · Control4 smart lighting · Control4 smart-home automation systems · Neeo remotes · T3 Series touch screens · Web Navigator services · audio/video components · authentication systems · comfort components · communications components · in-wall touch screens · my.control4.com services · networking components · related user devices configured to operate with Control4 remote monitoring and access-control systems and all other substantially similar systems components applications services · remote-access servers and web servers · security components · tabletop touch screens · thermostats
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Local and remote monitoring using a standard web browser
A home security and control system for monitoring and controlling an external environment such as a home environment comprising: an Internet browser connectable to an extranet; an extranet located external to the home environment and accessible via the Internet browser; a communications server located in the extranet and adapted to interconnect on demand with one of a series of connection gateways located in predetermined home environments; and a connection gateway located in the home environment adapted to control and/or monitor the operation of at least one security device in the home environment; wherein upon accessing a predetermined address by the Internet browser on the extranet, the communications server connects to a predetermined one of the connection gateways to control and/or monitor the operation of the security device. The extranet can ideally be implemented as a Virtual Private Network (VPN) across an Internet substrate.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 16 Dec 2014
- Earliest priority
- 17 Dec 1998
- Est. expiry
- 17 Dec 2019
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- H04M11/04G06F15/16H04L12/46H04L29/08H04L29/06H04L12/66H04M11/00
- Prosecution counsel
- PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
- Examiner
- BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER
System for remote access of a user premises
A home security and control system for monitoring and controlling an external environment such as a home environment comprising: an Internet browser connectable to an extranet; an extranet located external to the home environment and accessible via the Internet browser; a communications server located in the extranet and adapted to interconnect on demand with one of a series of connection gateways located in predetermined home environments; and a connection gateway located in the home environment adapted to control and/or monitor the operation of at least one security device in the home environment; wherein upon accessing a predetermined address by the Internet browser on the extranet, the communications server connects to a predetermined one of the connection gateways to control and/or monitor the operation of the security device. The extranet can ideally be implemented as a Virtual Private Network (VPN) across an Internet substrate.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 1 May 2018
- Earliest priority
- 17 Dec 1998
- Est. expiry
- 17 Dec 2019
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- G06F15/16H04L12/66H04L29/06H04M11/04H04L29/08G08B25/10H04L12/46H04M11/00
- Prosecution counsel
- PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
- Examiner
- BIAGINI, CHRISTOPHER
Parties of record
Portus Singapore
- Core tech
- H04M11/04G06F15/16H04L12/46H04L29/08
- Counsel
- William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Ramey, LLP
Control4 Corporation
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| William P. Ramey III | Portus Singapore | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, Portus Singapore PTE Ltd., & Portus PTY Ltd., files this notice of voluntary dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 2:26-cv-00522 · D. Utah · closed 5 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:26-cv-00522?
2:26-cv-00522 is a patent infringement action brought by Portus Singapore against Control4 Corporation, filed on 4 Jun 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The case closed on 5 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:26-cv-00522?
US8914526B1 (“Local and remote monitoring using a standard web browser”), assigned to PORTUS SINGAPORE PTE LTD, currently inactive; US9961097B2 (“System for remote access of a user premises”), assigned to PORTUS SINGAPORE PTE LTD, currently inactive. The record also lists 4Sight subscription Internet Services, Composer and OVRC remote-support services, Control4 App services, Control4 Cloud services, Control4 EA-series controllers, Control4 OS and Navigator interfaces, Control4 account and authorization systems, Control4 mobile applications, Control4 smart lighting, Control4 smart-home automation systems, Neeo remotes, T3 Series touch screens, Web Navigator services, audio/video components, authentication systems, comfort components, communications components, in-wall touch screens, my.control4.com services, networking components, related user devices configured to operate with Control4 remote monitoring and access-control systems and all other substantially similar systems components applications services, remote-access servers and web servers, security components, tabletop touch screens and thermostats.
How was case 2:26-cv-00522 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, Portus Singapore PTE Ltd., & Portus PTY Ltd., files this notice of voluntary dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 2:26-cv-00522 take?
1 calendar days, from filing on 4 Jun 2026 to closure on 5 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-00522?
Chief Judge Tena Campbell presided. William P. Ramey III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Portus Singapore.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-00522 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.