Ubiquitous Connectivity v. Alert 360: IoT Security Patent Dispute Ends in Dismissal
A patent infringement lawsuit targeting the 2Gig Go!Control Security System ended not with a courtroom verdict, but with a mutual agreement to walk away — on equal terms. In *Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP v. Central Security Group, Inc.* (Case No. 4:20-cv-00649), filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma, both parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice following nearly five years of litigation, with each side absorbing its own legal costs.
The case centered on US Patent No. US10344999B2, covering communication device technology integrated into home security systems — a rapidly growing and fiercely contested technology sector. The outcome, while resolved without a formal ruling on the merits, carries meaningful signals for patent holders asserting communication-related IP, for security technology companies managing patent exposure, and for IP counsel navigating assertion strategies in the IoT and connected-device space.
This analysis unpacks the procedural arc, legal posture, and strategic implications of this quietly significant patent dispute.
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP v. Central Security Group, Inc. (Alert 360) |
| Case Number | 4:20-cv-00649 (N.D. Okla.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Duration | Dec 2020 – Oct 2025 4 years 10 months |
| Outcome | Dismissed with Prejudice – No Damages |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | 2Gig Go!Control Security System |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) focused on monetizing IP portfolios related to connectivity and communication technologies.
🛡️ Defendant
A prominent U.S.-based home security and automation company, operating as Alert 360. Ranks among the top residential security service providers nationally.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on **US Patent No. US10344999B2**, covering communication device technology integrated into home security systems — a rapidly growing and fiercely contested technology sector.
- • US10344999B2 — Communication device technology, connectivity protocols and data transmission architecture for security systems.
Designing a similar IoT product?
Check if your communication device or IoT security product might infringe these or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case concluded via stipulated dismissal with prejudice, jointly filed by both parties and subject to court approval. Critically: No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was granted, and each party bore its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
Key Legal Issues
The operative cause of action was patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The mutual no-cost structure suggests neither party achieved a dominant litigation position sufficient to extract a favorable settlement on economic terms. The court made no claim construction findings or validity determinations, limiting the case’s direct precedential value.
Filing a communication device patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in communication device and IoT security. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are active in IoT security patents
- Understand litigation strategies in PAE cases
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own IoT security product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
IoT communication protocols
Patent at Issue
US10344999B2
Design-Around Options
Possible for some communication implementations
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Stipulated dismissals with prejudice and mutual cost-bearing suggest a litigation standoff — neither side achieved leverage sufficient for favorable settlement terms.
Search related case law →Multi-firm defense strategies can be effective in exhausting plaintiff resources, particularly against PAEs with limited litigation capital.
Explore litigation strategies →For R&D Teams
Conduct FTO clearance on communication device architectures before product launches in the connected-security space.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Design-around documentation created during development can be invaluable litigation evidence.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.