Vivint, Inc. v. Adt LLC

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
VIVINT, INC.,
Appellant
v.
ADT LLC,
Appellee
______________________
2023-1995
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-
00071.
______________________
Decided: December 11, 2024
______________________
ROBERT PARRISH FREEMAN, JR., Maschoff Brennan,
PLLC, Park City, UT, argued for appellant. Also
represented by ERIC MASCHOFF; STERLING A. BRENNAN,
Irvine, CA.
DAVID ANDREW SIMONS, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, Tysons, VA, argued for appellee. Also
represented by BRYAN PATRICK COLLINS.
______________________
Case: 23-1995 Document: 32 Page: 1 Filed: 12/11/2024

-- 1 of 6 --

VIVINT, INC. v. ADT LLC 2
Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Vivint, Inc. (“Vivint”) appeals from the final written
decision of an inter partes review (“IPR”) determining that
claims 1, 2, 4, 8–10, and 12 of U.S. Patent 10,325,159 (“the
’159 patent”) were unpatentable as anticipated and
obvious. ADT, LLC v. Vivint, Inc., No. IPR2022-00071
(P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2023) (“Decision”).
For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’159 patent is directed to entity detection. ’159
patent at col. 1, ll. 46–47, col. 3, ll. 31–34. Specifically, it
claims a computer implemented apparatus and method for
detecting an entity passing through the perimeter of a
“predefined area” by using a camera. Id. at col. 1, ll. 46–
49. The specification describes how the claimed invention
may, for example, assist a shop owner detect a person
entering the shop’s doorway. Id. at col. 3, ll. 34–37.
ADT petitioned for IPR asserting unpatentability of
claims 1, 2, 4, 8–10, and 12 of the ’159 patent. The Board
found that all challenged claims were unpatentable as (1)
anticipated over U.S. Patent Application 2004/0117638 A1
(“Monroe”) (Decision, J.A. 34–51), (2) obvious over Monroe
alone (Id. at J.A. 52–56), (3) obvious over Chinese Patent
Application CN102467800 (“Jin”) alone (Id. at J.A. 61–78),
and (4) obvious over the combination of Monroe and Jin
(Id.).
Relevant here, the Board determined that “predefined”
simply means “defined in advance,” and that the “entire
field-of-view of a camera” can be a “predefined area.” Id. at
J.A. 30–31. The Board then found that Monroe and Jin
each separately disclose the limitation step of “detecting an
entity entering a predefined area based at least in part on
Case: 23-1995 Document: 32 Page: 2 Filed: 12/11/2024

-- 2 of 6 --

VIVINT, INC. v. ADT LLC 3
camera data” as part of its patentability analysis. Id. at
J.A. 39, 65.
Vivint timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Vivint argues that the Board’s patentability
analysis was flawed because the Board improperly
construed the term “predefined area” so broadly as to
include the “entire field of view of a camera.” Appellant’s
Br. 12. We disagree. “We review the Board’s claim
construction de novo and any underlying factual findings
for substantial evidence.” Kaken Pharm. Co. v. Iancu, 952
F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted).
The words of a claim “are generally given their
ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning
that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in
the art in question at the time of the invention.” See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). Moreover, it is
generally improper to import a limitation from the
specification into the claims. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel
Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
The term “predefined area” is recited in independent
claims 1, 9, and 12. Claim 1 is representative and recites,
in part, a method step of “detecting an entity entering a
predefined area based at least in part on camera data.”
’159 patent at col. 11, ll. 44–45. The Board construed
“predefined area” to mean “defined in advance,” according
to its plain and ordinary meaning. Decision, J.A. 30–31.
The Board also explained that nothing in the claims,
specification, or prosecution history prevents the entire
field-of-view of a camera from being a “predefined area.”
Id. at J.A. 26.
Vivint contends that the Board erred by construing
“predefined area” to “include whatever the camera sees.”
Case: 23-1995 Document: 32 Page: 3 Filed: 12/11/2024

-- 3 of 6 --

VIVINT, INC. v. ADT LLC 4
Appellant’s Br. 13. It argues that such a broad construction
renders “entering a predefined area” superfluous. Id. at
13–15. That is incorrect. A camera’s entire field-of-view
does not automatically or necessarily correspond to a user’s
region of interest. Instead, as the Board explained, “the
term ‘predefined area,’ if applied to a camera’s entire field-
of-view, would require the user to set up the camera such
that the camera’s entire field-of-view would mark a
perimeter [to enter] that corresponds to the user’s region of
interest,” for example, by zooming in, panning out, or
angling. Decision, J.A. 23.
Vivint also made several arguments that seek to import
limitations from the ’159 patent’s specification, related
patents, and even extrinsic evidence into the claims to
avoid the effect of Monroe and Jin in the Board’s
patentability analysis. First, relying on the ’159 patent’s
specification, Vivint asserts that because the invention is
“configured to obscure content on a screen,” ’159 patent at
col. 2, ll. 24–31, and can “detect when a person passes
through a predetermined perimeter,” Id. at col. 3, ll. 44–49,
that “shows that a single camera’s field of view can have
two separate predefined areas within it.” Appellant’s
Br. 24. That the claimed invention “can” have multiple
“predefined areas” does not mean that it must. Moreover,
neither term, “obscure” or “predetermined perimeter,”
appears in the claims and such limitations cannot be
imported into the claims.
Next, Vivint argues that while “[t]he ’159 patent does
not include any claims directed to [a] second predefined
area, . . . its parent ’990 patent1 does,” Appellant’s Br. 16,
and the term “‘[p]redefined area’ must therefore mean the
same thing” in both patents. Id. at 16–17. But as the
Board properly concluded, unlike the ’990 patent, the ’159
patent “do[es] not recite multiple predefined areas,” and
1 U.S. Patent 10,061,990 (“the ’990 patent”).
Case: 23-1995 Document: 32 Page: 4 Filed: 12/11/2024

-- 4 of 6 --

VIVINT, INC. v. ADT LLC 5
even if the ’990 patent “require[s] multiple separate
predefined areas, that is no reason to do the same with the
challenged claims here.” Decision, J.A. 29. In fact, the
absence of that limitation in the ’159 patent indicates
broader claiming.
Finally, Vivint relies on extrinsic evidence to support
its proposed claim construction. It argues that the proper
construction is: “a physical area defined by a user
configurable region of a camera’s field of view having
delineated boundaries, where the region within the
boundary is a region of interest and any regions not within
the boundary are regions of disinterest.” Appellant’s Br. 5
(cleaned up). Vivint relies on the disclosures of a
“computer-based system” developed by Ivex Corporation
(“Ivex System”) “around 2001 that allowed a user to set
multiple predefined areas for motion detection.” Id. at 26.
Vivint argues that the “Ivex [System] supports that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
‘predefined area’ as a concept akin to the Ivex ‘region of
interest’ technology,” and thus a camera’s view must
include multiple “predefined areas” akin to the Ivex
System’s multiple regions of interest. Id. The Board
properly discounted this evidence because the “Ivex
[System] . . . is not the specification of the ’159 patent. Nor
[is] the Ivex System . . . mentioned in the specification of
the ’159 patent.” Decision, J.A. 26. We agree. Extrinsic
evidence alone, like the Ivex System, cannot serve to limit
a claim’s scope.
Even if we were to accept Vivint’s arguments, Vivint’s
counsel conceded during oral argument before the Board
that its construction does not preclude a camera’s entire
field-of-view from being set up as the “predefined area.” Id.
at J.A. 21 (citing J.A. 1737, 1739). As a last resort, Vivint
attempted to modify its construction during oral argument
to require a user’s pre-interaction with a screen to
configure the “predefined area.” Id. at J.A. 21–22 (citing
J.A. 1737–38). The Board did not abuse its discretion by
Case: 23-1995 Document: 32 Page: 5 Filed: 12/11/2024

-- 5 of 6 --

VIVINT, INC. v. ADT LLC 6
finding that this new argument was untimely and,
nevertheless, without merit given that neither the
independent claims nor Vivint’s proposed construction
mentions “user interaction with the camera screen to
define, set up, or configure a predefined area.” Id. at J.A.
22.
Accordingly, we agree with the Board’s construction of
“predefined area.” Because Vivint does not otherwise
challenge the Board’s patentability determination, we
affirm the Board’s unpatentability determination with
respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 8–10, and 12 of the ’159 patent.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Vivint’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the forgoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-1995 Document: 32 Page: 6 Filed: 12/11/2024

-- 6 of 6 --