Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ECOFACTOR, INC.,
Appellant
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Appellee
______________________
2024-1367, 2024-1368
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2022-
00969, IPR2022-00983, IPR2023-00355, IPR2023-00356.
______________________
Decided: July 8, 2025
______________________
MATTHEW AICHELE, Russ August & Kabat, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by
KRISTOPHER DAVIS, REZA MIRZAIE, JAMES PICKENS, PHILIP
WANG, Los Angeles, CA.
ELIZABETH LAUGHTON, Smith Baluch LLP, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by
MATTHEW A. SMITH.
______________________
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 1 of 11 --

ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC 2
Before TARANTO, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
EcoFactor, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 8,596,550, which
relates to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) systems. Google LLC successfully petitioned for
inter partes reviews of the ’550 patent.1 In the reviews, the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the Patent and Trade-
mark Office determined that all challenged claims were
unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Ecobee Technologies ULC v. EcoFactor, Inc., IPR2022-
00983, 2023 WL 7493563 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2023) (Deci-
sion I); Ecobee Technologies ULC v. EcoFactor, Inc.,
IPR2022-00969, 2023 WL 7602838 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2023)
(Decision II). EcoFactor appealed, and we now affirm.
I
A
The ’550 patent relates to programmable thermostats
used in HVAC systems that “automate the process of re-
ducing conditioning during times when the space is unoc-
cupied, or while occupants are sleeping, and thus reduce
energy consumption.” ’550 patent, col. 1, lines 20–25. With
typical programmable thermostats, a mismatch “between
the preferences of the occupants and the actual settings
employed” can lead to dissatisfaction and discomfort of the
occupants, who might respond by manually overriding the
programmed setting. Id., col. 1, line 45, through col. 2, line
8. The ’550 patent proposes a programmable thermostat
1 Google’s petitions were subsequently joined with
those of Ecobee Technologies ULC. J.A. 1 n.1; J.A. 46 n.1.
For simplicity, and in line with how the parties discuss the
proceedings, we refer exclusively to Google as the peti-
tioner throughout. See EcoFactor Opening Br. at 6 n.3;
Google Response Br. at 5 n.1.
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 2 of 11 --

ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC 3
system that adapts its long-term programming in response
to such manual thermostat-setting changes. Id., col. 2,
lines 9–12. The system also “take[s] into account both out-
side weather conditions and the thermal characteristics of
individual homes in order to . . . achieve the best possible
balance between comfort and energy savings.” Id., col. 2,
lines 12–17.
The “thermal mass,” or “speed with [which] the tem-
perature inside a given building will change in response to
changes in outside temperature,” may be calculated using
temperature readings from inside and outside the house as
well as data regarding the timing of air conditioning cycles.
Id., col. 5, lines 21–29. The system uses that thermal mass
to “predict, at any given time on any given day, the rate at
which inside temperature should change for given inside
and outside temperatures,” which, in turn, determines
when the HVAC system should be turned on to reach the
desired temperature at the desired time. Id., col. 5, lines
30–40.
The patent states that manual overrides are generally
not recorded by the thermostat (or communicated to the
system), but must be detected by calculating the difference
between the setpoint as recorded by the thermostat and the
scheduled setpoint. Id., col. 5, lines 44–47; id., col. 5, line
54, through col. 6, line 19. The system can use manual
override data to determine whether a change in baseline
programming is warranted, i.e., if the occupants’ prefer-
ences (as evidenced by the manual override) do not align
with the scheduled programming. Id., col. 7, lines 3–43.
The independent claims recite as follows:
1. A method for detecting manual changes to the
setpoint for a thermostatic controller comprising:
accessing stored data comprising a plurality of in-
ternal temperature measurements taken within a
structure and a plurality of outside temperature
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 3 of 11 --

ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC 4
measurements relating to temperatures outside
the structure;
using the stored data to predict a rate of
change of temperatures inside the structure
in response to at least changes in outside tem-
peratures;
calculating with one or more computer processors,
scheduled programming of the thermostatic con-
troller for one or more times based on the predicted
rate of change, the scheduled programming com-
prising at least a first automated setpoint at a first
time;
generating with one or more computer pro-
cessors, a difference value based on compar-
ing an actual setpoint at the first time for said
thermostatic controller to the first auto-
mated setpoint for said thermostatic control-
ler;
detecting a manual change to the first automated
setpoint by determining whether said actual set-
point and said first automated setpoint are the
same or different based on said difference value;
and
logging said manual change to a database associ-
ated with the thermostatic controller.
Id., col. 8, lines 7–30 (emphases added).
9. A method for incorporating manual changes to
the setpoint for a thermostatic controller into long-
term programming of said thermostatic controller
comprising:
accessing stored data comprising a plurality of in-
ternal temperature measurements taken within a
structure and a plurality of outside temperature
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 4 of 11 --

ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC 5
measurements relating to temperatures outside
the structure;
using the stored data to predict a rate of
change of temperatures inside the structure
in response to at least changes in outside tem-
peratures;
calculating scheduled programming of setpoints in
the thermostatic controller based on the predicted
rate of change, the scheduled programming com-
prising at least a first automated setpoint at a first
time and a second automated setpoint at a second
time;
comparing the actual setpoint at the first
time for said thermostatic controller to the
first automated setpoint for said thermo-
static controller;
detecting a manual change to the first automated
setpoint by determining whether said actual set-
point and said first automated setpoint are the
same or different;
changing the second automated setpoint at the sec-
ond time based on at least one rule for the interpre-
tation of said manual change.
Id., col. 8, line 50, through col. 9, line 6 (emphases added).
17. An apparatus for detecting manual changes to
the setpoint for a thermostatic controller compris-
ing:
at least a programmable communicating thermo-
stat;
at least a remote processor;
at least a network connecting said remote proces-
sor and said communicating;
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 5 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 5 of 11 --

ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC 6
at least a database comprising a plurality of inter-
nal temperature measurements taken within a
structure and a plurality of outside temperature
measurements relating to temperatures outside
the structure;
computer hardware comprising one or more
computer processors configured to use the
stored data to predict a rate of change of tem-
peratures inside the structure in response to
changes in outside temperatures;
the one or more computer processors configured to
calculate scheduled setpoint programming of the
programmable communicating thermostat for one
or more times based on the predicted rate of
change, the scheduled programming comprising
one or more automated setpoints;
at least a database that stores the one or more au-
tomated setpoints associated with the scheduled
programming for said programmable communi-
cating thermostat;
at least a database that stores actual setpoint pro-
gramming of said programmable communicating
thermostat; and
the one or more computer processors config-
ured to compare the one or more automated
setpoints associated with said scheduled set-
point programming with said actual setpoint
programming.
Id., col. 9, line 26, through col. 10, line 17 (emphases
added).
B
Google petitioned for two inter partes reviews of the
’550 patent on May 5, 2022, one addressing claims 1–16,
the other addressing claims 17–23. The petitions asserted
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 6 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 6 of 11 --

ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC 7
that the challenged claims were unpatentable for obvious-
ness under a combination of U.S. Patent Pub. Nos.
2004/0117330 (“Ehlers”) and 2005/0040250 (“Wruck”). Eh-
lers discloses an energy management system that “collects
and stores information relevant to the temperature and
other HVAC conditioning of a building,” “tracks and learns
the thermal gain characteristics of the home,” and modifies
system settings (e.g., future scheduled setpoints) accord-
ingly. Decision I, at *4 (citing J.A. 5121 ¶ 88; J.A. 5134–35
¶¶ 253–54, 256; J.A. 5139 ¶ 295); Decision II, at *3–4
(same). Wruck describes a system for remote configuration
of programmable thermostats, which “permits the user to
control the set point and temporarily override scheduled
setpoints.” Decision I, at *7 (citing J.A. 5190–92 ¶¶ 2–5,
14–15; J.A. 5202 ¶ 104); Decision II, at *7 (same).
The Board issued its final written decisions determin-
ing that all challenged claims were unpatentable for obvi-
ousness on November 13, 2023. Decision I, at *18; Decision
II, at *18. EcoFactor timely appealed to this court, and we
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
II
We review the Board’s legal conclusions without defer-
ence and its factual determinations for substantial-evi-
dence support. In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
2002); In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Obviousness is an issue of law whose resolution depends on
underlying findings of fact. Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple
Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2023); Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The Board’s ultimate
obviousness conclusion is subject to de novo review, but
“the subsidiary factual findings are reviewed for substan-
tial evidence.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina
Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cit-
ing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2000)). What the prior art discloses is a question of fact, so
the Board’s findings about such disclosures are reviewed
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 7 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 7 of 11 --

ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC 8
for substantial-evidence support. Corephotonics, 84 F.4th
at 1003. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938).
EcoFactor makes three arguments on appeal, each re-
lating to limitations contained in all the challenged claims:
first, that Ehlers does not teach predicting rates of change
in indoor temperature, EcoFactor Opening Br. at 21–40;
second, that the combination of Ehlers and Wruck does not
teach comparing automated setpoints with actual setpoint
programming, id. at 40–48; and third, that the relevant ar-
tisan would lack motivation to combine Ehlers and Wruck
in the manner asserted by the Board, id. at 48–49.
We reject EcoFactor’s first argument in our decision is-
sued today in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 24-1027,
which involves the same issue about what Ehlers teaches.
We do not repeat our discussion of the point here. We ad-
dress EcoFactor’s other two arguments.
A
The independent claims of the ’550 patent recite com-
paring, at a given time, the scheduled setpoint with the ac-
tual setpoint. See ’550 patent, col. 8, lines 22–24 (claim 1)
(“comparing an actual setpoint at the first time . . . to the
first automated setpoint”); id., col. 8, lines 65–67 (claim 9)
(same); id., col. 10, lines 14–17 (claim 17) (“compar[ing] the
one or more automated setpoints associated with [the]
scheduled setpoint programming with [the] actual setpoint
programming.”). The Board determined that, under either
Ehlers alone or a combination of Ehlers and Wruck, the rel-
evant artisan would find this limitation obvious. Decision
I, at *13–17; Decision II, at *14–16.
In particular, the Board found that, based on Ehlers
alone, the relevant artisan “would have known to compare
the user’s ‘actual’ setpoint programming with ‘automated’
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 8 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 8 of 11 --

ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC 9
setpoints in the scheduled setpoint programming” because
Ehlers discloses using “a comparison between values to de-
termine whether to take certain actions.” Decision I, at
*14; Decision II, at *15. This finding is supported by sub-
stantial evidence. Ehlers discloses decision-making “based
on a simple comparison between the actual cost and a pre-
determined value which may have been input by the cus-
tomer.” J.A. 5131 ¶ 215. The Board credited Google’s
expert’s testimony that such a comparison supports the ob-
viousness of comparing the actual and scheduled setpoint
programming: “To determine whether two numbers are
[the] same or different from each other, [the relevant arti-
san] would have understood that one would compare
them.” J.A. 5053–54 ¶ 125; J.A. 15047–48 ¶ 103; see Deci-
sion I, at *14; Decision II, at *15.
EcoFactor asserts that obviousness under Ehlers alone
was not properly before the Board. EcoFactor Opening Br.
at 47–48. The Board determined, to the contrary, that
Google “contends that Ehlers singly . . . render[s] obvious
this limitation.” Decision I, at *13; Decision II, at *15. That
determination is supported by Google’s petitions, which
state: “Based on Ehlers alone, it would have been obvious
to compare one or more automated setpoints associated
with the scheduled setpoint programming with the actual
setpoint programming.” J.A. 1019; J.A. 10020.
EcoFactor’s remaining arguments focus on the combi-
nation of Ehlers and Wruck. EcoFactor Opening Br. at 40–
47. The Board determined that the combination of Ehlers
and Wruck, “to the extent [the limitation] was not already
obvious from Ehlers,” would render it obvious “to compare
an automated setpoint associated with scheduled setpoint
programming with the actual setpoint programming in or-
der to determine whether they are the same or different
from each other, and thus detect a manual change.” Deci-
sion II, at *15; see Decision I, at *14 (similar). The Board
found that Wruck “teaches to determine whether the ‘Delta
value’ between the ‘actual temporary setpoint’ and the
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 9 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 9 of 11 --

ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC 10
original, scheduled temperature setpoint is not equal to
zero, and if so, to display the temporary temperature set-
point.” Decision I, at *15; Decision II, at *15; see J.A. 5204,
tbl. 28.
EcoFactor argues that Wruck does not explain what
the “Delta value” means or state that the “Delta value” is a
comparison of two things. EcoFactor Opening Br. at 41–
46. But even if Wruck does not contain such explicit dis-
closure, that would not indicate error in the Board’s deci-
sion, as the Board credited Google’s expert’s testimony that
Wruck “d[id] not need to provide a more detailed descrip-
tion for [the relevant artisan] to understand that Wruck is,
at least, suggesting a comparison of values (scheduled and
actual setpoints) and a determination of a difference be-
tween those values.” J.A. 6479–80 ¶ 30; J.A. 16379–80
¶ 30; see Decision I, at *15; Decision II, at *16. Moreover,
Dr. Palmer, EcoFactor’s expert, acknowledged that the
term “delta” “generally refers to a change,” and that a
“delta value” would indicate a “change in something.” J.A.
6389, line 18, through J.A. 6390, line 1.
B
Finally, EcoFactor challenges the Board’s finding that
a relevant artisan would have been motivated to combine
the teachings of Ehlers and Wruck. EcoFactor Opening Br.
at 48–49. EcoFactor argues that “[w]ithout any explana-
tion of ‘Delta value’ [in Wruck], there is no reason why [the
relevant artisan] would look at Wruck for comparing or de-
termining the difference between two setpoints.” Id. at 48.
This argument fails for the reasons discussed above regard-
ing the substantial-evidence support for the Board’s find-
ings regarding Wruck: Additional explanation of “Delta
value” was not necessary to the Board’s obviousness deter-
mination.
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 10 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 10 of 11 --

ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC 11
III
We have considered EcoFactor’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the Board’s determination that all asserted claims
of the ’550 patent are unpatentable for obviousness.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 11 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 11 of 11 --