EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC

Background

EcoFactor sued Google for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 11,835,394, titled “System and Method for Evaluating Changes in the Efficiency of an HVAC System.” The patent concerns climate-control systems that receive temperatures from inside and outside a structure, calculate an operating profile, store that profile, and compare it with an earlier profile to evaluate whether the system’s efficiency has decreased over time.

EcoFactor accused Google of infringement based on Google’s smart thermostat systems, including specified Nest thermostats, as well as related servers, data centers, and online interfaces. Google moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the patent claims covered patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Representative Claim

The parties disputed whether independent claim 1 represented the patent’s other claims for purposes of deciding eligibility. The court treated claim 1 as representative because EcoFactor did not meaningfully explain how the dependent claims’ additional limitations would change the eligibility analysis.

Patent Eligibility Analysis

The court applied the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. At step one, it found that claim 1 was directed to the abstract idea of accounting for a structure’s thermal mass by measuring inside and outside temperatures, calculating operating profiles, and comparing those profiles over time to determine whether HVAC efficiency had decreased. The court reasoned that, apart from generic computer-implemented steps such as using a processor and database, the claimed calculations and comparisons could be performed mentally or with pencil and paper.

The court rejected EcoFactor’s argument that the patent claimed novel thermal-efficiency calculations. It concluded that the claims did not specify a particular calculation or implementation, but instead claimed the general result of calculating and comparing thermal efficiency. The court also distinguished an earlier decision involving a related EcoFactor patent because that patent included additional actions, such as predicting temperature changes and deciding whether to pre-cool a structure.

At step two, the court found no “inventive concept”—an element or combination that transforms an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The court concluded that EcoFactor’s argument that conventional HVAC systems had not previously accounted for thermal mass merely restated the abstract idea identified at step one. The use of conventional climate-control devices, processors, databases, and computer-network technology did not supply the required inventive concept.

The court also declined to consider hypothetical claim-construction disputes or extrinsic evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It stated that EcoFactor could include relevant factual allegations in its pleadings.

Disposition

Google requested dismissal with prejudice. The court stated that it was not yet able to conclude that amendment would necessarily be futile, so it granted EcoFactor one opportunity to file an amended complaint. The court granted Google’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend and required any amended complaint to be filed within 21 days of the order.