Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc.

Background

Google filed this action seeking a declaration that it did not infringe four EcoFactor patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,751,186, 8,740,100, 9,194,597, and 10,584,890. EcoFactor answered and counterclaimed that Google’s Nest thermostats infringed those patents. Google then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that all four patents were invalid under Section 101 of the Patent Act because their claims were directed to abstract ideas and lacked an inventive concept.

A judgment on the pleadings is a ruling based on the parties’ filed pleadings. The court accepts the factual allegations as true and decides whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court applied the two-step test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. First, it asked whether the claims were directed to an abstract idea. If so, it would have considered whether the claims contained an additional inventive concept that made them patent-eligible.

The ’186 Patent

The ’186 patent concerns calculating a building’s effective thermal mass. Its representative claim describes remote computers receiving inside and outside temperature measurements, calculating predicted temperature-change rates based on HVAC status and outside temperatures, and deciding whether to pre-cool a structure before reducing electricity demand.

The court rejected Google’s comparison to claims held ineligible in ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc. The court found that the ’186 patent claimed a specific, non-abstract process for directing programmable HVAC thermostats using calculated thermal mass. The claim therefore was not directed to an abstract idea at the first Alice step, so the court did not reach the second step.

The ’100 Patent

The ’100 patent concerns dynamically variable compressor delays in thermostats. Its representative claim describes a thermostat with multiple delay settings and a processor that uses inside and outside temperature data, predicted temperature changes, and other parameters to select the appropriate delay.

The court concluded that the claim focused on a specific improvement to HVAC technology, rather than merely selecting among known compressor delays or automating a manual process with a generic computer. The claim was therefore not directed to an abstract idea at the first Alice step, and the court did not reach the second step.

The ’597 Patent

The ’597 patent concerns identifying manual thermostat changes and incorporating them into adaptive programming. The court separately analyzed independent claims 1, 9, and 17 because the parties had not designated a representative claim.

For claim 1, the court found that the claim covered detecting and recording manual thermostat changes, using temperature predictions, and adjusting HVAC setpoints. For claim 9, the court found that the claim incorporated manual changes into later HVAC operation. For claim 17, the court found that the apparatus detected manual changes to automated setpoints and determined whether to change those setpoints. The court concluded that each claim described a specific improvement to HVAC operation rather than an abstract idea. It therefore did not reach the second Alice step for any of these claims.

The ’890 Patent

The ’890 patent concerns using a mobile device’s location information to determine whether a building is occupied and automatically adjust the HVAC temperature. Its representative claim describes a thermostat that receives temperature information, outside weather information, and geolocation data from a mobile device, then adjusts heating or cooling when the data indicates that the building is unoccupied.

The court rejected Google’s characterization of the patent as merely automating the decision to turn an HVAC system on or off depending on whether someone was home. It found that the patent claimed a specific technological solution using mobile-device location data to detect occupancy and manage home energy use. The claim was not directed to an abstract idea at the first Alice step, so the court did not reach the second step.

Disposition

The court denied Google’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The ruling did not invalidate the four patents under Section 101. The court’s analysis addressed whether the claims were directed to abstract ideas and concluded that they were not; it did not proceed to the second part of the eligibility test.