EcoFactor, Inc. v. Alarm Incorporated et al. (D. Mass. 20-cv-11007).

After EcoFactor filed this patent infringement suit against it, Alarm Inc. filed a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of a previous ITC proceeding between Alarm Inc. and EcoFactor .  The ITC case involves a different set of patents that are also the subject of a previous district court proceeding between the two parties.  Alarm Inc. also sought to combine the two district court cases.  EcoFactor opposed both, noting that the ITC action and other district court case involved different patents and different claims (which are the subject of a prior-filed lawsuit between EcoFactor and Alarm Inc.).  Judge Sorokin granted in part the defendants’ motion.  He stayed the case for three months, with the parties to file a joint status report updating the status of the ITC proceeding and indicate their positions as to whether the stay should be continued.  He denied the motion to combine as moot, giving Alarm Inc. the opportunity to re-raise the issue when they report on the status of the ITC case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s