Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01995/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01995-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ADT LLC
Appellee
Vivint, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
2 VIVINT, INC. v. ADT LLC

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
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
4 VIVINT, INC. v. ADT LLC

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 fieldof-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
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
6 VIVINT, INC. v. ADT LLC

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