Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC

Case: 24-1367 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: 2 Filed: 07/08/2025

2 ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC

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: 3 Filed: 07/08/2025

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: 4 Filed: 07/08/2025

4 ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC

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: 5 Filed: 07/08/2025

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: 6 Filed: 07/08/2025

6 ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC

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: 7 Filed: 07/08/2025

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: 8 Filed: 07/08/2025

8 ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC

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: 9 Filed: 07/08/2025

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: 10 Filed: 07/08/2025

10 ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC

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: 11 Filed: 07/08/2025

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