Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement lawsuit continues a multi-year litigation campaign by Portus Singapore Pte. Ltd., a non-practicing entity (NPE), targeting the smart home and security industry. Portus, a Singapore-based entity whose principal activity is listed as an internet access provider, has filed numerous suits against technology companies. The defendant, Vivint Smart Home, Inc., is a major U.S. provider of smart home technology and security systems, offering products like doorbell cameras, smart locks, and integrated control platforms. Headquartered in Provo, Utah, Vivint is a prominent operating company in the market and a subsidiary of NRG Energy. The case pits an entity monetizing a patent portfolio against a product-producing company in the smart home sector.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleges that Vivint's smart home systems infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097. The accused products and services include Vivint's Smart Hub, the Vivint Smart Home App, and the associated cloud infrastructure that allows users to remotely monitor and control devices like security cameras, locks, and thermostats. The '097 patent, titled "Local and remote monitoring using a standard web browser," generally describes a system where a user can remotely access and control a local network of devices (like a home automation system) through an external network server. The choice of venue is significant; since the 2017 Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland, patent suits against a defendant are typically proper in their home state. Vivint's headquarters in Provo establishes Utah as a proper venue. The District of Utah has its own local patent rules designed to manage complex infringement cases, which will govern the litigation's structure and timeline.

This case is notable as part of a persistent and broad assertion campaign by Portus, which began as early as 2019 with suits against AT&T and others involving related patents. Portus has continued to file new cases in 2026 against companies like Tonal Systems and Whirlpool, indicating an ongoing strategy to license its portfolio across the IoT and smart device landscape. The litigation against Vivint highlights the ongoing legal risks for operating companies in the rapidly growing smart home market from NPEs holding foundational patents related to remote access and device control—a core feature of modern connected home systems. The outcome of this case and any parallel proceedings, such as potential Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, could influence licensing negotiations and product architecture for other companies in the sector. No assigned judge is publicly listed in the docket as of this writing.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

As of May 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. and Vivint Smart Home, Inc. in the District of Utah remains in its early stages. An examination of the public docket and litigation landscape reveals the following chronological developments.

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2024)

• 2024-04-29: Complaint Filed: Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. initiated the lawsuit, filing a complaint (Dkt. 2) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The complaint alleges that Vivint’s smart home systems—including its hubs, cameras, and associated mobile applications and cloud platforms—infringe upon U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097. This case is part of a broader, ongoing litigation campaign by Portus targeting companies in the smart home and IoT sectors.

• Initial Procedural Filings: Following the complaint, the court issued a summons for Vivint. As is standard, the case was assigned and entered the initial phase where the defendant is required to respond.

At present, there is no publicly available record of Vivint having filed an answer or any counterclaims. Similarly, no substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss or transfer, appear on the docket. The case is pending, awaiting Vivint's formal response to the infringement allegations.

Substantive Motions and Claim Construction

The case has not yet advanced to significant litigation milestones. There have been no substantive motions filed by either party. Key pre-trial stages, including:

• Motions to dismiss or transfer venue
• Discovery proceedings
• Claim Construction (Markman hearing)
• Summary judgment motions

have not yet occurred. The docket does not indicate that a scheduling order has been entered, which would set the timeline for these events.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database does not show any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions filed by Vivint Smart Home, Inc. challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,961,097.

Without a parallel PTAB challenge, there is currently no basis for a motion to stay the district court litigation pending a review by the patent office. This contrasts with other patent litigation involving Vivint, where the company has actively used IPR proceedings to challenge asserted patents.

Context and Potential Future Developments

This lawsuit is consistent with Portus's established pattern as a non-practicing entity (NPE) that monetizes its patent portfolio through litigation against technology companies. Portus has engaged in similar lawsuits against other major tech companies, with outcomes often resulting in dismissals that suggest confidential settlements or license agreements.

Vivint, for its part, is frequently involved in patent litigation, both as a defendant and a plaintiff. The company has a history of litigating against competitors like ADT and Alarm.com, indicating a sophisticated approach to intellectual property disputes.

Given the early stage of this case, several developments are anticipated:

1. Vivint's Response: Vivint will likely file an answer to the complaint, potentially including counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and/or invalidity of the '097 patent.
2. Early Motions: Vivint may file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Portus's infringement contentions are insufficiently pleaded. Portus has faced such motions in other cases.
3. PTAB Challenge: Vivint may still decide to file an IPR petition against the '097 patent. Such a filing would likely be followed by a motion to stay the Utah case pending the PTAB's decision.
4. Settlement: Many NPE cases are resolved through settlement before reaching trial. The 15-month duration of a similar Portus case against August Home, which ended in a stipulated dismissal, suggests a potential timeline for a negotiated resolution.

The case currently remains pending and in its preliminary phase. No judge has been assigned to the case according to available public records.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As of May 7, 2026, the counsel who filed the complaint and are representing the plaintiff, Portus Singapore Pte Ltd., have been identified based on their representation of Portus in a broad, multi-district litigation campaign. While a definitive notice of appearance for the specific Utah case against Vivint (2:24-cv-00343) is not available through public web searches, the consistent pattern of filings in nearly identical cases provides a reliable basis for identifying the legal team.

A significant contradiction was noted during the investigation: the case number 2:24-cv-00343 in the District of Utah also corresponds to a separate patent case, Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Owlet Inc., which was transferred from the District of Delaware. This may indicate a clerical error in public aggregators or a simple reuse of a case number for a newly filed, separate action against Vivint. However, based on the plaintiff's wider litigation activity, the following counsel are leading their campaign.

Lead Counsel

• Name: William P. Ramey III
• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Ramey LLP (Houston, TX)
• Note on Experience: Mr. Ramey is the founding partner of Ramey LLP and has extensive experience in intellectual property litigation, frequently representing non-practicing entities (NPEs) in patent assertion campaigns across the United States.

Local Counsel

• Status: Not Yet Identified.
• Note: The District of Utah generally requires out-of-state attorneys to associate with local counsel. However, public records from the State Bar of Texas indicate that lead counsel William P. Ramey III is also licensed to practice in Utah. This may allow him to proceed without formally designating a separate local counsel. No Utah-based attorney has yet been identified on publicly available filings for this specific case. In numerous other recent cases filed by Portus in Texas, Mr. Ramey is the sole signatory on initial complaints.

Counsel for Defendant Vivint Smart Home, Inc. Not Yet Publicly Available

As of May 7, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Vivint Smart Home, Inc., has not yet filed a notice of appearance on the public docket for Portus Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc., 2:24-cv-00343, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

The case was filed on April 29, 2024. Typically, a defendant has 21 days to respond to a complaint after service of the summons, or longer if service is waived. Until Vivint files its answer, a motion to dismiss, or a notice of appearance, the specific attorneys and law firms representing them in this matter will not be officially recorded.

A review of litigation involving Vivint provides context on law firms the company has engaged for past patent disputes, though it does not confirm who will represent them in this specific case:

• In a separate patent infringement lawsuit initiated by Vivint against ADT, Jackson Walker partner Chris Rourk was noted as representing Vivint.
• In litigation against Alarm.com, which involved inter partes review proceedings and concluded in a settlement, Vivint faced a team from Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.
• Vivint was also the defendant in a case that resulted in a $45.4 million jury verdict in favor of SB IP Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of SkyBell Technologies. The firms representing Vivint in that matter are not specified in the available search results.

Given the early stage of the Portus litigation, it is expected that counsel for Vivint will make an appearance in the coming weeks. Until then, their legal representation in this case remains unconfirmed.