BIRMINGHAM, Ala., April 18, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — At SpiderDoor, we are proud of our portfolio of products that serve thousands of locations in the Self-Storage industry. The quality and reliability of SpiderDoor’s offerings have given us a strong presence and reputation in the Self-Storage industry. As part of SpiderDoor’s continuing efforts to improve the operational efficiency of the Self-Storage industry, while simultaneously improving the end user tenant experience, we came to market with an overlock product in late 2022. This was in response to requests from many of our customers.
SpiderDoor was unaware of any patent claimed by DaVinci until the receipt of a brief email on January 17, 2023. Just two days later, DaVinci hired lawyers and asserted infringement by SpiderDoor as to seven different patents. Subsequently, DaVinci conceded that only one patent was the focus of their infringement claims.
Less than eight weeks after SpiderDoor first knew of the existence of any claimed patents by DaVinci, SpiderDoor was sued for infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. SpiderDoor has denied the allegations made by DaVinci. In a recent two-day evidentiary hearing where DaVinci sought a preliminary injunction against us, SpiderDoor prevailed. Injunctive relief was DENIED.
To debunk some of the statements made by DaVinci in a recent press release, SpiderDoor is providing you with actual quotes from the Court’s Order. “The court cannot issue a preliminary injunction if DaVinci fails to establish a substantial likelihood that it will succeed at trial that [SpiderDoor] violates Claim 16 of the 513 Patent.” “DaVinci cannot meet both burdens because the 513 Patent is vulnerable…” “[T]he court finds that SpiderDoor …. has raised a substantial question of invalidity, which is enough to prevent this court from enjoining SpiderDoor’s use of Version 2 before trial.” “In sum, the court finds that DaVinci’s 513 Patent is vulnerable to SpiderDoor’s validity challenge, both on anticipation and obviousness grounds.” “Because DaVinci cannot meet its burden of proving substantial likelihood on the merits, for this reason the court does not address the parties’ arguments on any other element, including DaVinci’s likelihood of proving infringement.”
To clarify further, SpiderDoor was not forced to stop selling the original version of our overlock system. SpiderDoor instead voluntarily opted to revise its overlock system to perhaps speed along a resolution with DaVinci; there was no external mandate from the court for SpiderDoor to cease its actions.
As to Davinci stating they have a growing number of pending patent applications, SpiderDoor is aware of only two pending U.S. applications, both of which remain under close scrutiny by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
We encourage our customers to read the 27-page Order authored by Judge Corey Maze who is the federal district judge presiding over the case. The Order is a public record and can be found at the United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Case Number 2:23-cv-343-CLM, Document 61). Here is a link to the Court’s opinion. The lawsuit remains pending and is being vigorously defended by SpiderDoor. Link to court order
At SpiderDoor, our top priority is our customers. Notwithstanding the pending litigation where SpiderDoor has already preliminarily prevailed, we continue to offer a cost-effective alternative to DaVinci’s product. Like Davinci, SpiderDoor welcomes fair competition in the marketplace and that is what we at SpiderDoor are providing to storage owners throughout our footprint.
We welcome your inquiries both as to our overlock product and the full menu of SpiderDoor products.
SOURCE SpiderDoor LLC.
