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.
Link to court order
View original content to download
multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/spiderdoor-responds-to-davinci-allegations-302121185.html
SOURCE SpiderDoor LLC.