Snap One the manufacturer of Control 4 automation systems, and Josh.ai, the manufacturer of an automation remote is having a go at each other in a US court over patents, with Josh.ai now going on the offensive, filing a motion to dismiss multiple major claims in the Snap One lawsuit because of a lack of evidence.
The move has put Snap One on the defensive , forcing them to submit genuine facts and evidence to support several claims that they have made both publicly and in court documents some which have been described as salacious.
Last year Snap One filed a lawsuit against AVA, Inc. and Josh.ai, Inc. alleging all sorts of sordid activities with some 73 pages of allegations many against Josh.ai, the manufacturer of a remote that is popular with integrators in Australia.
Snap One suggested that the business engaged in “shady and unethical business practices’ now they are going to have to prove it with evidence.
Both defendants denied the allegations with all sides having to deliver copies of documents, communications, and other items related to the allegations and defences.
Back on April 12th, Snap One filed a motion for “leave to file an amended complaint.” 
That motion was granted, and four days later on April 18th, Snap One filed a new, First Amended Complaint (FAC).
This was followed by a Josh.ai motion to dismiss much of Snap One’s amended complaint.
Josh.ai claims that Snap One could not produce evidence to support their claim relative to one of the patents that was infringed by the two defendants.
New documents claim that the original claims were poorly investigated by Snap One, before it filed action against Josh.ai and that the business which has an extensive operation in Australia, cannot not articulate an infringement contention for one of its patents asserted in the initial complaint,
It was only after Snap failed to serve any proper documentation , that Josh.ai complained, this resulted in Snap dropping its ‘984 patent claim replacing it with another “frivolous patent claim” claims Josh ai.
Snap’s remaining claims in the FAC fare no better.
According to Josh.ai’s filing, Snap One dropped one patent claim that they were allegedly struggling to defend and replaced it with another that they now believe that they can defend.
Josh.ai’s motion seeks an order from the court dismissing several key claims for patent infringement “Because Snap fails to allege direct infringement they claim.
Initially Snap initially claimed based on contract issues relative to two contractual agreements it had with Josh.ai.
The first is an allegation of a violation of its Software Development Kit (SDK) which allowed Josh to develop Control4 drivers for its systems.
The second contract was a Distributor Agreement to allow Snap One to distribute Josh.ai products to Snap One dealer.
Josh’s Motion to dismiss was dismissive of the contract claims from Snap. “Snap’s contract claims are similarly frivolous. The express language of both contracts, neither of which were attached to the court documents, permits Josh.ai to do the exact things that Snap claims constitute breach.”
Josh claims that it “developed an original application with Snap as allowed in the SDK, they then put this application into the Android app store under the Josh.ai brand.
Snap had no problem with any of this. It was only once co-defendant AVA, a Snap competitor, loaded that same app on its Android-based remote control that Snap accused Josh.ai of a breach of contract.
Josh claims that the so-called breach is nothing more than an anti-competitive gambit because Snap doesn’t like Josh.ai doing business with a competitor.
Arguing their case Josh was able to pull wording directly out of the contract that allowed then do sell and market the remote.
One of Snap One claims was that they had an “exclusive” agreement with Josh.ai, and that the company violated this by selling directly to Snap One dealer.
This is despite Josh.ai expressly retaining the right to sell its products to ‘any dealer,’ including Snap’s, and directly to the public.”
Snap One claimed that Josh.ai violated agreements by stealing Snap One dealers.
It also alleged that Josh undercut Snap One’s prices to motivate dealers to buy directly from them.
