Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION,
`
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. _______________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Plaintiff Carrier Global Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “Carrier”), by its attorneys, files this Complaint against
`
`Defendant EcoFactor, Inc. (“Defendant” or “EcoFactor”) and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of US. Patent Nos. 8,423,322 (the
`
`“’322 Patent”), 8,019,567 (the “’567 Patent”), 10,612,983 (the “’983 Patent”), 8,596,550 (the “’550”),
`
`8,886,488 (the “’488 Patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”), attached as Exhibits 1-5 respectively)
`
`against EcoFactor, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 USC §§ 2201-02, and the patent laws of
`
`the U.S., 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and for other relief the Court deems just and proper.
`
`2.
`
`Carrier requests this relief because EcoFactor has filed a complaint with the International Trade
`
`Commission (“ITC”), Docket No. 337-3535, claiming Carrier, among other proposed respondents, has
`
`infringed the Asserted Patents because Carrier manufactures outside of the U.S. and has sold for importation
`
`into the U.S., imported into the U.S., and/or sold within the U.S. after importation, certain “Carrier Accused
`
`Products” as defined therein. A true and correct copy of EcoFactor’s public ITC complaint is attached as
`
`Exhibit 6. The products accused in the ITC Investigation are Carrier’s smart thermostat system (e.g.,
`
`Infinity System Control), including device-side and cloud-base features thereof, and related accessories
`
`(e.g., Infinity Series, Infinity System products, and ecobee3 light Pro and ecobee Smart Thermostat Pro
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`with voice control) (collectively “Accused Products”). Carrier denies infringement of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Carrier is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware
`
`with a principle place of business located at 13995 Pasteur Blvd, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33148.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, EcoFactor, Inc. is a privately held company organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business located at 441 California Avenue,
`
`Number 2, Palo Alto, California 94306.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
` Carrier files this complaint against EcoFactor pursuant to the patent laws of the United States, Title
`
`35 U.S.C. § et seq, with a specific remedy sought based upon the laws authorizing actions for declaration
`
`judgment in the federal courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and under patent laws of
`
`the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1-390.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the patent laws of the United
`
`States’ patent laws, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 2201(a).
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over EcoFactor, which on information and belief is
`
`incorporated within this District.
`
`8.
`
`A substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality exists between the parties to warrant
`
`the issuance of a declaratory judgment. EcoFactor has filed a complaint in the ITC, alleging that Carrier
`
`directly and indirectly infringes claims of each of the Asserted Patents through Carrier’s sale for
`
`importation, importation, and/or sale within the United States after importation of the Accused Products.
`
`Exhibit 6 (Public Complaint in Certain Smart Thermostat Systems, Smart HVAC Systems, Smart HVAC
`
`Control Systems, and Components Thereof, 337-DN-3535 (I.T.C. Feb. 26, 2021)) at ¶¶ 78, 104-111; Exhibit
`
`6 (claim charts for Carrier accused products attached as Exhibits 21-25 to the ITC Complaint). Carrier
`
`denies infringement of the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(c).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`10.
`
` The ’322 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Evaluating Changes in the Efficiency of an
`
`HVAC System” and attached hereto as Exhibit 1, states on its cover that is was issued on April 16, 2013 to
`
`named inventors John Steinberg of Millbrae, California and Scott Hublou of Redwood City, California.
`
`The ’322 Patent also states that the initial assignee was EcoFactor, Inc., of Millbrae, California. On
`
`information and belief, the ’322 Patent is currently assigned to EcoFactor.
`
`11.
`
`The ’567 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Evaluating Changes in the Efficiency of an
`
`HVAC System” and attached hereto as Exhibit 2, states on its cover that it was issued on September 13,
`
`2011 to named inventors John Steinberg of Millbrae, California and Scott Hublou of Redwood City,
`
`California. The ’567 Patent also states that the initial assignee was EcoFactor, Inc., of Millbrae, California.
`
`On information and belief, the ’567 Patent is currently assigned to EcoFactor.
`
`12.
`
` The ’983 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Evaluating Changes in the Efficiency of an
`
`HVAC System” and attached hereto as Exhibit 3, states on its face that it was issued on April 7, 2020 to
`
`named inventors John Steinberg of Millbrae, California and Scott Hublou of Redwood City, California.
`
`The ’983 Patent also states that the initial assignee was EcoFactor, Inc., of Redwood City, California. On
`
`information and belief, the ’983 Patent is currently assigned to EcoFactor.
`
`13.
`
`The ’550 Patent is entitled “System, Method and Apparatus for Identifying Manual Inputs to and
`
`Adaptive Programming of a Thermostat” and attached hereto as Exhibit 4, states on its cover that it was
`
`issued on December 3, 2013 to named inventors John Steinberg of Millbrae, California; Scott Hublou of
`
`Redwood City, California; and Leo Cheung of Sunnyvale, California. The ’550 Patent also states that the
`
`initial assignee was EcoFactor, Inc., of Millbrae, California. On information and belief, the ’550 Patent is
`
`currently assigned to EcoFactor.
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`14.
`
`The ’488 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Calculating the Thermal Mass of a Building”
`
`and attached hereto as Exhibit 5, states on its face that it was issued on November 11, 2014 to named
`
`inventors John Steinberg of Millbrae, California and Scott Hublou of Redwood City, California. The ’488
`
`Patent also states that the initial assignee was EcoFactor, Inc., of Millbrae, California. On information and
`
`belief, the ’488 Patent is currently assigned to EcoFactor.
`
`15.
`
`Carrier’s Accused Products do not directly or indirectly infringe any asserted claim of the Asserted
`
`Patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Carrier has not caused, directed, requested, or
`
`facilitated any such infringement, and it did not have any specific intent to do so.
`
`DISPUTE BETWEEN CARRIER AND ECOFACTOR
`CONCERNING THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`On February 26, 2021, EcoFactor filed the ITC Complaint alleging that Carrier, among
`
`16.
`
`others, purportedly infringes certain claims of the Asserted Patents. Exhibit 6 at ¶¶ 78, 104-111;
`
`(claim charts for Carrier accused products attached as Exhibits 21-25 to the ITC Complaint).
`
`EcoFactor’s ITC Complaint alleges that the Accused Products purportedly infringe “either literally
`
`or pursuant to the doctrine of equivalents, and either directly or indirectly under a theory of
`
`inducement or contributory infringement.” Exhibit 6 at ¶ 110.
`
`17.
`
`Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Carrier and EcoFactor
`
`concerning whether Carrier infringes one or more claims of any of the Asserted Patents. Carrier
`
`now seeks a declaratory judgment that Carrier does not infringe the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`COUNT I:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’322 PATENT
`
`18.
`
`Carrier hereby restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 through 17 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`19.
`
`In its ITC complaint, EcoFactor alleges that Carrier directly and indirectly infringes the
`
`’322 Patent. See e.g., Ex. 6, ¶¶ 4, (Table 1), 84, 85.
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`20.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’322
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 1: “one or more processors
`
`that receive measurements of outside temperatures from at least one source other than said HVAC
`
`system and compare said temperate measurements from said first structure”, “wherein said one or
`
`more processor compares the inside temperature of said first structure and the outside temperature
`
`over time”, and “wherein said one or more processors compares an inside temperature recorded
`
`inside the first structure with an inside temperature of said first structure recorded at a different
`
`time to determine whether the operational efficiency of the HVAC system has decreased over
`
`time.”
`
`21.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’322
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 8: “one or more processors
`
`that receive measurements of outside temperatures from at least one source other than said first
`
`and second HVAC systems and compare said temperature measurements from said first HVAC
`
`system and said second HVAC system and said outside temperature measurements over time to
`
`determine the relative efficiency of the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system.”
`
`22.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Carrier and EcoFactor
`
`regarding whether any of the Accused Products have infringed the ’322 Patent. A judicial
`
`declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’322 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`Carrier seeks a judgment declaring that Carrier does not directly or indirectly infringe any
`
`asserted claims of the ’322 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and is not
`
`liable for any infringement.
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`COUNT II:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’567 PATENT
`
`24.
`
`Carrier hereby restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 through 23 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`25.
`
`In its ITC complaint, EcoFactor alleges that Carrier directly and indirectly infringes the
`
`’567 Patent. See e.g., Ex. 6, ¶¶ 4, (Table 1), 84, 85.
`
`26.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’567
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 1: “one or more processors
`
`that receive measurements of outside temperatures from at least one source other than said HVAC
`
`system and compare said temperature measurements from said first structure”, “wherein said one
`
`or more processors compares the inside temperature of said first structure and the outside
`
`temperature over time to derive an estimation for the rate of change in inside temperature of said
`
`first structure when said HVAC system is in a first state of repair”, “wherein said one or more
`
`processors compares an inside temperature recorded inside the first structure with said estimation
`
`for the rate of change in inside temperature of said first structure to determine whether the
`
`operational efficiency of the HVAC system has decreased over time,” and “wherein if said
`
`operational efficiency has decreased, said one or more processors analyzes the changes in the
`
`operational efficiency over time to suggest a cause of degradation.”
`
`27.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’567
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 8: “one or more processors
`
`that receive measurements of outside temperatures from at least one source other than said first
`
`and second HVAC systems and compare said temperature measurements from said first HVAC
`
`system and said second HVAC system and said outside temperature measurements over time to
`
`determine the relative efficiency of the first HVAC system and the second HVAC system.”
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`28.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’567
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 15: “comparing with one or
`
`more processors said temperature measurements from said first structure with outside temperature
`
`measurements over time to derive expected temperature measurements of a rate of change in inside
`
`temperature of said first structure when the HVAC system is in a first state of repair”, “wherein
`
`the expected temperature measurements are based at least in part upon past temperature
`
`measurements and based at least in part on outside temperature measurements”, and “wherein said
`
`one or more processors compares an inside temperature recorded inside the first structure with said
`
`expected temperature measurements to determine whether the operational efficiency of the HVAC
`
`system has decreased.”
`
`29.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Carrier and EcoFactor
`
`regarding whether any of the Accused Products have infringed the ’567 Patent. A judicial
`
`declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’567 Patent.
`
`30.
`
`Carrier seeks a judgment declaring that Carrier does not directly or indirectly infringe any
`
`asserted claims of the ’567 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and is not
`
`liable for any infringement.
`
`COUNT III:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’983 PATENT
`
`31.
`
`Carrier hereby restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 through 30 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`32.
`
`In its ITC complaint, EcoFactor alleges that Carrier directly and indirectly infringes the
`
`’983 Patent. See e.g., Ex. 6, ¶¶ 4, (Table 1), 84, 85.
`
`33.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’983
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 1: “the one or more
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`processors further configured to predict, based at least on the first data from the sensor, the second
`
`data from the network connection, and the first temperature setpoint, the time necessary for the
`
`HVAC system to operate in order to reach the temperature value by the time value,” and “the one
`
`or more processors further configured to control the HVAC system to operate to cause the building
`
`to reach the temperature value by the time value.”
`
`34.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’983
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 24: “the processor configured
`
`to receive a second data from a second sensor device located external to the system”, “the processor
`
`configured to predict, based at least on analyzing the first data, the second data, and the first
`
`setpoint, the time necessary for a HVAC system at the user's building to operate in order to reach
`
`the temperature value by the time value”, “the processor configured to control the HVAC system
`
`to operate to cause the building to reach the temperature value by the time value.”
`
`35.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Carrier and EcoFactor
`
`regarding whether any of the Accused Products have infringed the ’983 Patent. A judicial
`
`declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’983 Patent.
`
`36.
`
`Carrier seeks a judgment declaring that Carrier does not directly or indirectly infringe any
`
`asserted claims of the ’983 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and is not
`
`liable for any infringement.
`
`COUNT IV:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’550 PATENT
`
`37.
`
`Carrier hereby restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 through 36 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`In its ITC complaint, EcoFactor alleges that Carrier directly and indirectly infringes the
`
`’550 Patent. See e.g., Ex. 6, ¶¶ 4, (Table 1), 84, 85.
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`39.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’550
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 1: “using the stored data to
`
`predict a rate of change of temperatures inside the structure in response to at least changes in
`
`outside temperatures,” “calculating with one or more computer processors, scheduled
`
`programming of the thermostatic controller for one or more times based on the predicted rate of
`
`change, the scheduled programming comprising at least a first automated setpoint at a first time,”
`
`and “generating with one or more computer processors, a difference value based on comparing an
`
`actual setpoint at the first time for said thermostatic controller to the first automated setpoint for
`
`said thermostatic controller.”
`
`40.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’550
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 9: “using the stored data to
`
`predict a rate of change of temperatures inside the structure in response to at least changes in
`
`outside temperatures,” “calculating scheduled programming of setpoints in the thermostatic
`
`controller based on the predicted rate of change, the scheduled programming comprising at least a
`
`first automated setpoint at a first time and a second automated setpoint at a second time,”
`
`“changing the second automated setpoint at the second time based on at least one rule for the
`
`interpretation of said manual change.”
`
`41.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’550
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 17: “computer hardware
`
`comprising one or more computer processors configured to use the stored data to predict a rate of
`
`change of temperatures 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
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`change, the scheduled programming comprising one or more automated setpoints”, “at least a
`
`database that stores the one or more automated setpoints associated with the scheduled
`
`programming for said programmable communicating thermostat,” and “the one or more computer
`
`processors configured to compare the one or more automated setpoints associated with said
`
`scheduled setpoint programming with said actual setpoint programming.”
`
`42.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Carrier and EcoFactor
`
`regarding whether any of the Accused Products have infringed the ’550 Patent. A judicial
`
`declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’550 Patent.
`
`43.
`
`Carrier seeks a judgment declaring that Carrier does not directly or indirectly infringe any
`
`asserted claims of the ’550 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and is not
`
`liable for any infringement.
`
`COUNT V:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ’488 PATENT
`
`44.
`
`Carrier hereby restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs
`
`1 through 43 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`45.
`
`In its ITC complaint, EcoFactor alleges that Carrier directly and indirectly infringes the
`
`’488 Patent. See e.g., Ex. 6, ¶¶ 4, (Table 1), 84, 85.
`
`46.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’488
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 1: “wherein said one or more
`
`processors are configured to calculate one or more predicted rates of change in said inside
`
`temperature measurements at said first location based on the status of the HVAC system and to
`
`relate said one or more predicted rates of change to said outside temperature measurements,” and
`
`“said one or more processors further configured to compare at least one predicted temperature
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`based on the one or more predicted rates of change, with an actual inside temperature
`
`measurement.”
`
`47.
`
`The Accused Products do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of the ’488
`
`Patent, including but not limited to the following limitations of claim 9: “calculating with computer
`
`hardware comprising one or more computer processors one or more predicted rates of change in
`
`said inside temperatures at said first location based on the status of the HVAC system, where said
`
`predicted rates of change are related to said outside temperature measurements,” and “comparing
`
`with the one or more processors, at least one predicted temperature based on the one or more
`
`predicted rates of change, with at least one actual inside temperature measurement.”
`
`48.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Carrier and EcoFactor
`
`regarding whether any of the Accused Products have infringed the ’488 Patent. A judicial
`
`declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’488 Patent.
`
`49.
`
`Carrier seeks a judgment declaring that Carrier does not directly or indirectly infringe any
`
`asserted claims of the ’488 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and is not
`
`liable for any infringement.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Carrier prays for judgment as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Declaring that Carrier does not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the ’322
`
`Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`B.
`
`Declaring that Carrier does not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
`
`’567 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`C.
`
`Declaring that Carrier does not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
`
`’983 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`D.
`
`Declaring that Carrier does not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
`
`’550 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00328-UNA Document 1 Filed 03/03/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Declaring that Carrier does not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
`
`’488 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`F.
`
`Declaring that judgment be entered in favor of Carrier and against EcoFactor
`
`and/or any of its successors and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation
`
`with any of them, are enjoined from directly or indirectly asserting or instituting any further
`
`action for infringement of the Asserted Patents against Carrier, or any of Carrier’s customers,
`
`potential customers, end-users, agents, suppliers, contractors, consultants, successors, and
`
`assigns;
`
`G.
`
`Order that this case is “exceptional” pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 entitling
`
`Carrier to an award of its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, and
`
`pre-judgment interest thereon;
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`proper.
`
`Order awarding Carrier its costs of suit incurred in this action; and
`
`Granting to Carrier such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 and Civil Local Rule 38.1, Carrier
`
`demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Jonathan Spivey
`LaTasha Snipes
`POLSINELLI PC
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6400
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 374-1600
`jspivey@polsinelli.com
`tsnipes@polsinelli.com
`
`March 3, 2021
`
`
`
`77020823.2
`
`
`
`POLSINELLI PC
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1101
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 252-0920
`skraftschik@polsinelli.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Carrier Global
`Corporation
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`