Former Business Partner Sued for Alleged Trade Secrets Misappropriation

SkyBell's claims against Alarm.com survive motion to dismiss due to statute of limitations issues.

Mar. 30, 2026 at 1:09pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A photorealistic studio still life depicting a metallic security camera or video doorbell device surrounded by abstract geometric shapes and forms in shades of gray, black, and silver, conveying a sense of corporate strategy and intellectual property disputes.A high-stakes legal battle over alleged trade secrets misappropriation exposes the complex intellectual property challenges facing tech companies.Alexandria Today

SkyBell Technologies has sued its former business partner Alarm.com for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets in violation of federal and state laws. Alarm.com filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, but the court denied the motion, finding the issue of whether SkyBell exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the alleged misappropriation was a fact-specific determination not suitable for resolution at this stage.

Why it matters

This case highlights the complexities around trade secrets disputes, particularly when it comes to determining when the statute of limitations begins to run. The court's decision underscores that such fact-specific inquiries are generally not appropriate for dismissal at the pleading stage, allowing SkyBell's claims to proceed.

The details

SkyBell sued Alarm.com, alleging the company misappropriated its trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Alarm.com filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The court denied the motion, finding the issue of whether SkyBell exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the alleged misappropriation was a fact-specific determination not suitable for resolution at this stage. The court noted that under the relevant statutes, a trade secrets claim must be brought within three years of the misappropriation being discovered or reasonably discoverable through due diligence. The parties disputed whether publications about Alarm.com's first doorbell product should have put SkyBell on notice of the alleged misappropriation, as well as the scope of the licensing agreement between the companies.

  • SkyBell filed the lawsuit in March 2026.

The players

SkyBell Technologies, Inc.

A technology company that sued its former business partner Alarm.com for allegedly misappropriating its trade secrets.

Alarm.com, Inc.

The defendant in the lawsuit, a former business partner of SkyBell that was accused of misappropriating SkyBell's trade secrets.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Whether a plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence in the filing of a claim is a fact-specific determination.”

— The Court

What’s next

The case will now proceed to further litigation as the court has denied Alarm.com's motion to dismiss, finding the statute of limitations issue requires a fact-specific inquiry not suitable for resolution at this stage.

The takeaway

This trade secrets dispute highlights the importance of carefully evaluating when the statute of limitations begins to run in such cases, as the court found the reasonableness of the plaintiff's diligence in discovering the alleged misappropriation was a complex, fact-based determination that could not be resolved through a motion to dismiss.