DCT

2:18-cv-08962

Sipco LLC v. RAB Lighting Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-08962, D.N.J., 05/08/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because the Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business in the district, and because infringing activities allegedly took place in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Lightcloud line of wireless lighting control systems infringes six patents related to wireless mesh networking, remote monitoring, and device control.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to foundational technologies for wireless mesh networks, which enable low-power devices to communicate over large areas by relaying messages, a key component of modern "Internet of Things" (IoT) and "smart grid" systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties engaged in licensing discussions for two years starting in December 2015, during which Plaintiff provided Defendant with sample claim charts for three of the patents-in-suit. The complaint also notes that three of the asserted patents survived inter partes review (IPR) challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where petitions for review were denied institution or the asserted claims were otherwise not found unpatentable.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-06-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’661 and ’587 Patents
2000-08-09 Earliest Priority Date for ’511, ’893, ’073, and ’737 Patents
2004-12-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,836,737 Issued
2005-07-05 U.S. Patent No. 6,914,893 Issued
2006-09-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511 Issued
2007-08-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,263,073 Issued
2008-12-23 U.S. Patent No. 7,468,661 Issued
2011-10-25 Reexamination Certificate for ’511 Patent Issued
2014-05-14 IPR Petition Filed against ’661 Patent (IPR2014-00751)
2014-12-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,924,587 Issued
2015-02-02 IPR Petition Filed against ’511 Patent (IPR2015-00663)
2015-07-13 IPR Petition Filed against ’893 Patent (IPR2015-01579)
2015-12-14 Defendant allegedly initiated licensing discussions with Plaintiff
2016-03-01 Plaintiff allegedly cited ’511, ’661, and ’893 patents in correspondence to Defendant
2016-10-01 Second IPR Petition Filed against ’661 Patent (IPR2017-00001)
2018-05-08 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511 - “Wireless Communications Networks For Providing Remote Monitoring Of Devices,” issued September 5, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the prohibitive cost and complexity associated with developing and installing the hard-wired infrastructure for automated monitoring systems, which require interconnecting numerous distributed sensors and actuators with a local controller (U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511, col. 2:8-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a cost-effective wireless network where remote devices are equipped with low-power wireless transceivers. These transceivers not only transmit their own sensor data but also act as repeaters for signals from other transceivers, creating a mesh network that extends communication range without increasing power. A central "site controller" manages this local network and bridges communication to a host computer over a wide area network like the Internet (U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511, Abstract; col. 5:25-34).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture describes a foundational wireless mesh network, a crucial enabling technology for scalable, low-power "Internet of Things" deployments where direct communication from every device to a central hub is impractical or inefficient (Compl. ¶9, 11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29, 30).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A wireless communication network for monitoring and controlling remote devices via a host computer connected to a wide area network.
    • A plurality of wireless transceivers, each having a unique identifier.
    • Each transceiver is configured to receive a sensor data signal and transmit an original data message comprising the identifier and sensor data.
    • Each transceiver is further configured to receive an original data message from another transceiver and transmit a repeated data message.
    • A site controller that communicates with at least one transceiver, receives the original and repeated data messages, identifies the associated remote device, and provides the information to the wide area network for the host computer.

U.S. Patent No. 7,468,661 - “Systems And Methods For Monitoring And Controlling Remote Devices,” issued December 23, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the significant cost of the sensor/actuator infrastructure required for control systems, including the expense of hard-wiring devices to a local controller and the operational costs of programming that controller (U.S. Patent No. 6,914,893, col. 1:56-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for remote control where a computer on a Wide Area Network (WAN) generates a control signal. This signal is sent through a local gateway, transmitted wirelessly to a first transceiver that is itself connected to an actuator, and which can then retransmit the signal to a final "target remote device." This enables a command to propagate through a multi-hop wireless network to control a device at the edge of the network (U.S. Patent No. 7,468,661, col. 8:36-42; Claim 9).
  • Technical Importance: The technology details the command-and-control pathway for actuating remote devices over a wireless mesh network, a critical function for implementing responsive "smart" systems in fields like building automation and industrial controls (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶36, 37).
  • Essential elements of claim 9 include:
    • A system for controlling a remote device, comprising a target remote device with an actuator.
    • A computer on a WAN that generates a control signal.
    • A gateway connected to the WAN to receive and translate the control signal.
    • A wireless transmitter coupled to the gateway to transmit a wireless signal containing the control signal.
    • A first wireless transceiver, interfaced with an actuator, which receives the wireless signal and retransmits it to the target remote device.
    • Logic on the target remote device for extracting the control signal from the retransmitted signal and imparting an action on its actuator.

U.S. Patent No. 6,914,893 - “System And Method For Monitoring And Controlling Remote Devices,” issued July 5, 2005

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,914,893, “System And Method For Monitoring And Controlling Remote Devices,” issued July 5, 2005 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’893 Patent describes a system for communication between remote devices that uses preformatted message packets. This standardized packet structure, containing fields for receiver/sender addresses, commands, data values, and error detection, is intended to ensure reliable data exchange within a wireless network of geographically remote transceivers managed by a controller (Compl. ¶43; U.S. Patent No. 6,914,893, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43, 44).
  • Accused Features: The Lightcloud system’s alleged use of Zigbee devices to communicate via preformatted messages across a distributed mesh network (Compl. ¶20, 44).

U.S. Patent No. 7,263,073 - “Systems And Methods For Enabling A Mobile User To Notify An Automated Monitoring System Of An Emergency Situation,” issued August 28, 2007

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,263,073, “Systems And Methods For Enabling A Mobile User To Notify An Automated Monitoring System Of An Emergency Situation,” issued August 28, 2007 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’073 Patent claims a mobile communication device designed to interact with a fixed automated monitoring system. The device can generate and transmit a message containing its unique identifier over the system's wireless network, allowing a mobile user to trigger an alert or command that is received by the system's site controller (Compl. ¶50; U.S. Patent No. 7,263,073, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50, 51).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Lightcloud networked lighting control products that include Zigbee devices of infringement, without specifying which component constitutes the claimed "mobile communication device" (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 6,836,737 - “Systems And Methods For Providing Remote Monitoring Of Consumption For A Utility Meter,” issued December 28, 2004

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,836,737, “Systems And Methods For Providing Remote Monitoring Of Consumption For A Utility Meter,” issued December 28, 2004 (Compl. ¶56).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’737 Patent is directed to a communication device for use in an automated utility monitoring system. The device interfaces with a utility meter to receive consumption data, retrieves a unique identifier from memory, generates a transmit message containing both, and sends it over a wireless network. The device is also configured to retransmit messages from other similar devices (Compl. ¶57; U.S. Patent No. 6,836,737, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57, 58).
  • Accused Features: The Lightcloud system, which includes lighting control products that allegedly monitor energy consumption and communicate that data over a wireless mesh network (Compl. ¶19, 58).

U.S. Patent No. 8,924,587 - “Systems And Methods For Controlling Communication Between A Host Computer And Communication Devices,” issued December 30, 2014

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,924,587, “Systems And Methods For Controlling Communication Between A Host Computer And Communication Devices,” issued December 30, 2014 (Compl. ¶63).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’587 Patent claims a site controller for use in a wireless network. The controller is configured to receive data messages from remote wireless transceivers, identify the remote devices associated with the data, provide this information to a wide area network, and also determine and store the upstream and downstream communication paths for the transceivers in its network (Compl. ¶64). This addresses the network management and routing functions of a central controller.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 3 (Compl. ¶64, 65).
  • Accused Features: The “Lightcloud Gateway,” which is alleged to be the "brain" of the accused system that manages the wireless devices and communicates with Defendant's servers (Compl. ¶19, 65).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s “Lightcloud” line of wireless lighting control systems and components (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Lightcloud system is described as a networked lighting control system for commercial and residential locations (Compl. ¶15, 22). The system comprises components such as a “Lightcloud Gateway,” “Lightcloud Controller,” “Lightcloud Sensor,” “Lightcloud Dimmer,” and “Lightcloud Touch” touchscreen (Compl. ¶19). Functionally, the system operates as a “distributed mesh network” where devices communicate with each other using integrated radios operating on IEEE 802.15.4 standards, which allegedly employ Zigbee devices (Compl. ¶20, 21). A “Lightcloud Gateway” is described as the “brain” of the system, managing the wireless devices and communicating with RAB’s servers via a private cellular connection (Compl. ¶19). The complaint alleges Defendant is a “market leader” with annual net sales exceeding $50 million (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a plurality of wireless transceivers having unique identifiers... The Lightcloud system consists of devices containing integrated radios (transceivers) operating to IEEE 802.15.4 standards, which employ unique identifiers. ¶20, 21, 30 col. 23:26-27
...each of the plurality of wireless transceivers configured to receive a sensor data signal from one of the plurality of remote devices and transmit an original data message... Lightcloud products include sensors, such as motion or daylight sensors, that detect conditions and transmit data via the mesh network. ¶19 col. 23:28-31
...and further configured to receive the original data message using the predefined communication protocol, the repeated data message... The Lightcloud system operates as a "distributed mesh network," where devices communicate with each other, implying they receive and repeat messages from other nodes. ¶20 col. 23:36-40
a site controller in communication with at least one of the plurality of wireless transceivers, the site controller configured to receive the original data messages and the repeated data messages... The "Lightcloud Gateway" is the "brain" of the system that "manage[s] the wireless devices" and communicates with them. ¶19 col. 23:41-44
...and provide information related to the sensor data signal to the wide area network for delivery to the host computer. The Lightcloud Gateway "communicates with RAB's servers by a private cellular connection." ¶19 col. 23:44-46
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether every accused "wireless transceiver" (e.g., every Lightcloud Sensor, Dimmer, Controller) is configured to perform the dual functions of both transmitting an original data message and repeating a data message from another transceiver, as required by the claim.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused Lightcloud devices, which operate on the IEEE 802.15.4 standard, necessarily implement the specific repeating functionality required by claim 1? While mesh networking is alleged, the specific behavior of each node type could be a point of factual dispute.

U.S. Patent No. 7,468,661 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a target remote device having an actuator to be controlled; The Lightcloud system includes devices like dimmers and controllers that control lighting circuits (actuators). ¶19 col. 19:45-46
a computer configured to... generate... at least one control signal... said computer integrated with a wide area network (WAN); RAB's servers, connected to the internet (WAN), generate control signals for the Lightcloud system. ¶19 col. 19:47-50
a gateway connected to the WAN configured to receive and translate the at least one control signal The "Lightcloud Gateway" communicates with RAB's servers via a cellular connection (part of the WAN) and manages the local wireless devices. ¶19 col. 19:51-53
a wireless transmitter coupled with the gateway for transmitting a wireless signal... The Lightcloud Gateway contains an integrated radio to communicate wirelessly with other Lightcloud devices. ¶19, 21 col. 19:54-56
a first wireless transceiver electrically interfaced with an actuator for receiving the wireless signal and further retransmitting the wireless signal to the target remote device; The Lightcloud system is alleged to operate as a mesh network where devices like controllers and dimmers receive wireless signals to control local circuits (actuators) and also retransmit signals to other devices. ¶19, 20 col. 19:57-61
logic coupled to the target remote device for extracting the control signal...and imparting an action on the actuator... Lightcloud devices such as dimmers contain logic to interpret control signals and execute actions like dimming or switching a light. ¶19 col. 20:1-4
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does the claim's specific architecture—requiring a "first wireless transceiver" that is both interfaced with an actuator and retransmits the signal to a separate "target remote device"—read on the Lightcloud system? The defendant may argue its system uses simpler repeaters without actuators, or that end-devices with actuators do not retransmit signals.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide for this specific, multi-hop control flow? The infringement allegation may depend on a detailed network topology that is not described in the complaint, raising the question of whether discovery will substantiate this particular claimed method of operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "site controller" (from ’511 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the central hub of the claimed local wireless network. Infringement of the ’511 and ’587 patents hinges on whether the accused "Lightcloud Gateway" meets the definition of a "site controller." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether a simple gateway device falls within the claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself defines the site controller functionally: it must be "in communication with at least one... wireless transceiver," "configured to receive the original data messages and the repeated data messages," and "provide information... to the wide area network" (U.S. Patent No. 7,103,511, col. 23:41-46). This could support a broad, function-based definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the related ’737 patent describes a site controller as comprising specific components like a CPU, memory, and various network interface devices, and performing functions like analyzing transmissions and converting them to TCP/IP format (U.S. Patent No. 6,836,737, col. 6:1-6, Fig. 4). This could support a narrower definition requiring more than just gateway functionality.

The Term: "a first wireless transceiver electrically interfaced with an actuator for receiving the wireless signal and further retransmitting the wireless signal to the target remote device" (from ’661 Patent, claim 9)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation describes a specific type of network node that is not merely a repeater but also performs an action itself before relaying the command. This is a potential choke point for infringement, as the defendant may argue its network nodes are either simple repeaters (without local actuators) or end-devices (which do not retransmit).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the related ’893 patent describes a system of "integrated transceivers" connected to sensors/actuators and "stand-alone transceivers" acting as repeaters (U.S. Patent No. 6,914,893, col. 4:24-34). A plaintiff might argue this claim element simply describes an "integrated transceiver" that is also programmed to act as a repeater, a common function in mesh networks.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The distinct descriptions of "stand-alone" repeaters and "integrated" sensor/actuator transceivers in the specification could be used to argue that the patentee viewed these as separate roles. A defendant might argue that this claim limitation requires a single device to embody a specific combination of these distinct roles in a specific sequence—receive, actuate locally, and then retransmit to a different target—which its devices do not perform.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges contributory infringement for all six asserted patents. The basis is the allegation that the Lightcloud products are a material part of the patented systems, are especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶32, 39, 46).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It asserts that Defendant initiated licensing discussions with Plaintiff on December 14, 2015, and that Plaintiff subsequently provided Defendant with sample claim charts for the ’511, ’661, and ’893 patents (Compl. ¶23, 69). It further alleges that Defendant was made aware of the remaining patents-in-suit and failed to advance any non-infringement arguments during the two years of discussions (Compl. ¶24, 71).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core technical issue will be one of architectural equivalence: does the accused Lightcloud system's operational topology—specifically the functions performed by its Gateway, Controllers, and end-point devices—map onto the specific multi-hop, receive-actuate-retransmit architecture required by key asserted claims like Claim 9 of the ’661 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in its method of operation?
  • A key claim construction question will be one of definitional scope: will the term "site controller," described functionally in the claims but with specific hardware in the specification, be construed broadly to cover any gateway bridging a local wireless network to a WAN, or will it be limited to a device possessing the more complex processing and path-management logic detailed in the patents?
  • Given the allegations of pre-suit notice including the provision of claim charts, a central issue for damages will be willfulness: can Plaintiff establish that Defendant acted despite an objectively high likelihood of infringement of valid patents, a risk that was either known or so obvious it should have been known, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages?