DCT

3:20-cv-01165

Schneider Electric USA Inc v. Company B LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:20-cv-01165, D. Or., 07/20/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Oregon because the Defendant is an Oregon LLC with its principal place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Modular Circuit Monitoring System infringes four patents related to technologies for monitoring, managing, and configuring electrical power systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for monitoring electrical parameters in commercial and industrial facilities, which is critical for energy management, load balancing, and maintaining power reliability in environments like data centers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the founders of Defendant Incusense are former employees of either Plaintiff Schneider USA or Veris Industries, a company acquired by Schneider. This background may be used by the Plaintiff to support allegations of knowledge of the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-01-14 ’267 Patent Priority Date
2007-09-07 ’552 Patent Priority Date
2008-11-18 ’267 Patent Issue Date
2012-12-31 ’899 Patent Priority Date
2013-02-06 ’659 Patent Priority Date
2016-02-23 ’552 Patent Issue Date
2016-05-03 ’659 Patent Issue Date
2017-05-01 Incusense Formation (approx. date)
2017-06-27 ’899 Patent Issue Date
2020-07-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,453,267 - "Branch Circuit Monitoring System"

  • Issued: November 18, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and expense of installing and commissioning traditional current transformers (CTs) on individual branch circuits within an electrical panelboard to monitor for potential overloads (Compl. ¶10; ’267 Patent, col. 1:29-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of modular current sensors that can be installed in panelboards to monitor operating conditions. These modules are designed to gather power parameter data (like current) and communicate that data to a monitoring device or a digital network, with the ability to use various communication protocols (Compl. ¶¶11-12; ’267 Patent, col. 1:55-col. 2:4, col. 8:49-65).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to simplify the installation of branch circuit monitors and provide better local status information to users, thereby improving power management in facilities with numerous electrical circuits (’267 Patent, col. 1:49-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (’267 Patent, col. 12:25-51; Compl. ¶30).
  • Essential elements of claim 18 include:
    • A first current sensor module comprising a first current sensor, a first operating logic, and a first communication module.
    • A second current sensor module comprising a second current sensor, a second operating logic, and a second communication module.
    • The first and second communication modules are operative to communicate in a plurality of protocols, including at least two from a specified list (e.g., BACnet, Modbus).
  • The complaint reserves the right to pursue other claims and versions of the accused product (Compl. ¶83).

U.S. Patent No. 9,270,552 - "Energy Monitoring System Using Network Management Protocols"

  • Issued: February 23, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a disconnect between network management systems (which manage IT equipment) and energy management systems. While network devices report their operational status, they typically cannot measure key electrical power parameters, requiring a separate, independent energy monitoring system (Compl. ¶14; ’552 Patent, col. 1:16-24, 1:29-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an Intelligent Electronic Device (IED) that integrates directly into a network management system. The IED measures power system parameters and uses a "map" to associate its internal "IED variables" with corresponding "network protocol variables." This allows the network management station to query power data using its native protocol, as if it were a standard network metric (’552 Patent, col. 1:63-col. 2:9).
  • Technical Importance: This integration facilitates a unified approach to IT infrastructure and power management, enabling more advanced, automated control and alarming based on real-time energy data (’552 Patent, col. 2:1-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 10-13, with claim 10 being the independent claim (’552 Patent, col. 15:14-31; Compl. ¶41).
  • Essential elements of claim 10 include:
    • A sensor for measuring data.
    • A power management application that records the measured data as a plurality of "IED variables."
    • A management information base (MIB) including "network management protocol variables."
    • A "map" that associates the IED variables with the network management protocol variables.
    • Wherein an IED variable associated with an alarm event is mapped to a network management protocol variable with a "trap command" to notify a network management station.
  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 11, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶¶48-50).

U.S. Patent No. 9,329,659 - "Power Monitoring System That Uses Frequency and Phase Relationship"

  • Issued: May 3, 2016
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the physical limitation of microprocessors in power meters having too few input pins to receive the large number of independent measurements needed for complex power calculations (Compl. ¶19; ’659 Patent, col. 1:53-60). The invention solves this by using a single input to receive a signal that is "simultaneously representative" of multiple underlying signals (e.g., from different sensors), allowing the microprocessor to process more data efficiently (Compl. ¶20; ’659 Patent, col. 3:22-col. 4:18).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5, 9, and 13 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: The accused product's "Core Module" is alleged to have a microprocessor that receives a composite signal from an RJ45 port representing data from multiple sensors, enabling it to perform high-accuracy power calculations (Compl. ¶¶57-58).

U.S. Patent No. 9,689,899 - "Power Meter with Automatic Configuration"

  • Issued: June 27, 2017
  • Technology Synopsis: This invention relates to the physical and mechanical structure of a power monitoring system. It describes an "elongate support board" that holds current sensors and includes electrical traces for signal transmission, an arrangement described as being "efficient and economical" (Compl. ¶22; ’899 Patent, col. 7:9-40).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: The accused product's "Multi-Circuit CT Module" is alleged to embody the claimed physical structure, including its "elongate support board" (green board), split core current sensors, flexible wires, and connectors (Compl. ¶¶70-75). The complaint includes a visual from the accused product's brochure to support this allegation (Compl. ¶70).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Modular Circuit Monitoring System" offered by Incusense (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a system for monitoring electrical power in up to 96 circuits using various types of current transformers (CTs) (Compl. ¶¶32, 35; Compl. Ex. 6 at 1-2). A central "Core Module" provides connectivity via multiple industry-standard protocols, including Modbus and BACnet (Compl. ¶34; Compl. Ex. 6 at 1). The system is marketed with "Intelligent Features" such as a "Predictive Circuit Health Algorithm," "Waveform capture," and "Customizable alarming features" (Compl. ¶44; Compl. Ex. 6 at 1). The complaint alleges that the product is sold to third parties, including Anord Mardix, and was developed by former Schneider employees to compete directly with Schneider's products (Compl. ¶¶26-27). A figure from the product's brochure shows the "Multi-Circuit CT Module" with inputs for 24 CTs and an RJ45 port for data output (Compl. ¶70; Compl. Ex. 6 at 2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’267 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first current sensor module comprising: a first current sensor operative to measure at least one power parameter of a first branch circuit line; a first operating logic coupled with said first current sensor; and a first communication module... The product uses multiple CTs, each on a branch circuit. The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that logic exists on the "green panels" to convert current data, and the combination of the core module and an RJ45 port acts as the communication module. ¶¶32-34 col. 12:28-36
a second current sensor module comprising: a second current sensor operative to measure at least one power parameter of a second branch circuit line... A second CT on a second branch circuit, together with its associated (and inferred) operating logic and communication module components. ¶¶35-37 col. 12:37-43
wherein said first communication module and said second communication module are operative with selective functionality to communicate in a plurality of protocols, comprising at least two of a BACnet protocol, a Profibus protocol... or a Modbus protocol... The accused product's brochure explicitly states it supports "Modbus TCP/IP, RTU, BACnet, WiFi and cellular," thereby meeting the requirement for at least two specified protocols. ¶38 col. 12:44-51

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be the construction of the term "current sensor module." The patent claims require distinct first and second modules, each with its own sensor, logic, and communication components. It is a question whether the accused product's architecture, which appears to have a central "Core Module" and peripheral sensors, meets the claim requirement for two complete, distinct "modules."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the "first operating logic" and "second operating logic" are made "on information and belief" and are not explicitly supported by the product brochure (Compl. ¶33, ¶36). A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates the existence and operation of this distributed logic as distinct elements coupled to each sensor.

’552 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a power management application coupled with the sensor and configured to record the data measured by the sensor The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the product has an "application" that implements the "Intelligent Features" described in the brochure, such as the "Predictive Circuit Health Algorithm." ¶44 col. 15:17-18
a map that associates the plurality of IED variables with the plurality of network management protocol variables The existence of a "map" is inferred as the "most practical way" to implement the product's "customizable alarm features," which require translating internal device conditions to network protocol variables. ¶46 col. 15:24-26
wherein at least one of the IED variables is associated with an alarm event ... and is mapped ... with a trap command that notifies the network management station The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that for the "Customizable alarming features" to be useful, they must be configured to result in a "trap command" to notify a system operator of an alarm condition. ¶47 col. 15:27-31

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the accused product's functions constitute a "map" and a "trap command" as those terms are understood in the art and defined by the patent. The defendant may argue that its product achieves similar results through a different, non-infringing technical mechanism that does not use a "map" or "trap command" as claimed.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory for this patent relies heavily on allegations made "on information and belief" regarding the internal software architecture of the accused product (Compl. ¶¶44, 46, 47). A central evidentiary question will be whether discovery uncovers software code or technical documents that prove the existence of the claimed "application," "map," and "trap command."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"current sensor module" (’267 Patent, cl. 18)

  • Context and Importance: The claim requires two distinct "modules." The defendant may argue its product has a single, centralized logic/communication module connected to multiple simple sensors, rather than multiple complete "sensor modules." The construction of this term is therefore critical to determining if the accused product's architecture infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the modules functionally, stating they can be "employed on one or more respective branch circuit lines" (’267 Patent, col. 2:58-59), which may support an interpretation not strictly tied to a single physical housing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An embodiment is described where the components "may be enclosed in a resin or other type of potting compound that surrounds the CT module" (’267 Patent, col. 4:28-32), suggesting a self-contained, physically distinct unit.

"map" (’552 Patent, cl. 10)

  • Context and Importance: Infringement of the ’552 patent hinges on whether the accused product contains a "map" that associates internal device variables with network protocol variables. The complaint infers its existence. The technical meaning of "map" will be a central point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific definition in the specification, which could allow a plaintiff to argue for a broad, functional meaning that covers any form of data translation between the two specified variable types.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent depicts a distinct "Mapper" component (402), and the detailed description refers to a "mapper configured to associate" the variables (’552 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 10:38-41). This may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, identifiable data structure or software module.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • For all four asserted patents, the complaint includes allegations that could support claims for induced infringement, stating that to the extent Defendant makes the product outside the U.S., it "induces its importation" (Compl. ¶¶28, 39, 51, 66). It also alleges inducement based on providing the product to third parties like Anord Mardix, who would then use it in an infringing manner.

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint does not contain the word "willful," but it seeks enhanced damages and attorney fees, which require a finding of willful or egregious conduct (Compl. ¶103.C, E). The factual basis for this appears to be the allegations that the defendant's founders are former Schneider employees who left to form a competing company, which may be used to argue they had pre-suit knowledge of Schneider's patent portfolio (Compl. ¶¶24-26).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof versus inference. The complaint's infringement theories, especially for the ’552 patent's software claims, depend heavily on allegations made "on information and belief" about the internal workings of the accused product (e.g., the "map" and "trap command"). A key question for the court will be whether discovery produces concrete evidence of these claimed software structures or if the accused product operates on a different, non-infringing technical basis.
  • The case will also likely involve a core question of definitional scope. For the ’267 patent, the outcome may depend on how the court construes the term "current sensor module." The question is whether the accused product's architecture, with its central "Core Module" and separate sensors, can be considered to have the two distinct and complete "modules" required by the claim.
  • Finally, a key question for damages will be the impact of the "departing employee" narrative. The complaint alleges that the defendant's founders came from the plaintiff's organization. The court will have to consider whether this background is sufficient to establish the kind of pre-suit knowledge and egregious conduct necessary to support a finding of willful infringement and justify enhanced damages.