XMARK Corp. v. Inzwa Tech LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xmark Corp. (Canadian corporation with an office in New York)
  • Defendant: Inzwa Technologies LLC (Pennsylvania)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Salmanson Goldshaw, P.C.; Leason Ellis LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00048, E.D. Pa., 01/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining its principal place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s environmental monitoring sensor infringes a patent related to multi-accelerometer vibration sensing systems that can correct for their physical orientation.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns sensors used to monitor ground vibrations for industrial and construction projects, a field where regulatory compliance requires precise and reliable measurements.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority from a 2016 provisional application. The complaint states that the patent marking statute is inapplicable because Plaintiff has not sold products embodying the patented invention.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-03-18	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,794,929
2020-10-06	U.S. Patent No. 10,794,929 Issues
2024-01-08	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,794,929, “System for Vibration Sensing,” issued October 6, 2020 (the “’929 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that traditional vibration sensors, such as geophones, must be buried and precisely leveled in the ground. If the geophone is misaligned beyond a certain tolerance, it will not sense vibrations properly and must be dug up, re-positioned, and re-buried (’929 Patent, col. 1:25-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a vibration sensor that replaces the traditional geophone with accelerometers. Specifically, it uses two different accelerometers—one for low acceleration ranges and another for high acceleration ranges—to achieve a better dynamic range than a single accelerometer (’929 Patent, col. 2:9-16). Crucially, the system includes a data processing circuit that can determine the sensor's physical orientation and apply a software-based "correction factor" to the data, which compensates for any misalignment with the x, y, and z axes. This feature obviates the need for precise physical leveling required by geophones (’929 Patent, col. 3:24-33; col. 4:62-67).
• Technical Importance: The use of orientation-compensating accelerometers was intended to create a sensor that is smaller, more versatile, and less sensitive to installation errors than traditional geophone-based systems (’929 Patent, col. 3:15-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8, as well as dependent claims 6-7 and 15-17 (Compl. ¶21).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a vibration sensor system comprising:
  • a water-proof housing;
  • a low acceleration range accelerometer;
  • a high acceleration range accelerometer;
  • an analog-to-digital conversion circuit providing acceleration data along x-, y- and z-axes; and
  • a data processing circuit that receives the acceleration data, determines the directional orientation of the sensor, and determines a correction factor to compensate for that orientation.
• Independent Claim 8 recites a similar system with a low and high range accelerometer, but requires the data processing circuit to use acceleration data "originating from the low acceleration range accelerometer to calculate velocity."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Veva III environmental monitoring sensor" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Product is a vibration sensor system used in the construction and infrastructure monitoring market (Compl. ¶15).
• The complaint alleges the Veva III sensor is used to collect vibration measurements and transmit that data wirelessly to Defendant’s "Inzwa Cloud" platform, which customers access via the internet to configure the device and monitor the collected data (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The complaint attaches technical specifications for the Accused Product as Exhibits B and C, which are incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart (Exhibit D) that allegedly demonstrates how the Accused Product meets the limitations of claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶22). As this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement alleges that the Accused Product is a vibration sensor system that directly competes with Plaintiff's business and that Inzwa "makes, uses, sells or offers for sale, and imports" the device in the United States (Compl. ¶¶15, 18). The infringement allegations cover direct infringement by Inzwa, as well as induced infringement through Inzwa’s customers who use the device as instructed (Compl. ¶¶30-31). The use of the associated "Inzwa Cloud" platform is presented as part of the infringing activity (Compl. ¶¶19-20).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the complaint and the patent, the infringement analysis may focus on several key questions:
  • Factual Question: Does the Accused Product contain both a low-range and a high-range accelerometer as required by the claims, or does it use a single, wide-range accelerometer?
  • Scope & Technical Question (Claim 1): Does the Accused Product and its associated "Inzwa Cloud" platform collectively perform the function of "determin[ing] the directional orientation of the vibration sensor assembly" and applying a "correction factor" to "compensate"? The case may turn on evidence of the specific algorithms used in the accused system.
  • Technical Question (Claim 8): What evidence shows that the accused system specifically "uses the acceleration data originating from the low acceleration range accelerometer to calculate velocity"? This requires tracing the data flow within the accused system from a specific hardware component (the low-range sensor) to a specific software output (velocity).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "data processing circuit"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to both asserted independent claims. Its construction will determine whether the claimed functions (e.g., determining an orientation correction factor or calculating velocity) must be performed by hardware within the physical sensor unit itself, or whether they can be performed by a remote computer, such as the alleged "Inzwa Cloud" platform (Compl. ¶19).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses that an "interface circuit 102I" can provide raw accelerometer data to a "computer or server 105" for "further calculations" (’929 Patent, col. 4:41-48). This could support an argument that the "data processing circuit" can be a separate, remote server.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and description show the "data processing circuit" as part of the "sensor circuit 102" located within the "housing 101" (’929 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:51-58). The claims recite the "data processing circuit" as a component of the "vibration sensor system," which could be argued to be limited to the physical device.

• The Term: "determines a correction factor to be applied to the acceleration data to compensate for the directional orientation"

• Context and Importance: This limitation in Claim 1 captures a key point of novelty over prior art geophones that require precise physical leveling. The dispute will likely focus on what specific software operations meet the "determines... to compensate" requirement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept broadly, stating that "any misalignment can be calibrated via software by applying a correction factor for each axis" (’929 Patent, col. 3:24-27). This suggests any software-based axis re-mapping could suffice.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the circuit to both "determine[] the directional orientation" and "determine[] a correction factor." A defendant might argue this requires a two-step process where the orientation is first actively sensed (e.g., using gravity as a vector) and then a specific mathematical factor is calculated based on that sensed orientation, as opposed to a simple user-defined setting.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Inzwa induces infringement by providing customers with "detailed instructions, tools and assistance for installing the Accused Product and using the Accused Product and the Inzwa Cloud platform," allegedly with knowledge and specific intent that the customers' use will be infringing (Compl. ¶¶25-26).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Inzwa's infringement is willful, asserting that Inzwa had knowledge of the ’929 Patent "at the latest as of the filing date of this complaint" (Compl. ¶33). The pleading also states willfulness runs from the date Inzwa "first learned of the '929 Patent," preserving the ability to seek enhanced damages for any pre-suit conduct if knowledge can be proven (Compl. ¶32).

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

This dispute appears to center on highly specific, software-implemented functions within a hardware system. The outcome may depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "data processing circuit," as part of the claimed "vibration sensor system," be construed to include processing performed by a remote server (the "Inzwa Cloud"), or is it limited to a processor within the physical sensor housing? The resolution of this question will define the physical boundaries of the accused system.
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what evidence will Plaintiff be able to produce from the accused system’s hardware, firmware, or software source code to demonstrate that it performs the precise, multi-step functions required by the claims, namely determining orientation to apply a correction factor (Claim 1) and using data specifically from a low-range sensor to calculate velocity (Claim 8)?