DCT

2:23-cv-00536

Sensor360 LLC v. Apptricity Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00536, E.D. Tex., 11/21/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant having an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed sensor products infringe a patent related to self-organizing sensor networks that can dynamically assign roles to individual sensor modules.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns networks of deployable sensors, often for military or disaster-relief surveillance, where individual nodes can autonomously decide to act as either data gatherers or data controllers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-09-09 '076 Patent Priority Date
2013-08-13 '076 Patent Issue Date
2023-11-21 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,510,076 - Sensor apparatus and system, issued August 13, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Traditional deployed sensor networks often used two distinct types of devices: simple "sensor modules" to detect events and more complex "control modules" to process data. This created a critical vulnerability; if a control module was damaged or disabled, a whole section of the network would become useless ('076 Patent, col. 1:40-54). This was a particular risk in military applications involving random deployment, such as by air-drop, where the placement and status of any single module could not be guaranteed ('076 Patent, col. 1:10-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single, versatile type of sensor module capable of operating in one of two modes: a "sensing mode" to detect events or a "controlling mode" to receive and process data from other modules. A processor within each module determines which mode to operate in based on factors like its location relative to other modules or its remaining power ('076 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:2-8). This allows the network to self-organize, adapt to changing conditions, and re-assign roles if a module fails, thereby increasing overall network resilience ('076 Patent, col. 3:5-17).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides for a "self organising sensor network that avoids vulnerability and increases flexibility," which is particularly advantageous for rapid deployment scenarios where careful placement is not possible ('076 Patent, col. 3:28-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers, but incorporates by reference charts from an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11, 16). Independent claim 1 is foundational.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A sensor module for use in a sensor network,
    • comprising at least one sensor,
    • a locator for determining the location of the at least one sensor,
    • a transceiver for communicating with other sensor modules and/or a base station,
    • and a processor wherein the processor is adapted, in use, to communicate with other sensor modules and to determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode within the network.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims of the '076 Patent" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" which are allegedly detailed in an attached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, 16). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '076 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" to detail its infringement allegations but does not include this exhibit in the public filing (Compl. ¶16-17). In the absence of the charts, the complaint's narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology of the '076 Patent and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides no specific facts mapping product features to claim limitations in the body of the complaint itself.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase appears in independent claim 1 and captures the core inventive concept of a dynamic, self-organizing network. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused products perform this specific function. Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies an active decision-making process within each module, which may distinguish it from networks with statically assigned roles (e.g., fixed sensors and fixed hubs).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the "determination" can be based on a wide variety of factors, including the module's location, the density of other nearby modules, or environmental conditions ('076 Patent, col. 2:2-25). This could support a construction where the "determination" covers any configuration process, even if performed only once at startup.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes a system that adapts over time. For example, a module may switch from "sensing mode to control mode to take over when the power of the current controlling sensor module fails" ('076 Patent, col. 3:12-15). This language, along with descriptions of the network reorganizing in response to new events ('076 Patent, col. 3:20-27), could support a narrower construction requiring an ongoing, dynamic capability to switch roles in response to changing network conditions.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15). The specific content of these materials is not described but is referenced as being part of the missing Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).

  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that the filing of the complaint itself constitutes "actual knowledge" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

  1. A central question will be one of functional operation: Do the accused products (once identified) contain processors that perform the specific, two-step function recited in claim 1—communicating with other modules and then determining whether to operate in a "sensing mode" or a "controlling mode"—or do they operate with pre-determined or static roles?
  2. A critical issue will be one of claim scope: Does the term "determine," as used in the patent, require a dynamic, ongoing re-evaluation of a module's role in response to changing network conditions, or can it be construed more broadly to cover a one-time role assignment upon network initialization?
  3. An immediate evidentiary question is what specific facts Plaintiff will rely on to connect its infringement theory to Defendant's products. The complaint's reliance on an un-filed exhibit for all technical details of infringement suggests that the sufficiency of the pleadings under prevailing standards may become an early focus of the litigation.