Sensor360 LLC v. Sewio LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Sewio LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00540, E.D. Tex., 11/21/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products infringe a patent related to a self-organizing, adaptive sensor network apparatus and system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns networks of deployable sensors that can autonomously determine their roles, designed for applications like military surveillance or disaster relief monitoring.
• 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

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,510,076 - "Sensor apparatus and system"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,510,076, "Sensor apparatus and system," issued August 13, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for rapidly deployable sensor systems for area monitoring, particularly in military contexts, that are not dependent on vulnerable, pre-designated "control modules" which, if disabled, would render portions of the network useless (’076 Patent, col. 1:10-22, 1:47-59). Traditional networks with distinct sensor and control units lack flexibility and are susceptible to single points of failure (’076 Patent, col. 1:40-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a sensor module where each module is identical and contains a processor that allows it to communicate with other nearby modules and autonomously determine whether it should operate in a "sensing mode" (to gather data) or a "controlling mode" (to receive, process, and relay data from other modules) (’076 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:23-34). This distributed intelligence creates a "self organising adaptive network" where roles can change based on factors like module location, density, or power levels, as depicted conceptually in Figure 4 (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-12; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This design provides a flexible and resilient sensor network that can be deployed rapidly (e.g., via airdrop) without precise placement, as the network organizes itself to maximize efficiency and coverage after deployment (’076 Patent, col. 3:28-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" but does not specify them in the body of the complaint, instead referring to an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 and Claim 22.
• 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
  • a processor adapted 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
• Independent Claim 22: A sensor network comprising:
  • a plurality of sensor modules, each having a locator, a transceiver, and a processor
  • the network being adapted so that the sensor modules communicate with each other and determine whether each sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). These charts were filed as Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '076 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '076 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). No specific technical functionality of the accused products is described in the complaint itself. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's features or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement claim charts by reference as Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not provided (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The infringement theory is presented in general terms, alleging that Defendant's products directly infringe by practicing the patented technology (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: The complaint's infringement allegations are entirely conclusory and rely on an external exhibit. A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence in discovery to show that the accused products actually perform the functions recited in the claims.
• Technical Question: The core of the invention is the processor's capability to "determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode" (’076 Patent, col. 8:25-34). A key dispute will likely be whether the accused products perform this specific, autonomous, role-determining function, as opposed to a more generic form of network load balancing or task allocation. The patent describes specific criteria for this determination, such as module location, density, and power status, which may inform the scope of this function (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-25; col. 3:8-16).

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 from independent claim 1 captures the central inventive concept of a self-organizing, adaptive network. The definition of these two modes and the nature of the "determination" will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire case hinges on whether the accused products have a comparable dual-mode architecture that is autonomously selected.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose explicit limitations on how the determination is made, only that the processor is "adapted" to do so (’076 Patent, col. 8:29-34). This could support a construction covering any system where nodes can switch between primarily gathering data and primarily managing or relaying data.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides distinct functional descriptions. In "sensing mode," the processor "monitors the output of the at least one sensor to detect events" (’076 Patent, col. 8:41-43). In "controlling mode," the processor "receives information from other sensor modules and transmits information regarding events to a base station" (’076 Patent, col. 8:44-48). A party could argue these specific, distinct functions are required and that the "determination" must be based on factors disclosed in the specification, such as module location, density, or remaining power (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-12; col. 3:8-16).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

• The allegation of willfulness appears to be based exclusively on post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that "Despite such actual knowledge [from service of the complaint], Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell..." infringing products (Compl. ¶14). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patent or infringement are alleged.

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

• A core issue will be one of functional operation: Do the accused products feature the distinct, selectable "sensing" and "controlling" modes as described in the ’076 patent? The case will likely depend on whether discovery shows the accused systems possess an architecture where nodes autonomously determine their primary role (data acquisition vs. data management/relay) based on network conditions.
• A second issue will be evidentiary and procedural: Given that the complaint lacks any specific factual allegations linking accused product features to claim limitations, a key question is whether Plaintiff can substantiate its conclusory infringement theory. The sufficiency of the initial pleading itself may become a point of early dispute.