Sensor360 LLC v. Beijing Geekplus Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Beijing Geekplus Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00003, E.D. Tex., 01/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the defendant is a foreign corporation, and further asserts that the defendant has committed acts of patent infringement and caused harm within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to a self-organizing sensor network where individual modules can dynamically switch between sensing and controlling roles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns distributed sensor networks, which are significant for applications requiring wide-area monitoring, such as military surveillance or disaster relief, where network resilience and adaptability are critical.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving 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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Traditional deployed sensor networks often use two distinct types of modules: simple sensor modules to detect events and more complex, power-intensive control modules to process and relay data. This architecture creates a vulnerability, as disabling a single control module can render a portion of the network useless (’076 Patent, col. 2:41-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, multi-functional sensor module designed for a "self organising adaptive network" (’076 Patent, Abstract). Each module contains a sensor, a locator (e.g., GPS), a transceiver, and a processor. The processor is adapted to communicate with other modules and determine whether its own module should operate in a "sensing mode" (to detect events) or a "controlling mode" (to receive and process data from other modules) based on factors like its location relative to others or the density of modules in an area (’076 Patent, col. 2:28-34, col. 2:66-3:9). This allows the network to dynamically adapt its structure for resilience and efficiency.
• Technical Importance: This approach creates a more robust and flexible sensor network by eliminating the single point of failure associated with fixed, dedicated control modules (’076 Patent, col. 3:28-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim defining the sensor module.
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’076 Patent recites the following essential elements:
  • 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" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts incorporated as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific features or functionality, as this information is allegedly contained in Exhibit 2, which was not filed publicly with the complaint (Compl. ¶17). The complaint contains no descriptions of how the accused products operate. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’076 Patent and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges direct infringement through Defendant's making, using, selling, and importing of these products, as well as through internal testing by employees (Compl. ¶11-12). Without access to the claim charts or a description of the accused products, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether Defendant's products, which are not described in the complaint, constitute a "sensor network" in which individual "sensor modules" operate as claimed.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute may center on whether the processors in Defendant's products perform the specific claimed function of determining "whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode." The complaint provides no facts to support how or if this determination occurs in the accused products.

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 Claim 1 is the central inventive concept. The definition of these modes and the act of "determining" which one to enter will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a dynamic, decision-making capability within each module, rather than a static, pre-configured function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides functional definitions. "In sensing mode, the processor monitors the output of the at least one sensor in order to detect events" (’076 Patent, col. 2:26-27). In "controlling mode," the processor "receives information relating to events from the sensor modules, possibly processes the information, and passes anything of interest back to a base station" (’076 Patent, col. 2:60-64). A plaintiff may argue these functional descriptions should apply broadly to any system with distributed sensing and data aggregation roles.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the determination as part of a "self organising adaptive network" created from physically deployed modules, for example after being air-dropped (’076 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:10-16). A defendant may argue that the terms are limited by this context and require the modules to autonomously re-organize the network structure itself, not merely switch between processing local data versus relayed data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that at least since being served with the complaint, Defendant has knowingly sold products for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15). It further alleges that Defendant's "product literature and website materials," referenced in Exhibit 2, instruct end users on how to use the products in a way that infringes (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "sensing mode" and "controlling mode," which are described in the patent's context of a physically deployed, self-organizing surveillance network, be construed to cover the functionalities of Defendant's commercial products?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what evidence will Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused products' processors perform the specific, active step of "determin[ing] whether" to operate in one mode or the other, as opposed to operating in statically assigned or parallel roles?
• A central procedural question will be the sufficiency of the pleadings: given that all technical details of the infringement allegations are confined to an external exhibit, the initial stages of the case may focus on whether the complaint itself provides sufficient notice of the basis for Plaintiff's claims.