Sensor360 LLC v. Flexqube Europe Ab

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: FlexQube Europe AB (Sweden)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00004, E.D. Tex., 01/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to self-organizing sensor networks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns networks of deployable sensors where individual sensor modules can dynamically determine whether to act as data collectors ("sensing mode") or data aggregators/processors ("controlling mode").
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review 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"

Issued August 13, 2013 (the "’076 Patent")

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for rapidly deployable sensor systems for monitoring large areas, particularly in military contexts, to detect events like vehicle movement or artillery fire (’076 Patent, col. 1:9-14). Traditional networks often relied on two distinct types of devices—sensor modules and control modules—making the network vulnerable if a dedicated control module was disabled or destroyed (’076 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single type of sensor module capable of operating in one of two modes: a "sensing mode" for detecting events or a "controlling mode" for receiving, processing, and relaying data from other modules (’076 Patent, col. 1:60-65). Each module's processor communicates with others in the network to determine which role it should play based on factors like its location relative to an area of interest, the density of other modules, or its remaining power level, thereby creating a "self organizing adaptive network" (’076 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-25; col. 3:9-14).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to increase the flexibility and robustness of a deployed sensor network by eliminating the single point of failure associated with dedicated control modules (’076 Patent, col. 3:27-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• 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 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.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts within an "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any specific technical details regarding the functionality, features, or operation of the accused products. It alleges only that they "practice the technology claimed by the '076 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No allegations are made regarding the products' commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’076 Patent by satisfying all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). However, it does not provide a claim chart in the body of the complaint, instead incorporating by reference an "Exhibit 2" which is not publicly available (Compl. ¶17). The complaint, therefore, presents a conclusory narrative of infringement without specific factual support mapping product features to claim elements.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A primary issue will be whether discovery reveals that the accused products, once identified, actually contain a processor that performs the claimed function of determining whether to operate in distinct "sensing" and "controlling" modes.
  • Scope Question: The dispute may turn on whether the accused products' functionality meets the specific "sensing mode" and "controlling mode" limitations. For example, a question may arise as to whether general network load-balancing or task-allocation protocols constitute the patented method of determining an operational mode.

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 limitation appears to be the central inventive concept of claim 1, defining the module's "self-organizing" capability. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it dictates the specific type of decision-making required by the module's processor.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the precise algorithm or criteria for making the determination, which may support an interpretation covering any dynamic role assignment within a network.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification defines "sensing mode" as when "the processor monitors the output of the at least one sensor in order to detect events" (’076 Patent, col. 2:26-28) and "controlling mode" as when "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 defendant may argue this requires two distinct, mutually exclusive operational states, and that the determination must be based on factors disclosed in the specification, such as module location, network density, or power levels (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-12; col. 3:9-14).

• The Term: "sensor module"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification is replete with descriptions of a specific physical embodiment: a rugged, physically deployable device designed for gun launch or air drop, with self-righting and telescopic features (’076 Patent, col. 3:44-54; col. 4:1-5). Whether the scope of "sensor module" is limited to such devices or covers any network node with a sensor could be a central issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language of claim 1 itself does not include any limitations regarding the module's physical form factor, ruggedness, or deployment method, suggesting the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent and detailed description of a specific type of physically deployable unit throughout the detailed description could be argued to inform the meaning of the term, potentially limiting its scope to devices with similar physical characteristics and intended uses (’076 Patent, Figs. 1-3; col. 6:5-17).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that since the date of the complaint, Defendant has knowingly induced infringement by selling products and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct users to operate the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges that "service of this Complaint... constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," which may form the basis for a future claim of post-suit willfulness or a request for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶13).

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

• Evidentiary Foundation: The case's viability depends on a threshold evidentiary question: what are the "Exemplary Defendant Products," and does discovery show they implement the dynamic, dual-mode operational architecture required by the claims? The complaint's conclusory allegations, which rely entirely on an unattached exhibit, provide no factual basis for this analysis.
• Definitional Scope: A core legal issue will be the construction of the phrase "determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode." The case may turn on whether this requires two formally distinct and exclusive operational states, as detailed in the patent's embodiments, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover general-purpose task allocation or load-balancing protocols common in networked systems.
• The Embodiment vs. The Claim: The dispute will likely involve the extent to which the detailed physical embodiments described in the patent—rugged, self-righting, air-deployable units—limit the scope of the term "sensor module." The central question will be whether this term can read on standard industrial hardware or if it is implicitly limited to devices sharing the characteristics of the military-focused examples that dominate the specification.