Sensor360 LLC v. Leishen Intelligent System Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Leishen Intelligent System Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00006, E.D. Tex., 01/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sensor products infringe a patent related to self-organizing, adaptive sensor networks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns networks of deployable sensors, such as those used for military surveillance or disaster relief, that can autonomously determine their roles to efficiently monitor an area.
• 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"

• Patent Identification: 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 addresses the need for a rapidly deployable sensor system for monitoring extended areas, such as a battlefield, to identify and locate events without the risks associated with human reconnaissance teams (Compl. ¶9; ’076 Patent, col. 1:9-22). Conventional sensor networks often relied on distinct types of modules for sensing and control, creating vulnerabilities if a critical control module was disabled (’076 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single type of sensor module capable of performing one of two roles within a network. Each module contains a sensor, a location-determining component (e.g., GPS), a transceiver, and a processor (’076 Patent, col. 1:26-34). The processor’s key function is to communicate with other nearby modules and determine whether its own module should operate in a "sensing mode" (actively detecting events) or a "controlling mode" (relaying and processing data from other modules) (’076 Patent, col. 1:30-34). This allows the network to self-organize and adapt based on module density, location, or power levels, creating a more robust and flexible system (’076 Patent, col. 2:5-25, 3:1-29).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides for a "self organising sensor network that avoids vulnerability and increases flexibility," particularly where modules are deployed randomly, such as by air drop or artillery shell (’076 Patent, col. 3:27-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," referencing "Exemplary ’076 Patent Claims" in an attached Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A sensor module for use in a sensor network, the sensor module 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific details on the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges, through incorporation of the unprovided Exhibit 2, that the products "practice the technology claimed by the ’076 Patent" (Compl. ¶ 16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations are made by incorporating by reference "the claim charts of Exhibit 2," which was not provided (Compl. ¶ 17). The complaint itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to features of an accused product. It makes only the conclusory statement that the "Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’076 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶ 16). As such, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the complaint body.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific allegations, the primary points of contention will likely emerge during discovery. Based on the patent's claims, key questions may include:
  • Scope Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused products contain a "processor" that is "adapted... to determine" its operational mode? Does a pre-configured or static role assignment meet this limitation, or does the claim require a dynamic, in-field determination as described in the specification?
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused system actually feature modules that can switch between a "sensing mode" (monitoring its own sensors) and a "controlling mode" (receiving and processing data from other modules)? What is the evidentiary basis for this allegation of dual-mode functionality?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim term disputes. However, based on the technology, the following term from claim 1 is central.

• The Term: "determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode"
• Context and Importance: This functional language appears to be the core of the invention, distinguishing it from networks with fixed-role devices. The definition of "determine" will be critical. The central dispute will likely be whether this requires an active, autonomous decision-making process by the module in the field, or if it can be satisfied by a module that is simply configured to operate in one of two possible modes based on pre-set conditions.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the processor to be "adapted... to determine," which could be argued to cover a processor with built-in logic that results in a certain mode of operation upon deployment, even if that logic is simple. The specification notes that factors for this determination "may include the location of the module" or "the density of sensor modules in certain areas," which could be assessed upon startup (’076 Patent, col. 1:66-2:9).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a dynamic and ongoing process. It suggests the module may "review the situation either periodically or in response to certain occurrences," such as another module running out of power or being destroyed, and then switch modes to "take over" (’076 Patent, col. 3:6-18). This language may support a construction requiring an active, adaptive capability that responds to changing network conditions post-deployment.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15). The complaint references an unprovided Exhibit 2 for further details on these materials (Compl. ¶ 14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it pleads a basis for post-suit willfulness. It alleges that the service of the complaint itself "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that "Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14).

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

1. A primary issue will be one of evidentiary support: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations and relies on an unprovided exhibit, a threshold question is what evidence Plaintiff will produce to show that Defendant’s unnamed products actually perform the dual-mode, self-organizing functions required by the asserted claims.
2. The central legal question will be one of claim scope: The case will likely turn on the construction of the phrase "determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode." The court will need to decide whether this limitation requires a dynamic, in-field, adaptive capability, as described in the patent’s preferred embodiments, or if it can be met by a device with a more static, pre-configured logic for selecting its role.