Sensor360 LLC v. Singapore Tech Engineering Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd. (Singapore)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00007, 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, and that Defendant has committed acts of infringement and caused harm in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to self-organizing sensor networks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns networks of deployable sensors that can autonomously determine their roles to monitor events in an environment, a field relevant to military, security, and disaster relief applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events 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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Traditional event detection in environments like battlefields relied on reconnaissance teams, which involved risk and could be slow to deploy. Existing sensor networks often used distinct types of modules for sensing and control, making the network vulnerable if a specialized control module failed. (Compl. ¶9; ’076 Patent, col. 1:8-18, 1:40-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a single type of sensor module capable of performing one of two roles within a network. Each module contains a sensor, a locator (e.g., GPS), a transceiver, and a processor. The processor is designed to communicate with other nearby modules and autonomously "determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode" (to detect events) "or a controlling mode" (to receive and process data from other modules). This allows the network to self-organize, adapt to changing conditions, and remain robust even if some modules are damaged or lose power. (’076 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:24-34).
• Technical Importance: This approach creates an adaptive and resilient sensor network that avoids dependence on pre-designated, specialized control nodes, which were a potential single point of failure. (’076 Patent, col. 1:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '076 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit, without identifying specific claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). The following analysis is based on Independent Claim 1.
• 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 name any specific accused products. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in claim charts provided as Exhibit 2, which is not attached to the filed complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these unnamed products and that its employees internally test them. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement details are provided in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2; however, that exhibit was not filed with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). In lieu of a claim chart summary, the complaint’s narrative theory alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology of the ’076 Patent and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s claims and the general nature of the allegations, the core dispute may center on the functionality of the processor in the accused devices.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the processor in the accused products "determine[s]" its mode of operation, as required by the claim. The dispute could focus on whether this determination must be dynamic and autonomous post-deployment, or if a pre-configured or user-selected mode falls within the claim's scope.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products operate in two distinct modes—a "sensing mode" for detecting events and a "controlling mode" for receiving and processing data from other modules? The case may require technical evidence demonstrating that the accused devices perform this specific dual-role function within a network.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify any terms for construction. However, based on the technology, the following term from Independent Claim 1 appears central to the dispute.

• The Term: "determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode"
• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core "self-organizing" and "adaptive" nature of the claimed invention. The interpretation of "determine" and the functional distinction between the two "modes" will likely be critical to both infringement and validity analyses. Practitioners may focus on this term because it separates the claimed invention from a static network where nodes have fixed roles.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not specify how or when the determination is made, which could support an argument that any process for assigning a mode, even a one-time configuration, meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides several examples of factors that the processor may use to make this determination, such as the module's location relative to an area of interest, the density of other modules, its power level, or its communication environment (e.g., being in a valley). The patent also describes the processor "review[ing] the situation either periodically or in response to certain occurrences" to potentially switch modes, suggesting a dynamic, ongoing process. (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-25; col. 3:5-14). This language may support a narrower construction requiring an autonomous, post-deployment, and potentially recurring decision-making process.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’076 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that service of the complaint and its attached (but unprovided) claim charts constitutes "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant continued its allegedly infringing activities despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). These allegations could form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this dispute, based on the initial pleading, may turn on the following open questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the claim limitation requiring a processor to "determine" its mode of operation? The case may depend on whether this requires a dynamic, autonomous decision-making capability within the accused device, or if a more static, pre-configured role assignment can satisfy the claim.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: Once the accused products are identified, what technical evidence will demonstrate that they actually operate in the claimed dual-mode ("sensing" and "controlling") fashion within a network, as opposed to performing a single, predefined function?