Sensor360 LLC v. Teradyne Robotics As

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Teradyne Robotics A/S (Denmark)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00008, E.D. Tex., 01/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to a self-organizing sensor network where individual modules can adaptively switch between sensing and controlling roles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns deployable, ad-hoc sensor networks, particularly those used for area surveillance and event detection in environments where network structure may be unpredictable.
• 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

• Issued: August 13, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for rapidly deployable sensor systems for monitoring large areas, such as military battlefields, to detect events like vehicle movement or artillery fire (’076 Patent, col. 1:8-14). Conventional networks of that era often used two distinct types of modules: simple "sensor modules" and more complex "control modules." This created a vulnerability, as disabling a single control module could render an entire section of the network useless (’076 Patent, col. 1:40-57).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single type of sensor module capable of operating in one of two modes: a "sensing mode" to detect events or a "controlling mode" to receive and process data from other modules (’076 Patent, Abstract). Each module contains a processor that communicates with other modules in the network and determines which role it should adopt based on circumstances like its location, the density of nearby modules, or its remaining power level (’076 Patent, col. 1:60-65, col. 2:1-12). This allows for the creation of a "self organizing adaptive network" that is more resilient and flexible than networks with fixed-role components (’076 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a more robust and adaptable sensor network architecture by eliminating the single point of failure associated with dedicated control modules.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '076 Patent Claims" in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.

• 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 generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts in an unattached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market position. The allegations are limited to the conclusory statement that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '076 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Based on the patent's subject matter, the accused products are alleged to be devices that operate within a communicating network, possess sensors, and have processors that manage their operational roles.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges that this exhibit contains charts comparing the "Exemplary '076 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16). Without this exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone. The narrative theory is that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '076 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products, presumably commercial robotics, can be said to operate in distinct "sensing" and "controlling" modes as contemplated by the patent. The patent describes the "controlling mode" as receiving and processing information from other modules for potential transmission to a base station (’076 Patent, col. 1:42-45; col. 2:60-64). The dispute may focus on whether the accused products’ data relay or network management functions rise to the level of the claimed "controlling mode."
• Technical Questions: The complaint provides no factual support for how any accused product performs the key claimed function of having its processor "determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode" (’076 Patent, claim 1). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products’ processors perform this specific determination, as opposed to executing pre-programmed or user-directed operational states.

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 from claim 1 is the central inventive concept. The definition of "determine" and the distinction between the two "modes" will likely be dispositive. The plaintiff will need to show that the accused products do more than just switch between "on" and "standby," but rather make a deliberative choice between two functionally distinct roles within the network.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify how the determination must be made, which could support an argument that any process by which the module switches between a primary data-gathering function and a data-relaying/management function meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of factors for this determination, including "the location of the module," "the density of sensor modules in certain areas," and environmental factors (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-26). A defendant may argue that the term "determine" requires an assessment of such dynamic, external factors to select a role, rather than a simple, pre-set change of state. The patent's distinction between simple "sensor modules" and data-processing "control modules" further suggests the two modes are substantively different in function, not just activity level (’076 Patent, col. 1:40-45).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (’076 Patent, Compl. ¶14). The complaint references Exhibit 2 for these materials, which is not attached.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is not explicitly pleaded as a separate count. However, the complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its attached (but missing) claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" and that Defendant's subsequent infringing activities are undertaken "despite such actual 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

1. Functional Architecture: A primary issue will be one of technical and functional mapping: Do the accused commercial products actually implement the specific dual-mode, master/slave-type architecture described in the ’076 Patent, where modules autonomously "determine" their roles, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their network operation?
2. Claim Scope and the Meaning of "Determine": The case will likely hinge on claim construction, specifically the scope of the phrase "determine whether the...module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode." The question for the court will be whether this requires a dynamic, situational assessment as described in the specification, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any automated switching between operational states.
3. Evidentiary Basis: Given that the complaint's substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within an unattached exhibit, a threshold procedural question will be how the plaintiff substantiates its claims. The case's progression will depend on the factual details of the accused products' operation that are eventually introduced into the record.