Sensor360 LLC v. Apptricity Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Apptricity Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01506, N.D. Tex., 06/17/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to self-organizing sensor networks where individual modules can dynamically switch between sensing and controlling roles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns networks of deployed sensors, such as those used for military surveillance or disaster relief, which must adapt to their environment and organize themselves for efficient data collection and communication.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) 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 Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for rapidly deployable sensor systems for monitoring large areas, particularly in military applications where events like vehicle movement or artillery fire must be located ('076 Patent, col. 1:8-14). Traditional sensor networks with distinct and fixed "sensor" and "control" modules are described as vulnerable; if a central control module is disabled, a portion of the network becomes useless ('076 Patent, col. 1:47-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a network of homogenous sensor modules where each module is capable of operating in either a "sensing mode" to detect events or a "controlling mode" to receive and process data from other modules ('076 Patent, col. 1:24-34). A processor within each module communicates with others in the network to determine which role it should adopt based on factors like its location, the density of other nearby modules, and its remaining power, thus creating a "self organising adaptive network" ('076 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-19). Figure 4 illustrates this concept, showing multiple modules (2a-d) communicating with a module (2e) that may be acting in a controlling capacity.
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a more resilient and flexible sensor network that can adapt to random deployment patterns (e.g., from an air drop) and continue functioning even if some modules are damaged or lose power ('076 Patent, col. 3:28-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "Exemplary '076 Patent Claims" but does not identify specific claim numbers (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, 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 references infringement of "one or more claims of the '076 Patent" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '076 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). It further alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality or market context of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that detailed infringement allegations are contained in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). However, Exhibit 2 was not provided with the complaint document.

In prose, the complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the accused products (Compl. ¶11). The infringement is alleged to be literal or, alternatively, under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11). The complaint asserts that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). Without the claim charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent and the general nature of the allegations, the dispute may center on the following questions:

• Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused products feature a processor that dynamically "determine[s] whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode," as required by claim 1? Does the accused system constitute a "self organising" network in the manner described by the patent?
• Scope Questions: How does the functionality of Defendant's products, which are not described in the complaint, map onto the patent's claims, which are rooted in the context of physically deployed, ruggedized sensor modules for battlefield or disaster-site monitoring?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "sensing mode" / "controlling mode" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The distinction between these two operational modes is the central inventive concept of the patent, enabling a network of identical modules to self-organize. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused products' functionalities can be categorized into these two distinct, selectable modes as claimed. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused products perform a similar dynamic role-switching or operate in a more static or hierarchical fashion.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a general definition, stating that in "sensing mode the processor monitors the output of the at least one sensor in order to detect events," while in "controlling mode the processor receives information relating to events from the sensor modules" and potentially passes it to a base station ('076 Patent, col. 2:26-28, col. 2:60-64). This could support a broad reading covering any system where devices can either primarily gather their own data or primarily process data from other devices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples and influencing factors for the determination, such as comparing module locations, assessing network density, and monitoring power levels ('076 Patent, col. 2:1-19, col. 3:6-16). A party could argue these examples limit the terms to networks that make the determination based on these specific, enumerated criteria, rather than any generic form of role differentiation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on using the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself constitutes actual knowledge of infringement (Compl. ¶13). It alleges that Defendant's continued infringement after receiving the complaint constitutes induced infringement, but it does not explicitly use the term "willful" in its counts or prayer for relief, though it does request damages for "continuing or future infringement" (Compl. ¶D).

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

1. A question of functional architecture: Does the processor in Defendant's accused products perform the specific, two-part function recited in claim 1: first, communicating with other modules, and second, using that communication to determine whether to operate in a "sensing mode" versus a "controlling mode"? The case may turn on whether the accused system possesses this claimed self-organizing, decision-making capability.
2. An evidentiary question of proof: Given the lack of specific product identification in the complaint, a central issue will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that Defendant's unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" actually perform each element of the asserted claims, particularly the dynamic role-selection that is core to the '076 patent.