Sensor360 LLC v. Litum Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Litum Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-4371, S.D. Tex., 11/19/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the Southern District of Texas and having committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sensor products infringe a patent related to self-organizing, adaptive sensor networks where individual modules can dynamically switch between sensing and controlling roles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns networks of deployable sensors, used for applications like military surveillance or disaster relief, which can autonomously organize and adapt to their environment.
• 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”

• 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 describes the need for a rapidly deployable sensor system for monitoring environments like a battlefield, which avoids the risks of human reconnaissance and the limitations of then-current sensor networks (Compl. ¶9; ’076 Patent, col. 1:9-22). Existing networks were often vulnerable because they relied on distinct, dedicated "control modules" that, if disabled, would render a portion of the network useless (’076 Patent, col. 1:40-57).
• 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 processor that determines whether it should operate in a "sensing mode" to detect events or a "controlling mode" to receive and process data from other sensor modules (’076 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-34). This creates a "self organising adaptive network" where any module can potentially take over control functions, enhancing network robustness and flexibility (’076 Patent, col. 2:34-36; col. 3:28-33).
• Technical Importance: This dual-mode, self-organizing approach allows for a more resilient and adaptable sensor network that can be deployed randomly (e.g., by air drop) and still function effectively, as it does not depend on a few pre-designated, vulnerable control nodes (’076 Patent, col. 3:33-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" identified in an attached exhibit but does not specify claim numbers in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1: A 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 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '076 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Based on this, the accused instrumentalities are alleged to be sensor products that operate within a network, communicate with each other, and possess processing capabilities. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' specific functionality or market context. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts, instead incorporating by reference charts from an unfiled "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint's allegations is not possible.

The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports "Exemplary Defendant Products" that satisfy all elements of one or more claims of the ’076 Patent (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). The core of the allegation is that these products function as part of an adaptive sensor network that practices the patented dual-mode operation.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products, which may be part of a modern distributed sensor system, operate in distinct "sensing" and "controlling" modes as claimed. The dispute may focus on whether a device that relays data is performing the functions of a "controlling mode" as described in the patent, which includes receiving and potentially processing information from other sensor modules (’076 Patent, col. 2:60-64).
• Technical Questions: The complaint's theory requires that the accused products' processors "determine" which mode to operate in. A key factual question will be what evidence exists that the accused products autonomously make this determination, as opposed to being manually configured or operating in a fixed, predefined role. The patent suggests this determination can be based on factors like module location, density, or power levels (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-19; col. 3:5-17).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "controlling mode"

• Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the invention's novelty. The infringement analysis will depend on whether an accused product is found to operate in a mode that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether modern distributed network architectures, which may involve data aggregation or relaying, fall within the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Dependent Claim 4 states that in the controlling mode, the processor "receives information from other sensor modules and transmits information regarding events to a base station" (’076 Patent, col. 8:40-44). This could be argued to cover any module that acts as an intermediary or data aggregator.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the controlling module as potentially performing analysis on "raw data" received from other sensor modules, not just relaying it (’076 Patent, col. 2:51-54). A defendant could argue this implies a more sophisticated processing function than simple data forwarding.

• Term: "determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode"

• Context and Importance: This term requires an active, decision-making function by the processor. A finding of infringement requires showing the accused product performs this "determination," not merely having the latent capability to operate in different modes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify how the determination must be made, potentially allowing for a wide range of methods.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides several examples of factors the processor may consider, such as "the location of the module with the location of other modules," "the density of sensor modules," and its own power level (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-19; col. 3:10-14). A party could argue that "determine" requires an assessment based on such dynamic network conditions, rather than a pre-programmed or static assignment.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’076 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "controlling mode," as described in the patent, be construed to cover the functionality of the accused products? The case may depend on whether simply relaying or aggregating data from other nodes in a modern sensor network is equivalent to the patent's concept of receiving and processing information to control a part of the network.
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of autonomous function: What evidence will show that the accused products' processors "determine" their own roles within the network? The plaintiff will need to demonstrate that the products perform an active, dynamic assessment to switch between modes, as opposed to being manually configured or operating in static, pre-assigned roles.
3. A threshold issue will be factual clarity: Given the complaint’s reliance on an unfiled exhibit to identify the accused products and map them to the claims, a primary task for the plaintiff will be to provide specific factual allegations detailing precisely which products are accused and how their architecture and software perform the functions required by the asserted claims.