Sensor360 LLC v. Ubibot

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: UBiBot USA (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-04402, S.D. Tex., 11/21/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Texas because the Defendant is incorporated in Texas and maintains an established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sensor products infringe a patent related to a self-organizing network of sensor modules capable of dynamically switching between sensing and controlling roles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns deployable sensor networks used for area monitoring, where individual nodes can autonomously adapt their function to optimize network performance and robustness.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review 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 the need for a rapidly deployable sensor system for monitoring events over a wide area, particularly in military applications (Compl. ¶9; ’076 Patent, col. 1:10-14). Traditional systems using distinct "sensor modules" and "control modules" are described as vulnerable, because if a dedicated control module is disabled or its power is exhausted, the sensor modules it controls become useless (’076 Patent, col. 1:49-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single type of sensor module that incorporates a processor enabling it to operate 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; col. 1:29-34). Each module can communicate with others and determine for itself which mode to operate in, creating a "self organising adaptive network" that is more flexible and resilient than networks with fixed-role components (’076 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:60-64).
• Technical Importance: This dual-mode, self-organizing architecture was designed to increase the robustness and lifespan of a deployed sensor network by eliminating single points of failure associated with dedicated control units (’076 Patent, col. 3:17-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims, instead referring to "Exemplary '076 Patent Claims" detailed in an attached Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, 16).
• Independent Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim and contains the following essential elements:
  • 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 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 but refers generally to "one or more claims of the '076 Patent" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products by name in the main body of the document. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in charts within the un-filed Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context, other than to allege that they "practice the technology claimed by the '076 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an un-filed Exhibit 2 to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶16-17). As the charts are not available, a table cannot be constructed.

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports "Exemplary Defendant Products" that directly infringe one or more claims of the ’076 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The complaint asserts that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '076 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The infringement allegations are conclusory and rely entirely on the contents of the missing exhibit for factual support.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "controlling mode" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty over prior art sensor networks that used separate, dedicated control modules. The dispute may turn on whether the accused products, which may use a cloud-based or central server architecture, perform functions that fall within the patent's definition of a peer module operating in a "controlling mode."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "controlling mode" function as when the processor "receives information relating to events from the sensor modules, possibly processes the information, and passes anything of interest back to a base station" (’076 Patent, col. 2:60-63). This could be argued to cover any node that aggregates and relays data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes more active control functions, such as deciding to "operate one sensor module in sensor mode, the other being deactivated" to avoid redundancy, or monitoring power levels to have another module "take over when the power of the current controlling sensor module fails" (’076 Patent, col. 2:15-19; col. 3:13-17). This suggests the "controlling mode" requires active network management, not just data aggregation.

The Term: "...processor...is adapted...to determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires that the processor within the sensor module itself makes the decision about its operational mode. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will likely depend on whether the accused devices possess this autonomous decision-making capability, or if their mode is instead set by a central server or user configuration.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the determination can be based on relatively static factors, such as "the location of the module" or "the density of sensor modules in certain areas" (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-7). An accused product that is configured into a mode based on its deployment location could be argued to meet this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a dynamic, ongoing determination process. For example, a processor may "review the situation either periodically or in response to certain occurrences" or switch modes based on "events detected by the sensor modules" (’076 Patent, col. 3:6-9; col. 3:19-25). This language may support a narrower construction requiring real-time, autonomous adaptability that a statically configured device lacks.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’076 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "service of this Complaint...constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willful infringement, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are pleaded. The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶E.i).

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

1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "controlling mode," as described in the patent's specification involving peer-to-peer network management, read on the architecture of the accused products, which may rely on a centralized cloud server for data aggregation and control?
2. A key evidentiary question will concern locus of decision-making: What evidence can be presented to show that the accused sensor modules contain a processor that autonomously "determines" its own operating mode, as required by the claim, rather than being passively configured or commanded by an external server or user?
3. Given the complaint’s reliance on an un-filed exhibit to identify the accused products and provide infringement evidence, an initial procedural question will be whether the complaint, on its face, pleads sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal standard.