Sensor360 LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Cisco Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: Sensor360 LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 6:23-cv-00806, W.D. Tex., 11/24/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified products from Defendant infringe a patent related to self-organizing sensor networks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns networks of deployable sensors that can autonomously determine their roles, enhancing flexibility and robustness for applications like military surveillance or disaster relief.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint bases its allegations of knowledge and infringement entirely on "attached claim charts and references cited" in exhibits that were not filed with the public complaint. The only basis for willfulness alleged is knowledge derived from the service of the complaint itself.

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: Conventional deployed sensor networks often use two distinct types of devices: simple "sensor modules" to detect events and more powerful, complex "control modules" to process and relay data (’076 Patent, col. 1:39-44). This fixed-role architecture is vulnerable; if a control module is disabled or its power is exhausted, a segment of the network becomes useless (’076 Patent, col. 1:52-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a single, homogenous type of sensor module that contains a processor capable of determining whether it should operate in a "sensing mode" (to detect events) or a "controlling mode" (to aggregate and relay data) (’076 Patent, col. 1:24-34). This decision can be based on factors like the module's location relative to an area of interest, the density of other nearby modules, or its remaining power level (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-17). This creates a "self organising adaptive network" that is more resilient and efficient (’076 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a more flexible and robust sensor network that can adapt to changing conditions and is less susceptible to single points of failure compared to networks with static, specialized nodes (’076 Patent, col. 3:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '076 Patent Claims" identified in an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶11). 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 identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts in an unfiled "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe one or more claims of the ’076 Patent (Compl. ¶11). However, it provides no specific factual allegations to support this conclusion in the body of the complaint. Instead, it states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '076 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and that these charts demonstrate that the products "satisfy all elements" of the claims (Compl. ¶16). As this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This phrase from independent claim 1 captures the core inventive concept of an autonomous, role-switching module. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the functionality of the accused products meets this specific limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the boundary between a standard network device that performs routine network management and a device that infringes by performing the claimed dynamic role determination.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the "determin[ation]" can be based on a wide variety of factors, including "the location of the module," "the density of sensor modules in certain areas," or "the location in terms of environment" (’076 Patent, col. 2:2-25). This could support a reading that covers various forms of network-aware state changes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific triggers for the determination, such as a controlling module running low on power and prompting another module to "take over" (’076 Patent, col. 3:9-16), or a reorganization based on a "reclassified" area of interest (’076 Patent, col. 3:22-26). These embodiments could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to these specific scenarios.

Term: "controlling mode"

• Context and Importance: The definition of "controlling mode" is critical for distinguishing it from the "sensing mode" and from standard data relaying that may occur in any network. Infringement requires the accused device to be capable of operating in both distinct modes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the controlling mode 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. 2:60-64). This could be interpreted to encompass a range of data aggregation and forwarding functions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description distinguishes "control modules" as those that "receive data from the sensor modules for possible analysis and transmission" from simple "sensor modules" that merely "detect events" (’076 Patent, col. 1:40-43). Further, the patent contrasts sending raw data with sending a "short coded transmission" after processing, suggesting the "controlling mode" involves more than simple data pass-through (’076 Patent, col. 2:45-49).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant knowingly selling the accused products to customers for infringing uses "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15). It also references "product literature and website materials" in the unfiled Exhibit 2 that allegedly "direct end users to commit patent infringement" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on alleged "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" arising from "the service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" (Compl. ¶13). This appears to limit the willfulness claim to post-filing conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim limitation requiring a processor to "determine whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode" be construed to read on the general network management, traffic routing, or load-balancing protocols that may be present in Defendant’s products? Or will the court construe the term more narrowly to require the specific, autonomous, environment-aware role-switching between event detection and data aggregation as described in the patent's embodiments?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: As the complaint lacks any specific factual allegations and relies on an unfiled exhibit, the central unknown is what evidence Plaintiff will be able to produce to demonstrate that the yet-unidentified accused products actually perform the dynamic, dual-mode operation required by the patent's claims.