Sensor360 LLC v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sensor360 LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00807, W.D. Tex., 11/25/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" from Microsoft infringe a patent related to self-organizing sensor networks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns networks of distributed sensors that can autonomously determine their roles to optimize data gathering and network resilience, particularly for area surveillance.
• 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 networks for monitoring large areas, such as a battlefield, for events like vehicle movement or artillery fire (Compl. Ex. 1, ’076 Patent, col. 1:10-14). Conventional sensor networks often relied on two distinct types of modules: "sensor modules" to detect events and "control modules" to process data, creating a vulnerability if a control module was disabled or its power was exhausted (’076 Patent, col. 2:38-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, multi-functional sensor module that can operate within a network and dynamically determine whether to act in a "sensing mode" (gathering data) or a "controlling mode" (receiving and processing data from other modules) (’076 Patent, col. 2:23-34). This allows the network to be "self organising" and adaptive, reconfiguring itself based on module location, density, or power levels, thereby increasing network resilience and efficiency (’076 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:2-10).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a method for creating a more robust and flexible sensor network that does not depend on pre-designated, specialized control nodes, making it less susceptible to single points of failure (’076 Patent, col. 3:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '076 Patent Claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is foundational.
• 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 (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts referenced as Exhibit 2, which is not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

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

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an unattached Exhibit 2, which are not available for analysis (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be provided. The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’076 Patent and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '076 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Technical Questions

As the accused products and their specific functionalities are not described in the complaint, it is not possible to identify specific technical questions regarding infringement from the pleading. A central question for the court will be whether discovery reveals that any Microsoft product contains a processor that performs the specific, claimed function of dynamically "determin[ing] whether the sensor module should operate in a sensing mode or a controlling mode."

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 limitation is the central inventive concept. Its construction will define the specific action required of the processor. The dispute will likely hinge on whether the accused products perform this dynamic, decision-making function, or if they operate in a more static or pre-configured manner.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify how the determination must be made, which may support an interpretation covering any method of mode selection.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of the determination process, such as the processor comparing "the location of the module with the location of other modules" or considering "the density of sensor modules in certain areas" or monitoring its own power level (’076 Patent, col. 2:2-10; col. 3:8-12). A defendant may argue these examples limit the scope of "determine" to a specific set of analytical criteria.

Term: "controlling mode"

Context and Importance

The definition of "controlling mode" is critical, as it must be distinct from "sensing mode" for the "determine" limitation to have meaning. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the patented system from conventional networks where nodes may relay data but not perform the specific "control" functions described.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the controlling mode as one where 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 argued to cover a wide range of data aggregation and relay functions.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts "controlling mode" with modules that simply detect events, stating control modules "receive data from the sensor modules for possible analysis and transmission to a base station" and are "different in function" (’076 Patent, col. 2:40-43). This suggests "controlling mode" requires more than simple data forwarding and may imply a supervisory or analytical role over other modules.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶14-15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that the filing of the complaint provides "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is intentional (Compl. ¶¶13-15). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl. p. 5).

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

• A threshold procedural question is whether the complaint's failure to name any specific accused products, instead referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" in an unattached exhibit, satisfies the plausibility requirements for pleading patent infringement under Federal Rules.
• A core claim construction issue will be one of functional scope: what specific actions are required for a processor to "determine" whether it should operate in a "sensing mode" versus a "controlling mode," and is this distinct from standard network load-balancing or data-routing protocols?
• The key evidentiary question for infringement will be one of operational reality: once accused products are identified, does discovery show that they actually perform the patented self-organizing behavior, dynamically and autonomously switching between distinct sensing and controlling roles based on network conditions, as described in the ’076 Patent?