Whereami LLC v. Caterpillar Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Whereami LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Caterpillar Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:26-cv-03040, N.D. Tex., 09/08/2026
• 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 patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's products, which are not identified in the complaint, infringe a patent related to detecting the occupancy of equipment, such as an office chair.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using low-power accelerometer-based sensors to monitor the use of equipment, a field relevant for commercial real estate management and smart office applications.
• 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

Date	Event
2014-12-30	'448 Patent Priority Date
2019-08-06	'448 Patent Issued
2026-09-08	Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,373,448 - "Apparatus and system for detecting equipment occupancy"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,373,448, issued August 6, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional methods for monitoring the occupancy of spaces and equipment—such as manual counting, video surveillance, or pressure sensors—as being laborious, costly, prone to error, and difficult to retrofit onto existing equipment '448 Patent, col. 1:11-47 Specifically, pressure sensors are noted to generate false positives and wear down with use '448 Patent, col. 1:43-47
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, power-efficient apparatus for detecting occupancy '448 Patent, abstract An accelerometer continuously measures the acceleration of a piece of equipment (e.g., a chair) '448 Patent, col. 13:30-40 To conserve power, a main processor remains in a low-power "inactive mode" '448 Patent, col. 8:28-34 The accelerometer unit independently compares measured acceleration values to a stored limit; if a consecutive number of measurements exceed the limit, it generates a "movement signal" that "wakes up" the processor into an "active mode" '448 Patent, claim 1 The processor then checks the equipment's prior status and, if it was unoccupied, emits an "occupied signal" '448 Patent, claim 1
• Technical Importance: This design provides a low-power, battery-operable sensor that can be retrofitted to existing furniture to provide reliable occupancy data, which is valuable for optimizing the use of commercial real estate '448 Patent, col. 13:1-10

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '448 Patent Claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶16 The following analysis focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative apparatus claim.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A memory storing the equipment's status (occupied/unoccupied) and a predetermined acceleration limit value.
  • An accelerometer unit that measures acceleration, compares the values to the limit, and generates a "movement signal" if a "consecutive number N" of acceleration values are greater than or equal to the limit.
  • A processor operable between an "inactive mode" and an "active mode," where in the active mode (triggered by the movement signal) it accesses the equipment's status and emits an "occupied signal" if the status was previously "unoccupied."
  • A power source for the accelerometer and processor.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims" '448 Patent, Prayer for Relief ¶B

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name Compl. ¶¶11-12 It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within an "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the filed complaint Compl. ¶16

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no description of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '448 Patent" Compl. ¶16

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or any narrative description of how the accused products allegedly infringe. It states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '448 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates this unprovided exhibit by reference Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶17 Without this exhibit, the specific factual basis for the infringement allegations is not detailed in the complaint. The narrative theory is limited to the assertion that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '448 Patent Claims" Compl. ¶16

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the specificity of the patent claims and the lack of detail in the complaint, several technical and legal questions may arise.

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products contain a processor that operates in distinct "active" and "inactive" modes as claimed. The patent describes the inactive mode as "essentially dormant or sleeping" to conserve power '448 Patent, col. 8:31-32, raising the question of whether a product with a processor that is simply in a generic low-power state, without the specific wake-up trigger mechanism, falls within the claim's scope.
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the "accelerometer unit" itself to perform the logic of comparing acceleration values and generating a movement signal upon a "consecutive number N" of threshold crossings. A key technical question will be whether the accused products perform this specific filtering logic within the sensor component, as claimed, or whether a general-purpose processor receives raw sensor data and performs the analysis. The patent distinguishes between the roles of the accelerometer unit and the processor '448 Patent, col. 7:42-47

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "inactive mode"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty of power efficiency. The definition will be critical for determining whether the power management architecture of an accused product infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent contrasts it with an "active mode," suggesting a specific binary state rather than a spectrum of low-power operations.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not define the term, which could support an argument that it encompasses any mode of operation with reduced power consumption compared to the "active mode."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the inactive mode as a state where the processor is "essentially dormant or sleeping, such that it does not communicate with any device outside of the apparatus" and consumes a "negligent amount of energy" '448 Patent, col. 8:31-34 This language could support a narrower construction requiring a near-off state.

The Term: "accelerometer unit... generating a movement signal"

• Context and Importance: This term defines a specific division of labor between the sensor and the processor. Infringement may depend on whether the accused device's sensor hardware is "smart" enough to perform the comparison and signal generation itself, or if it merely provides raw data to a main processor for analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue that an "accelerometer unit" includes associated low-level processing capabilities, and as long as the signal is generated based on accelerometer data, this element is met regardless of the precise hardware architecture.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites the "accelerometer unit" and the "processor" as distinct elements with different functions. The specification notes that the comparison of acceleration values "may not involve the processor 30" '448 Patent, col. 7:45-47, suggesting the "accelerometer unit" is intended to be a component that performs this logic independently to avoid waking the more power-hungry main processor.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on an infringing use of the products Compl. ¶14 It further alleges inducement by selling the products to customers for infringing uses Compl. ¶15

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its associated (but unprovided) claim charts constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" Compl. ¶13 Based on this post-suit knowledge, Plaintiff alleges ongoing infringement is willful and requests that the case be declared "exceptional" for the purpose of recovering attorneys' fees '448 Patent, Prayer for Relief ¶E.i.

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

1. Evidentiary Foundation: The primary immediate question is one of factual pleading and proof. The complaint is devoid of specific factual allegations linking any particular Caterpillar product to the patent claims. The case will depend entirely on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence, presumably from the unprovided "Exhibit 2," to plausibly demonstrate that an accused product implements the specific technical features of the '448 patent.

2. Claim Scope and Technical Operation: The dispute will likely center on claim construction and functional equivalence. A core issue will be whether the power-saving feature of an accused product constitutes the specific "inactive mode" described in the patent, or if it is a technically distinct, generic low-power state. A related question will be whether the accused product's architecture aligns with the claimed division of labor, specifically whether its sensor subsystem independently performs the thresholding and filtering logic required to generate a "movement signal," or if that function is handled by a general-purpose processor in a manner outside the claim's scope.