CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Sensata, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific Sensata case docket, parties, and outcome.

Let me verify the Sensata docket specifics, any IPR proceedings, and the Sensata corporate relationship.

Case Overview and Background: CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Sensata, Inc.

The parties. CyboEnergy, Inc. is a small alternative-energy equipment maker founded in 2011 that designs and sells the "CyboInverter," a solar power mini-inverter sold in on-grid, off-grid, and hybrid configurations (the '133 patent complaint, CyboEnergy v. Altenergy Power System USA, W.D. Tex.; Deye complaint analysis). Classification sources conflict on its status: Stanford's NPE litigation database labels CyboEnergy a "Practicing Entity," while Unified Patents' PATROLL program describes it as "an NPE" (Stanford NPE database; Unified Patents PATROLL – '489). The most accurate characterization is a practicing/operating company that runs an active serial licensing-and-assertion campaign rather than a pure shell NPE. The defendant in this action is identified in the case metadata as Sensata, Inc.; the docket for the corresponding C.D. Cal. matter is captioned CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Sensata Technologies Holdings, PLC, No. 2:21-cv-08216 (Ex Parte docket summary). Sensata is a large global industrial-technology/sensors company; the accused products in this suit were Sensata's solar inverters, which CyboEnergy's later complaints describe as sourced from APsystems ("Sensata used APsystems inverters").

The patent and the accused technology. The sole patent asserted here is U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 ("Smart and Scalable Power Inverters"), issued July 22, 2014, owned by CyboEnergy by assignment (Altenergy complaint ¶ 6). Technical sketch: the '133 patent claims a scalable DC-to-AC solar power inversion system in which multiple power inverters are connected in a "daisy chain" on their AC sides (each inverter's AC output port wired to the next inverter's AC input port), with the last inverter feeding a power service panel — so the system scales incrementally by adding or subtracting DC sources and inverters. Independent claim 15 recites "a plurality of power inverters" daisy-chained, while claim 1 recites the internal architecture (DC-DC boost converter, DC-AC inverter, load-interface circuit, microcontroller, powerline modem, line-sensing circuit, solid-state switch) (claim text as quoted in the Hoymiles/Justia opinion; '133 summary). The accused instrumentalities were Sensata-branded solar micro/mini-inverters (the later pleadings tie the accused hardware to APsystems inverter models).

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed October 15, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (No. 2:21-cv-08216), cause of action "Patent Infringement," Nature of Suit 830, assigned to the C.D. Cal. (judge not confirmed in the retrieved material). Venue here is notable because CyboEnergy is a California company and because the Central District is a major technology forum; more importantly, this filing became the trigger date for CyboEnergy's "knowledge of the patent" theory across its entire campaign. Later complaints expressly allege that other defendants knew of the '133 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit against Sensata, Inc of October 15, 2021." Docket trackers list the Sensata case as Closed (Ex Parte); I was unable to retrieve the specific terminating docket entry (e.g., whether by settlement, voluntary dismissal, or judgment), so the precise resolution should be treated as unconfirmed and verified against PACER/RECAP. Why the case is notable: (1) it is the first shot in a serial assertion campaign by this plaintiff over the '133 family (later defendants include Northern Electric Power, APsystems/Altenergy, Aptos Solar, Hoymiles, Home Depot, Duracell, Yotta Energy, and Deye ESS); (2) it anchors the knowledge/intent allegations for indirect and willful infringement across those suits; (3) several follow-on '133 cases were dismissed at the pleading stage for failure to state direct infringement, because claim 15 requires a multi-inverter system that a single seller of individual inverters does not make or sell (see CyboEnergy v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, No. WA-22-CV-1136-KC, 2023 WL 5968000 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2023), and CyboEnergy v. Hoymiles Power Elecs. USA, No. 2:23-cv-00311-JRG, 2024 WL 1219725 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2024), Justia); and (4) the broader family has drawn defensive prior-art activity from Unified Patents' PATROLL program, which has posted bounties seeking prior art on related U.S. Patents 9,331,488 and 9,331,489 (not the '133 patent), reflecting third-party invalidity pressure on the portfolio.

Caveats / not well-sourced items: The exact termination reason for the Sensata case, the presiding judge, and whether the '133 patent has been subject to any PTAB IPR are not confirmed by the material retrieved here — no IPR on the '133 patent surfaced in my search, but that absence is not proof none exists. Note also the name discrepancy between the metadata ("Sensata, Inc.") and the C.D. Cal. docket caption ("Sensata Technologies Holdings, PLC"); per the operating rules I treat the metadata as authoritative for the party name while flagging the docket variant.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into the Sensata docket and related PTAB proceedings.

Let me check the CourtListener docket for the Sensata case and the IPR outcome.

Key Developments — CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Sensata, Inc. (a/k/a Sensata Technologies Holdings, PLC), No. 2:21-cv-08216 (C.D. Cal.)

Important sourcing caveat up front: PACER/CourtListener docket-level detail for this specific case (individual docket entries, the answer/counterclaims, any motion practice, and the exact termination order) did not surface in my searches. What I can confirm is metadata (court, case number, filing date, cause of action, and closed status) plus the case's role in CyboEnergy's broader enforcement campaign. I flag every point below where the record is thin rather than filling gaps speculatively. Note also a party-name discrepancy: the case is docketed as CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Sensata Technologies Holdings, PLC, whereas the case metadata styles the defendant "Sensata, Inc." — I treat these as the same matter.

---

1. Patent and party background

• 2014-07-22 — U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 ("Smart and Scalable Power Inverters") issues to CyboEnergy (assigned). It claims a scalable DC-to-AC inversion system with multiple DC input ports per inverter connected in a daisy chain. CyboEnergy announced the patent on 2014-08-18. (CyboSoft press release)
• CyboEnergy, a Rancho Cordova, CA maker of "CyboInverter" solar mini-inverters, is the patent owner and appears as a practicing entity (not a classic NPE in this campaign, though Unified Patents has characterized it as an NPE in its '489 contest).

2. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2021-10-15 — CyboEnergy files the complaint against Sensata in the Central District of California (2:21-cv-08216). Docket metadata confirms Nature of Suit 830 (Patent), cause of action "Patent Infringement," sector Semiconductors/Optics. (Case metadata)
• The complaint asserted infringement of the '133 patent (claims 1–24 referenced in the parallel complaints in this campaign), with the standard CyboEnergy theories of direct, induced, and contributory infringement, plus willfulness and a request to declare the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (The substance of the CyboEnergy pleading template is documented in the companion complaints in Altenergy and Deye.)
• Not verified: the Sensata answer, counterclaims (e.g., invalidity/non-infringement), and any Rule 12 motion in this docket. I could not retrieve them.

3. Strategic significance of the filing (the one fact the later record confirms)

• ~2022-10-28 — In the later Altenergy complaint (W.D. Tex.), CyboEnergy expressly alleged that the defendant "has known of the '133 patent … from at least the filing date of the lawsuit against Sensata, Inc. of October 15, 2021, as Sensata used APsystems inverters." This is the documented link between the Sensata case and the rest of the campaign: the Sensata suit supplied the knowledge/notice date for induced-infringement allegations against third parties who sold into Sensata's supply chain. (Complaint ¶ 10, Altenergy complaint)

4. Pre-trial motions, Markman, discovery, trial

• Not retrieved. There is no evidence in the sources I found that the Sensata case reached claim construction, summary judgment, or trial. Given the case's "Closed" posture and its use mainly as a notice anchor for later suits, the record is most consistent with a case that terminated early — but I cannot cite a specific Markman, SJ, or discovery order, and I will not infer one.

5. Final disposition of the Sensata case

• Docket aggregator status: Closed (no termination date or dismissal instrument retrieved). (Case metadata)
• Not verified: whether the termination was a voluntary dismissal, settlement, consent judgment, or dismissal with/without prejudice. The metadata supplied with this assignment likewise states the outcome "was not determined in the retrieved material." I cannot responsibly fill this in.

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '133 patent

• IPR2024-00362, Altenergy Power System USA, Inc. v. CyboEnergy, Inc. (PTAB), Patent 8,786,133 B2. Filed by Altenergy (not Sensata). The Board mailed a Notice of Accepting Corrected Petition on 2024-01-22, so the petition was filed in early January 2024 and corrected on that date.
  • Petitioner counsel: Quarles & Brady LLP (Michael J. Curley, Johanna M. Wilbert).
  • Patent Owner counsel: DLA Piper LLP (US) and the Ramey firm (wramey@rameyfirm.com).
  • (Notice of Accepting Corrected Petition, Paper 5)
  • Outcome not retrieved — I could not confirm an institution decision or final written decision. Because Altenergy (not Sensata) is the petitioner, any estoppel/§ 315 effect runs to Altenergy, not Sensata.
• Unified Patents prior-art contest targeting the sibling patent U.S. 9,331,489 B2 (not the '133). Unified describes the '489 as "asserted against Sensata Technologies, Northern Electric Power Technology, Aptos Solar Tech, Altenergy Power Systems, Hoymiles Power, Duracell, and Yotta Energy" — corroborating that Sensata was the first target in the campaign. (Unified Patents)

7. Related litigation in the same campaign (context for the Sensata case's posture)

• **2021-08/2021-10 — CyboEnergy v. Northern Electric Power Technology, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-08534 (N.D. Cal.)**: settled by agreement dated 2022-10-19; CyboEnergy later sued NEP for breach of that settlement (inventory sell-through deadline of 2023-06-30). (Complaint)
• *2022-03-16 — CyboEnergy v. Aptos Solar Technology, LLC, 6:22-cv-00281 (W.D. Tex.)* ('133 and '489).
• *2022-10-28 — CyboEnergy v. Altenergy Power System USA, Inc., 6:22-cv-01136 (W.D. Tex.)* ('133 and '489). On 2023-09-13, the court granted Altenergy's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim of direct infringement of the '133 patent (CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Altenergy Power Sys. USA, Inc., No. WA-22-CV-1136-KC, 2023 WL 5968000 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2023)). This is the most substantive merits ruling in the campaign.
• 2023–2024 — CyboEnergy case in E.D. Tex., No. 2:23-cv-00311-JRG (Marshall Div.): defendant moved to dismiss under 12(b)(6), citing the Altenergy dismissal as a relevant determination; the court's opinion (Doc. 25) issued 2024-03-20, analyzing the system-claim "use" and direct-infringement pleading standards for the '133 patent. (Doc. 25)
• Later targets: Hoymiles Power, Duracell, Yotta Energy, Home Depot USA, and Deye ESS Technology USA (2:25-cv-07964, C.D. Cal., 2025). (Deye complaint)

8. Practical takeaways / present posture

• The Sensata case itself appears to have been a short-lived, early-terminated matter (C.D. Cal., filed 2021-10-15, now Closed), whose principal legacy is evidentiary/notice-related: CyboEnergy used it to fix the knowledge date for induced-infringement claims against downstream sellers.
• The live validity fight over the '133 patent moved to the PTAB via IPR2024-00362 (Altenergy petitioner) and to the W.D. Tex./E.D. Tex. infringement suits, where CyboEnergy has repeatedly stumbled on 12(b)(6) pleading of direct/system-claim infringement.
• Open items I could not verify and would resolve from PACER/PTAB directly: (a) Sensata's answer/counterclaims; (b) any motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay in the Sensata docket; (c) the exact termination instrument and date in 2:21-cv-08216; (d) the institution and final-written-decision outcome in IPR2024-00362; and (e) whether any Sensata-related appeal exists at the Federal Circuit.

I'll research the docket and counsel for the plaintiff in this case.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Sensata, Inc.

Case metadata confirmed: The Sensata action was docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as CyboEnergy, Inc. v. Sensata Technologies Holdings, PLC, No. 2:21-cv-08216 (C.D. Cal.), filed October 15, 2021, Nature of Suit 830 (Patent), and is now shown as closed. (case index; Patexia case record)

Important sourcing caveat: I was not able to retrieve the actual docket sheet or Dkt. 1 for 2:21-cv-08216 itself (the C.D. Cal. RECAP/CourtListener docket for this closed 2021 case did not surface in search). The names below are the Ramey LLP attorneys who are consistently identified as "Attorneys for Plaintiff CyboEnergy, Inc." in the identical, same-firm signature blocks used across CyboEnergy's '133-patent complaints filed in the same period — including the November 2, 2021 N.D. Cal. complaint (CyboEnergy v. Northern Electric Power Technology, No. 3:21-cv-08534-SI), the October 28, 2022 W.D. Tex. complaint (CyboEnergy v. Altenergy, No. 6:22-cv-01136), and the Waco Division complaint against Aptos. Because the 2021 Sensata filing came from the same client, same firm, same patent, and same period, these are almost certainly the counsel of record — but the Sensata docket entry should be verified on PACER before being cited as a formal appearance.

---

1. William P. Ramey, III — lead counsel

• Firm/office: Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006 (Texas Bar No. 24027643).
• Role: Lead/principal litigation counsel; founder and managing partner of Ramey LLP. Signed the body and jury demand of the CyboEnergy complaints, usually with the notation "pro hac vice anticipated" in California filings (he is not a member of the California bar).
• Experience: Runs a high-volume, plaintiff-side IP boutique that has served as counsel of record in well over 100 pending patent cases nationwide; CyboEnergy is a repeat client across roughly a dozen '133/'488-patent suits (Altenergy, Aptos, Northern Electric Power, Hoymiles, Duracell, Deye, et al.). Notable negative: In Koji IP, LLC v. Renesas Electronics America (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward Kang issued an Order Regarding OSC and Imposing Sanctions on Ramey Firm Lawyers (Mar. 26, 2025), imposing $45,264 in sanctions and finding that Ramey regularly practiced law in California without pro hac vice admission across at least 56 N.D. Cal. cases. That order was later required to be attached to any future pro hac vice application. Separate N.D. Cal. orders (e.g., No. 5:25-cv-00950-VKD, Dkt. 12, Apr. 25, 2025) denied or questioned his pro hac vice applications for false declarations.
• Note: I have not verified how, or whether, those California admission issues were resolved in the 2021–22 Sensata matter specifically; the Sensata case predates the 2024–25 sanctions activity.

2. Susan S.Q. Kalra — California counsel (functionally local counsel)

• Firm/office: Ramey LLP, 303 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 600, Redwood City, CA 94065 (CA State Bar No. 167940).
• Role: The California-barred attorney on the CyboEnergy pleadings; she signed the body text of the complaints and appeared at hearings where Texas-bar Ramey firm attorneys did not. In the N.D. Cal. CyboEnergy sanctions litigation, the court noted that she appeared for the plaintiff while Messrs. Ramey and Kubiak did not, and that filings "originated from the law offices of Ramey LLP, Houston, Texas."
• Experience: Member of the Ramey LLP team on the CyboEnergy patent campaign; her role is essentially the resident California counsel supporting out-of-state Texas counsel.

3. Jeffrey E. Kubiak — of counsel / additional plaintiff's counsel

• Firm/office: Ramey LLP, Houston, TX (Texas Bar No. listed on the CyboEnergy complaints).
• Role: Named in the CyboEnergy complaint signature blocks as one of the "Attorneys for Plaintiff," with "pro hac vice anticipated." Court records in the later sanctions proceedings state that he "appeared as counsel" alongside Ramey in numerous California cases (identified in at least ten C.D. Cal. cases and in dozens of N.D. Cal. cases) without seeking pro hac vice admission.
• Experience: IP litigation attorney at Ramey LLP; like Ramey, identified by the N.D. Cal. as part of the firm's out-of-state lawyer corps litigating in California federal courts.

4. In-house counsel

• None identified. CyboEnergy (a small Sacramento-area solar inverter manufacturer, founded 2011) is described in its own complaints as an operating/practicing entity; the complaints rely on outside Ramey LLP counsel, and no in-house attorney appeared on the pleadings found.

---

Related development you should know (context, not this case)

In CyboEnergy's 2025 C.D. Cal. suit against Deye ESS Technology USA (CyboEnergy v. Deye Ess Technology USA, No. 2:25-cv-07964-AH-PD), the plaintiff's California counsel of record is Jennifer Ishimoto (CA SBN 211845) of Banie & Ishimoto LLP, 2100 Geng Road, Suite 210, Palo Alto, CA 94303 — i.e., CyboEnergy appears to have shifted to a different local firm for its most recent filings, with Ramey LLP (William P. Ramey III) applying as co-counsel. This is not counsel in the 2021 Sensata action, so do not attribute it to CyboEnergy v. Sensata.

---

Bottom line

If you need counsel-of-record for the 2021 Sensata case specifically, the record points to the Ramey LLP team — William P. Ramey, III (lead, Houston, pro hac vice anticipated), Susan S.Q. Kalra (California counsel, Redwood City), and Jeffrey E. Kubiak (Ramey LLP, Houston, additional counsel) — but I recommend pulling the Dkt. 1 complaint and any pro hac vice orders from PACER for No. 2:21-cv-08216 to confirm the exact appearances, since I could not obtain the Sensata docket sheet directly and the attorney list above is inferred from the identical signature blocks the same firm used for the same plaintiff and same patent in parallel filings.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances in this case.

Let me dig into the specific docket for the Sensata case.