IOT Innovations LLC v. Schneider USA Inc

Case Overview & Background

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a multi-front litigation campaign initiated by IOT Innovations LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) that acquires patents for the purpose of assertion and licensing. Such entities, also known as patent assertion entities (PAEs), do not manufacture products or practice the technology claimed in their patents. The defendant, Schneider USA Inc., is the U.S. subsidiary of Schneider Electric SE, a major global operating company specializing in energy management and automation technology. The case pits an entity whose business model is patent monetization against a technology manufacturer, a classic scenario in high-tech patent litigation.

The dispute centers on Schneider's interconnected hardware and software ecosystems, which are foundational to the modern "Internet of Things" (IoT) market. IOT Innovations alleges that a wide swath of Schneider's products—from its Wiser smart home platform to its large-scale EcoStruxure cloud-based solutions for managing building operations, power grids, and IT data centers—infringe six of its patents. These patents broadly cover methods for remote monitoring and control, data packet management in networks, and gateway communications between local devices and the internet. The asserted patents are:

• 7,280,830: System for monitoring and controlling remote assets via a wireless network.
• 7,593,428: Methods for managing data packets in a communication network.
• RE44,742: System for collecting data from remote stations and transmitting it to a central server.
• 7,209,876: System for remotely monitoring and controlling utility meters.
• 9,008,055: Method for managing communication sessions between networked devices.
• 8,972,576: Gateway device for managing communications between a local network and a wide-area network.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a highly experienced patent judge who oversees one of the nation's busiest patent dockets. This venue is historically favored by patent plaintiffs for its local rules and expertise in handling complex patent cases. The litigation is notable not only for its targeting of a major player in the IoT industry but also for its connection to a broader assertion campaign. Some of the patents-in-suit have already been challenged by other defendants in parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The progress of these inter partes reviews (IPRs) will be a critical factor, as a PTAB decision to invalidate patent claims could directly undermine IOT Innovations' case against Schneider.

Key Legal Developments and Case Outcome

As of May 14, 2026, the patent infringement litigation IOT Innovations LLC v. Schneider USA Inc. remains in its earliest procedural stages. The case docket reflects only the initial filings, and significant legal developments have not yet occurred.

Chronological Developments:

• 2026-04-23: Complaint Filed. IOT Innovations LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement against Schneider USA Inc. (doing business as Schneider Electric USA, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that various Schneider products and platforms, including its EcoStruxure and Wiser ecosystems, infringe on six U.S. patents. Along with the complaint, the plaintiff filed a series of "Evidence of Use" charts, one for each patent-in-suit. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
• 2026-04-23: Summons Issued. The court issued a summons for Schneider USA Inc., officially commencing the process of serving the defendant with the lawsuit.

Current Status and Expected Next Steps:

The case is currently pending service of the summons and complaint on the defendant. Following formal service, the key upcoming events will be:

1. Notice of Appearance: Counsel for Schneider USA Inc. will file a notice of appearance.
2. Responsive Pleading: Schneider will have 21 days after service to file its response to the complaint. This will likely be either an Answer, which may include counterclaims for non-infringement or invalidity, or a pre-answer motion, such as a Motion to Dismiss (e.g., for failure to state a claim) or a Motion to Transfer Venue.

As of today, no answer, motions, or scheduling orders have been filed with the court. The litigation is therefore in a preliminary phase with no substantive legal rulings having been made.

Parallel Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

A search of the USPTO's PTAB database does not indicate that Schneider USA Inc. has filed any petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the six asserted patents (7,280,830; 7,593,428; RE44,742; 7,209,876; 9,008,055; 8,972,576) as of this date.

However, given IOT Innovations' broad litigation campaign against numerous companies over these and other related patents, there is a strong possibility of future PTAB challenges. IOT Innovations, an entity associated with Empire IP, has faced PTAB petitions in other campaigns. Other defendants in similar smart home and IoT cases have pursued this strategy. A decision by Schneider to file IPRs would be a significant strategic development, potentially leading to a motion to stay the district court case pending the PTAB's review of the patents' validity. Such a stay would pause the district court proceedings until the PTAB determines whether to institute a review and, if instituted, issues a final written decision.

Outlook and Litigation Context

IOT Innovations is a prolific patent assertion entity that has sued many companies in the smart home and IoT sectors, including Somfy, Snap One, and Savant Systems. The outcomes of these related cases often involve pre-trial settlements. For example, a case against Somfy was dismissed with prejudice following a joint stipulation, suggesting a settlement was reached before significant litigation milestones like claim construction. Another multi-patent case against Savant Systems also settled after court-ordered mediation.

This pattern suggests that many defendants choose to settle rather than engage in protracted and expensive litigation, particularly before a Markman hearing clarifies the scope of the patent claims. The current case against Schneider is still too early to predict its specific trajectory, but developments in parallel litigation and any future PTAB filings will be critical indicators of its likely path.

Counsel for Plaintiff IOT Innovations LLC

The following attorneys from The Albritton Law Firm and Garteiser Honea P.C. have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, IOT Innovations LLC. This legal team is frequently retained by patent assertion entities, including those associated with Empire IP, and has extensive experience litigating in the Eastern District of Texas.

• T. John Ward, Jr. (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: The Albritton Law Firm (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Ward is a highly experienced East Texas litigator and the son of a former federal judge for the district, T. John Ward.

• Wesley Hill (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: The Albritton Law Firm (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Hill has represented clients in numerous patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas, often alongside The Albritton Law Firm.

• Monte Bond (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: The Albritton Law Firm (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Bond is another key attorney at the firm with a long history of handling patent litigation in the local forum.

• Christopher Honea (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Garteiser Honea P.C. (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Honea's firm specializes in intellectual property litigation and frequently partners with local counsel to represent patent plaintiffs in East Texas.

• Adam Garteiser (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Garteiser Honea P.C. (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Garteiser, along with Christopher Honea, leads a firm that has represented patent owners in a significant number of infringement campaigns.

As of May 14, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Schneider USA Inc., has not yet formally appeared in the case IOT Innovations LLC v. Schneider USA Inc., 2:26-cv-00334.

The complaint was filed on April 23, 2026, and a summons was issued the same day. Typically, defendants have 21 days to respond to a complaint after the summons has been served. Given this timeline, Schneider's legal team is likely still evaluating the complaint and determining its defensive strategy before filing a notice of appearance with the court.

It is standard practice for a defendant corporation's chosen law firm to file a notice of appearance at the same time as, or shortly before, filing an answer to the complaint or a responsive motion, such as a motion to dismiss. Until that filing occurs, the attorneys representing Schneider will not be officially recorded on the case docket.

No documents on the public docket indicate that any law firm has been retained for this matter. Information regarding Schneider's counsel will become publicly available once they make their first filing with the Eastern District of Texas court.