Arbor Systems LLC, which the site has followed through its Eastern District of Texas filings (see the Arbor Systems East Texas hub), filed six patent complaints in the District of Delaware on October 14, 2026. Each complaint names one defendant, asserts one patent, and pleads one count. Every defendant is described in its complaint as a Delaware corporation. The cases were opened without an assigned judge (the case numbers carry the UNA suffix).
The six Delaware complaints
| Case | D. Del. number | Patent asserted | Defendant location pleaded |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbor Systems LLC v. Tempo Interactive Inc. | No. 1:26-cv-01316 | U.S. Patent 9,975,033 | San Francisco, California |
| Arbor Systems LLC v. Synaptics Incorporated | No. 1:26-cv-01317 | U.S. Patent 9,549,691 | San Jose, California |
| Arbor Systems LLC v. ModalAI, Inc. | No. 1:26-cv-01318 | U.S. Patent 9,835,709 | San Diego, California |
| Arbor Systems LLC v. FitMyFoot, Inc. | No. 1:26-cv-01320 | U.S. Patent 12,304,166 | Phoenix, Arizona |
| Arbor Systems LLC v. Firefly Systems Inc. | No. 1:26-cv-01321 | U.S. Patent 10,783,559 | New York, New York |
| Arbor Systems LLC v. Cura BioMed, Inc. | No. 1:26-cv-01322 | U.S. Patent 12,304,166 | Morristown, New Jersey |
FitMyFoot and Cura BioMed face the same patent, U.S. Patent 12,304,166. The other four defendants each face a different patent. Each complaint carries "Jury Trial Demanded" in the caption and a Rule 38(b) jury demand in paragraph 19.
What the complaints plead
The six complaints are five pages each and track the same template, apart from the defendant, the patent, and the patent's title and dates. Each says Arbor Systems LLC "is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New Mexico" with its principal place of business in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and that Arbor is "the assignee of all right, title and interest" in the asserted patent, including the right to collect damages for all relevant times. Arbor's Rule 7.1 disclosure statement in each case lists no parents or affiliates, according to the docket.
Each complaint pleads personal jurisdiction on the grounds that the defendant has engaged in systematic and continuous business activities in Delaware and "is incorporated in this District's state." Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), with the complaint stating that the defendant "has an established place of business in this District" and has committed acts of infringement there. The parties paragraph of each complaint places the defendant's established place of business in the city listed in the table above.
The single count in each complaint alleges direct infringement of "one or more claims" by making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing the "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in claim charts, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and separately alleges direct infringement through employees' internal testing and use. The complaints allege that service of the complaint with the claim charts "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," and allege induced infringement "at least since being served by this Complaint." The complaints do not plead contributory infringement or a willfulness count.
The complaint bodies do not name accused products or list claim numbers. Each says Exhibit 2 "includes charts comparing the Exemplary" patent claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products and incorporates those charts by reference. Exhibit 1 in each case is a copy of the patent. The docket lists both exhibits, but neither was available in the public docket copies reviewed for this page, so this page does not describe which claims or products are charted.
The prayer for relief in each complaint asks for a judgment that the patent is valid and enforceable, a judgment of direct and indirect infringement, an accounting of damages not presented at trial, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 with pre- or post-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 with attorney fees, costs and expenses, and further relief. The complaints do not request an injunction or enhanced damages. Each demands a jury.
The complaints are signed by Brian E. Lutness of Silverman, McDonald & Friedman in Wilmington, Delaware, and list Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC in Chicago, Illinois, with a pro hac vice application "forthcoming."
The five patents
Each complaint gives the patent's title, issue date, and application filing date, and those match the Google Patents records cited below. Google Patents lists Bao Tran, Ha Tran, or both as inventors on all five. The claim descriptions below are from claim 1 as published on Google Patents; the complaints do not say whether claim 1 is among the charted claims.
U.S. Patent 9,835,709 (ModalAI), titled Systems and methods for permission based control of robots, issued December 5, 2017, from an application filed February 2, 2016. Claim 1 recites a system with a radio circuit that sends a privacy indication in a beacon frame broadcast periodically from a facility desiring privacy, and a movable vehicle with a radio circuit that receives the beacon frame and a motor actuator controlled to comply with the privacy indication. Google Patents lists Arbor Systems LLC as current assignee, based on an assignment from Bao Tran recorded October 15, 2025, and an adjusted expiration date of July 24, 2036.
U.S. Patent 9,549,691 (Synaptics), titled Wireless monitoring, issued January 24, 2017, from an application filed April 23, 2014, with a priority date Google Patents gives as May 24, 2007. Claim 1 recites a monitoring system with a Doppler radar formed with an IEEE 802 protocol transmitter and receiver, as part of a multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) wireless adapter chip set, to detect a person's body motion, and an analyzer that builds a model from a training phase and uses it to determine body position. Google Patents lists Arbor as current assignee under the same recorded assignment and an adjusted expiration date of July 9, 2027. Its litigation listing for the '691 patent also links Arbor's July 2025 Eastern District of Texas cases Nos. 2:25-cv-00675, 2:25-cv-00734, 2:25-cv-00735, 2:25-cv-00737, and 2:25-cv-00738.
U.S. Patent 9,975,033 (Tempo), titled Smart sport device, issued May 22, 2018, from an application filed January 17, 2017. Claim 1 recites a board with a body, a processor coupled to a wireless transceiver, a camera that detects distance from another object, an accelerometer that detects the board's acceleration, and a module that compares a professional motion with a user motion. Google Patents lists Arbor as current assignee under the same recorded assignment, an eighth-year maintenance fee payment on January 29, 2026, and an anticipated expiration date of May 2, 2036.
U.S. Patent 12,304,166 (FitMyFoot and Cura BioMed), titled Systems and methods for mass customization, issued May 20, 2025, from an application filed April 4, 2019. Claim 1 recites a method for forming customized footwear: receiving a foot model, coupling it to a shoe model, modifying the foot model to support the heel, arch, and ball of the foot, and fabricating a sole or insole in a reusable reformable structure. Google Patents gives an adjusted expiration date of July 22, 2040. Its assignee field reads "Individual," and its event list shows no recorded assignment to Arbor.
U.S. Patent 10,783,559 B1 (Firefly), titled Mobile information display platforms, issued September 22, 2020, from an application filed October 6, 2019. Claim 1 recites a vehicle with a ridesharing fare indicator and a roof-mounted advertising display with a cellular transceiver and a processor that controls the display based on listed parameters, operating with other vehicles as a group to show a predetermined sequence of advertisements upon entry to a location. Google Patents lists the status as "Expired - Fee Related": its legal events show a maintenance fee reminder mailed May 13, 2024, a notice that the patent expired for failure to pay maintenance fees entered October 28, 2024, and a lapse effective September 22, 2024. Its assignee field reads "Individual," and its event list shows no recorded assignment to Arbor.
How this fits with the East Texas filings
Arbor's earlier suits were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The East Texas hub covers the Shiftall and Teltonika complaints from mid-September 2026, which asserted different smart-device patents. A public docket search for Arbor Systems LLC lists 12 Eastern District of Texas suits filed September 11 and 14, 2026, and earlier groups of filings there: 10 in July 2025, 6 in January 2026, and 3 in May 2026. The same search shows no earlier Arbor Systems LLC case in Delaware. The Delaware defendants are all pleaded as Delaware corporations with places of business in other states.
What to watch next
Watch for judge assignments in the six cases, rulings on the pro hac vice motions docketed in each case on October 16, 2026, and service on each defendant.
Watch whether Exhibit 2 claim charts become available, which would show the claims and products Arbor is charting against each defendant.
Watch for answers or Rule 12 motions, including any challenge to the venue allegations or to the pleading of indirect infringement on knowledge arising from the complaint.
Watch whether the record addresses the maintenance-fee lapse that Google Patents lists for the '559 patent, and whether assignment records for the '166 and '559 patents are updated to show Arbor.
Watch whether the two '166 cases against FitMyFoot and Cura BioMed are related or coordinated. Any of these cases can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.