Ivani Sues Legrand North America in Dallas on Two Configurable Mesh Network Switch Patents.

The complaint

The case is Ivani, LLC v. Legrand North America, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-03706 (N.D. Tex.), a 27-page complaint for patent infringement filed October 22, 2026, in the Dallas Division, ECF No. 1. The complaint says Ivani, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and an operating company whose technology is backed by a portfolio of more than 100 granted patents. It says that, besides the mesh network technology in the asserted patents, Ivani is known for its sensify technology, software and firmware that turns ordinary IoT devices into occupancy sensors by analyzing RF disturbances across existing wireless networks. It says Legrand North America, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with headquarters in West Hartford, Connecticut, and a regular and established place of business in Richardson, Texas.

Jurisdiction and venue

The complaint pleads subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). It pleads personal jurisdiction based on Legrand's regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Texas, job postings in Texas, acts of alleged infringement in Texas, and continuous contacts with the state. It pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) because Legrand has committed acts of patent infringement in the district and has a regular and established place of business there.

Earlier suits and notice allegations

The complaint says Ivani first sued Legrand for infringement of the same patents on October 2, 2025, in Ivani, LLC v. Legrand SA et al., No. 7:25-cv-00447 (W.D. Tex.), and voluntarily dismissed that case without prejudice on March 31, 2026, because it assumed the parties would resolve the matter. The defendants in that case were Legrand S.A., Legrand North America, LLC, and The Watt Stopper, Inc. The Western District docket shows Ivani's notice of voluntary dismissal filed March 31, 2026, and an order terminating the case on April 1, 2026.

The Northern District of Texas docket also shows a separate case with the same caption, Ivani LLC v. Legrand North America LLC, No. 3:26-cv-03377, filed September 25, 2026. That docket lists an order of dismissal or administrative closure and a judgment, both entered October 14, 2026. The complaint, order, and judgment in that case are not publicly available.

The new complaint alleges that, after the Western District dismissal, Legrand failed to respond to Ivani's communications and to meet at agreed times, and that any effort by Legrand to resolve the matter was made to induce delay. On knowledge and willfulness, it alleges that the companies held business development conversations beginning in 2015, that Ivani sent Legrand the application that became the '194 patent on June 12, 2015, and that Ivani executives met with Legrand several times from 2016 through 2018 and, at Legrand's request, dropped off sensify demonstration kits at Legrand's international headquarters on October 15, 2018. It alleges that Legrand has been aware of Ivani and its intellectual property since at least 2015.

The asserted patents

The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,843,194, titled "Configurable Mesh Network for an Electrical Switching System," which it says issued on December 12, 2017, and U.S. Patent No. 10,418,824, with the same title, which it says issued on September 17, 2019, as a continuation of the '194 patent. The complaint alleges that Ivani owns all right, title, and interest in both patents.

Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,843,194 recites a power control system for retrofitting into a structure, with a master switch and a remote switch. It requires a master switch configured to replace a traditional lightswitch, with a first activation object, a physical switch that connects and disconnects an outlet to a power source, a first computer that controls the physical switch, and a first network communication system that receives network instructions and provides them to the computer, where the computer adjusts the physical switch on a network instruction or on activation of the first activation object, and a remote switch with a second activation object and a second network communication system that provides instructions to the network and that does not comprise a physical switch connecting and disconnecting an outlet to a power source, where activation of the second activation object causes an instruction that tells the first computer to control the master switch's physical switch.

Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,418,824 recites a related power control system for retrofitting into a structure. It requires a master switch with a first activation object, a physical switch, a first computer that controls the physical switch, and a first network communication system that receives network instructions and provides them to the first computer, where the first computer adjusts the physical switch on a network instruction or on activation of the first activation object, and a remote switch with a second activation object and a second network communication system that provides instructions to the network, where activation of the second activation object causes the second network communication system to instruct the first computer via the network to control the physical switch.

The accused products

The complaint accuses Legrand master switches, remote switches, and kits. The master switches it names include WNRL50, WNAL50, WNRL10, WNAL10, WNP10, WNP20, WNRR20, WNAR203, WNRR15, and WNAR153, along with the Wattstopper Digital Lighting Management wireless controllers LMRC-611MCC, LMRC-611-16M, and LMPL-611-20M. The remote switches it names include WNRL23, WNAL23, WNRL63, WNAL63, and other model numbers, along with Wattstopper DLM Wireless Wall Switches (LMSW models) and Wattstopper PLUS Wireless Slim Switches. The kits it names include WNAH10KIT, WNREZK10, WNREZK15, WNREZK50, WNRKH10, WNRH10KIT, WNRH15KIT, WNRKH53, and WNRKH532. The complaint maps the WNRL50's paddle, physical switch, and microcontroller to the claimed master switch, maps the battery-operated WNRL23 to the claimed remote switch, and cites Legrand advertising that tells customers to pair the two kinds of switches.

The counts

Count I asserts the '194 patent. The complaint alleges that the infringing kits practice each limitation of claim 1 and thus directly infringe, that Legrand's direct infringement has been knowing, intentional, and willful, that Legrand induces infringement of claims of the '194 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) by encouraging customers to use the kits through online instructions, and that Legrand contributorily infringes under 35 U.S.C. 271(c) by selling master switches and remote switches that it says have no substantial non-infringing use and are specially made for practicing the invention. It alleges notice of the '194 patent since at least the December 12, 2017 issue date.

Count II asserts the '824 patent on parallel theories: direct infringement of claim 1 by the kits, willfulness, inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c) by master and remote switches. It alleges, on information and belief, that Legrand has had notice of the '824 patent since at least its September 17, 2019 issue date because the '824 patent is a continuation of the '194 patent.

The relief sought

The prayer asks for a judgment that Legrand has directly infringed, actively induced infringement, and contributorily infringed each asserted patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), and (c); a permanent injunction; damages, costs, expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest; enhanced damages up to three times under 35 U.S.C. 284 for willful infringement; a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 with reasonable attorneys' fees; and further relief. Ivani demands a jury under Rule 38.

What to watch next

Watch for service on Legrand North America, LLC and for an answer or a Rule 12 motion.