DCT

2:19-cv-09705

Advanced Aerodynamics LLC v. DJI Technology Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-09705, C.D. Cal., 11/12/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant DJI is a California corporation that resides in the state and district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Tello drone, when combined with the PGYTECH Protective Cage, infringes four patents related to self-righting frames for aeronautical vehicles.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the operational challenge of small, vertical take-off and landing drones tipping over upon landing, enabling them to passively return to an upright, operational state without manual intervention.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff developed the technology in 2009, subsequently obtained a worldwide patent portfolio, and commercialized the design in a product called the "ORB," which won a "Hot Product" award from CNN Money in 2012. The complaint also notes prior enforcement of its intellectual property rights against other entities.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-01-01 (approx.) Advanced Aerodynamics formed to develop drone design
2010-07-23 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2012-01-01 (approx.) Plaintiff's "ORB" product receives CNN Money award
2013-09-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,528,854 Issues
2015-06-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,067,667 Issues
2015-12-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,216,808 Issues
2016-09-06 U.S. Patent No. 9,434,462 Issues
2019-11-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,528,854 - "SELF-RIGHTING FRAME AND AERONAUTICAL VEHICLE"

  • Issued: September 10, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of remote-controlled (RC), helicopter-like aircraft being prone to tipping over upon landing, which requires the operator to physically retrieve and manually right the vehicle before it can be operated again (ʼ854 Patent, col. 2:10-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a structural frame for an aeronautical vehicle that uses physics to automatically return to an upright position. The solution combines a low center of gravity, achieved by placing a weighted mass near the bottom of the frame, with a protrusion or "apex" at the top of the frame. If the vehicle lands upside-down, the apex creates an unstable single point of contact, causing the low-slung weight to generate a righting moment that rolls the vehicle back to its stable, upright orientation (ʼ854 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-62). Figures 8 through 15 of the patent illustrate this sequential self-righting process (ʼ854 Patent, Figs. 8-15).
  • Technical Importance: This design sought to improve the user experience and resilience of VTOL drones by eliminating a common point of failure and the need for manual intervention after a crash or imperfect landing (ʼ854 Patent, col. 2:19-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A self-righting frame assembly for an aeronautical vehicle, comprising:
    • at least two vertically oriented frames,
    • said frames having an uninterrupted, continuous peripheral edge between a top portion and a base portion,
    • said frames defining a central void and having a central vertical axis,
    • the at least two vertically oriented frames being arranged in a fixed spatial relationship;
    • a weighted mass within said frame assembly positioned proximate to a bottom of the frame assembly and along the central vertical axis to position the center of gravity low in the assembly; and
    • an apex at the top of the vertical frames that provides initial instability to begin a self-righting process when the frame assembly is inverted.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 9,067,667 - "SELF-RIGHTING FRAME AND AERONAUTICAL VEHICLE"

  • Issued: June 30, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ʼ667 Patent, a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the ʼ854 Patent, addresses the same problem of RC aircraft tipping over and requiring manual righting (ʼ667 Patent, col. 2:10-24).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent builds upon the parent invention by explicitly claiming a "lift and stabilization panel" carried by an upper region of the self-righting frame structure. This panel is described as providing enhanced stability, lift during horizontal motion, or drag during vertical motion, adding aerodynamic functionality to the core self-righting structure, which still relies on the low center of gravity and top apex for its reorientation capabilities (ʼ667 Patent, col. 2:53-65; Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention extends the initial concept by integrating aerodynamic surfaces into the protective frame, suggesting a design evolution toward improving in-flight performance in addition to post-crash recovery.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An aeronautical vehicle that rights itself, comprising a self-righting frame assembly.
    • The frame structure can be one of two alternatives: (a) at least one vertical and one horizontal frame member, or (b) at least two vertical frame members.
    • A lift and stabilization panel carried by an upper region of the frame structure.
    • A weighted mass in a lower section to position the center of gravity.
    • An apex at the top of a vertical frame member to provide initial instability for self-righting.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶38).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,216,808

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,216,808, "SELF-RIGHTING FRAME AND AERONAUTICAL VEHICLE," issued December 22, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: As a divisional of the application for the '667 patent, the '808 patent continues to protect a self-righting aeronautical vehicle. It addresses the problem of vehicle tip-over by claiming a frame assembly with specific geometric features, including arched sections and an apex, that work in concert with a low center of gravity and an internal propulsion system to passively reorient the vehicle after an off-kilter landing ('808 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the combination of the Tello drone and the PGYTECH Protective Cage constitutes an infringing self-righting frame assembly (Compl. ¶45).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,434,462

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,434,462, "SELF-RIGHTING FRAME AND AERONAUTICAL VEHICLE," issued September 6, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also from the same family, claims a "self-righting substantially dome shaped vehicle body" comprising a frame assembly with a convex exterior surface and an apex or protrusion. This structure creates instability when inverted, allowing the vehicle's low center of gravity to initiate a self-righting process. The claims were substantively amended via a Certificate of Correction, which now defines the invention in terms of a frame assembly with upper and lower airflow passageways ('462 Patent, Certificate of Correction; Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Tello drone and PGYTECH Protective Cage together form the infringing self-righting assembly (Compl. ¶52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the "Tello drone and PGYTECH Protective Cage for Tello" when used together (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the PGYTECH Protective Cage is an accessory for the Tello drone which, when installed, causes the combined product to become a self-righting aeronautical vehicle (Compl. ¶24). The cage is depicted as a lightweight, spherical wire-frame structure that encases the drone. The drone itself, containing the motors, battery, and electronics, is alleged to function as the "weighted mass" positioned low within the combined assembly (Compl. ¶26). An annotated image in the complaint highlights how the cage allegedly provides "at least two vertically oriented frames" (Compl. p. 8). The combined functionality is alleged to cause the drone to "self-right when it falls to the ground at any position" other than right-side up (Compl. ¶24).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant DJI advertises, sells, and distributes the Accused Products through its own website and major U.S. retailers like Best Buy and Walmart (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'854 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A self-righting frame assembly for an aeronautical vehicle...comprising: at least two vertically oriented frames, said frames having an uninterrupted, continuous peripheral edge between a top portion and a base portion... The PGYTECH Protective Cage is alleged to have more than two vertical frames with an uninterrupted, continuous peripheral edge, as illustrated in an annotated photograph provided by the Plaintiff. ¶25; p. 8 col. 5:20-24
said frames defining a central void and said frames having a central vertical axis, the at least two vertically oriented frames being arranged in a fixed spatial relationship; The complaint alleges the frames of the cage define a central void, share a central vertical axis, and are in a fixed relationship. An annotated image shows the central void and axis. ¶26; p. 8 col. 5:35-37
a weighted mass within said frame assembly and positioned proximate to a bottom of said frame assembly and along said central vertical axis for the purpose of positioning a center of gravity of said frame assembly proximate to a bottom... The Tello drone body itself, containing the battery and motors, is alleged to be the weighted mass positioned at the bottom of the frame assembly to create a low center of gravity. ¶26; p. 8 col. 2:40-45
an apex formed at a top of said vertical axis at an upper portion of said vertical frames for providing an initial instability to start a self-righting process that returns the products to an upright position. The complaint alleges the frame has a top apex that creates instability to initiate the self-righting process. A series of photographs shows the accused product tipping from an inverted state to an upright one. ¶27; p. 9 col. 2:45-53

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: The primary infringement theory relies on combining a drone (Tello) with a separate accessory (PGYTECH cage) to meet the claim limitations. A point of contention may be whether this combination constitutes a single "self-righting frame assembly for an aeronautical vehicle" as contemplated by the patent, or if they are two distinct products.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires an "apex" that provides "initial instability." The accused cage has a rounded top surface. A key question will be whether this continuously curved surface functions as the claimed "apex," which the patent figures depict as a distinct protrusion (e.g., '854 Patent, Fig. 1, element 158). The complaint provides a photographic sequence purporting to show this function (Compl. p. 9).

'667 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint's narrative infringement theory for the '667 Patent is substantially similar to that for the '854 Patent, alleging that the Tello drone and PGYTECH cage combination meets the limitations of claim 1 (Compl. ¶38). However, Claim 1 of the '667 patent introduces a "lift and stabilization panel" element. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element, as it does not explicitly map any feature of the Accused Products to this claim limitation.

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Technical Questions: A central question for the '667 patent will be whether the accused product includes a "lift and stabilization panel" as claimed. The complaint does not identify which component of the drone or cage allegedly performs this function. If the Plaintiff argues the cage itself is the "panel," a dispute may arise as to whether a structure can be both the "frame" and a "panel carried by" that same frame, as claim 1 requires ('667 Patent, col. 2:56-58).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "apex" ('854 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the self-righting mechanism. The accused product has a rounded upper surface, not a sharp point. Whether this structure meets the definition of "apex" will be critical to the infringement analysis.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the feature as a "protrusion" intended to "minimize any supporting surface area to provide maximum instability" and can be "any shape that provides for a single point of contact" when inverted ('854 Patent, col. 2:50-53, col. 6:3-6). This language may support construing "apex" to include the highest point of a curved surface that creates the requisite instability.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the "apex" or "protrusion" as a distinct, separate structural element (158) extending upward from the main frames ('854 Patent, Fig. 1, 2). The word "apex" itself often implies a vertex or peak, which may support a narrower construction requiring more than just the zenith of a spherical cage.

  • The Term: "lift and stabilization panel" ('667 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This element distinguishes the '667 patent claims from the parent '854 patent, but the complaint does not map it to a feature of the accused product. Its construction is therefore vital to determine if infringement can be proven.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim describes the panel's function as providing "enhanced stability," "lift," or "drag" ('667 Patent, Claim 1). Plaintiff may argue that the wire cage itself provides aerodynamic drag and enhances stability, thereby qualifying as the claimed panel.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the panel to be "carried by a segment of an upper region of said frame structure" ('667 Patent, Claim 1). This language suggests the panel and the frame are distinct components. The related '808 patent, which also claims this feature, illustrates the panel as a distinct airfoil-like surface integrated into the frame, not the frame itself ('808 Patent, Fig. 18-20, element 360), which may support a narrower definition requiring a separate structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against DJI. The factual basis for this claim is that DJI allegedly "encouraged, instructed, enabled, and otherwise caused DJI's customers to use the Accused Products" in an infringing manner through its marketing, sales, and support activities via its "Sales Outlets" (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 40, 47, 54).
  • Willful Infringement: The allegations of willfulness are based on post-suit conduct. For each patent, the complaint alleges that "Despite knowledge of the [asserted] Patent as early as the date of service of the Original Complaint in this action," DJI continues its allegedly infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 39, 46, 53). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "apex," which is depicted in the patent as a distinct protrusion, be construed to read on the rounded upper surface of the accused protective cage? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive for the '854 patent.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of elemental presence: for the '667 patent and its descendants, does the accused product include a "lift and stabilization panel"? The complaint's failure to explicitly map this claim element to a product feature suggests this will be a significant point of contention and a potential vulnerability in the plaintiff's infringement case for those patents.
  • A fundamental question of product identity will underlie the entire case: does the combination of a drone made by one entity and a protective cage accessory made by another constitute a single, infringing "aeronautical vehicle" or "self-righting frame assembly" under the claims?