DCT
2:23-cv-01778
Flying Heliball LLC v. Spin Copter Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flying Heliball, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Spin Copter, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maschoff Brennan Gilmore & Israelsen; Workman Nydegger
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-01778, C.D. Cal., 03/09/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant resides in the judicial district, has a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Hover Force" Spincopter flying toy infringes a patent related to an automatic altitude control system for flying vehicles.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns control systems for small, unmanned flying toys that use proximity sensors to automatically maintain a certain height above a surface, such as the ground or a user's hand.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement on August 11, 2022, approximately seven months before filing the lawsuit. This notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-01-14 | ’866 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-09-05 | ’866 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-08-11 | Plaintiff alleges sending notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2023-03-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,100,866 - "Control System for a Flying Vehicle," issued September 5, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of maintaining a stable hover for a simple flying toy, which typically requires a user to constantly adjust the propeller speed to counteract gravity and aerodynamic effects ('866 Patent, col. 1:31-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a self-hovering control system. A transmitter on the vehicle's underside emits a signal (e.g., infrared) downwards. A co-located receiver detects the signal when it "bounced off of a surface" ('866 Patent, col. 2:51-52). The control system then toggles the propeller speed between two predefined states: a "first speed" that causes the vehicle to gain altitude when a bounced signal is received, and a "second speed" that causes it to lose altitude when no signal is received, thereby enabling the vehicle to automatically maintain a certain distance from an object below ('866 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3a).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for a flying toy to "automatically control the height of the vehicle above a surface or another object" without requiring complex radio controls or continuous user input ('866 Patent, col. 1:7-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A vehicle with a means for propelling in a vertical direction.
- A transmitter/receiver pair on the vehicle, with the transmitter sending a signal in a predetermined direction.
- A receiver on the vehicle's bottom for receiving the signal as a "bounced signal" from a surface.
- A control system that automatically sets the propelling means' speed in response to the receiver.
- The control system has a "first means" to set a "first speed" (to gain altitude) when the bounced signal is received.
- The control system has a "second means" to set a "second speed" (to lose altitude) when the bounced signal is not received.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Hover Force" Spincopter flying vehicle (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Product as a "Motion Sensing Drone" that requires "No Remote Needed" and is designed for indoor use (Compl. p. 3). Its flight is controlled by hand gestures; product instructions state, "Move your hand slowly under the Drone to make it go up" (Compl. p. 13). A product video cited in the complaint refers to its "Multi-directional infrared induction flight" (Compl. p. 13). The complaint alleges the Accused Product is sold and distributed by the Defendant (Compl. ¶18). A screenshot from Defendant's website shows the "Hover Force" vehicle, which visually depicts the product at issue (Compl. p. 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’866 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Reference | Patent Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| a vehicle having a means for propelling in a vertical direction | The "Hover Force" is a flying vehicle propelled by multiple propellers that provide vertical lift. The complaint provides an annotated image identifying the vehicle and its propellers. | ¶20; p. 7 | col. 3:9-11 |
| a transmitter/receiver pair positioned on the vehicle, the transmitter transmitting a signal from the vehicle in a predetermined direction | The Accused Product has a downward-facing transmitter and receiver on its underside for its "infrared induction flight" system. | ¶21; p. 9 | col. 3:19-24 |
| a receiver positioned on the bottom of said vehicle for receiving said signal as it is bounced off of a surface, defined as a bounced signal | The receiver is positioned on the bottom of the vehicle to detect the infrared signal reflected from a surface below, such as a user's hand. An annotated photo in the complaint points to this component. | ¶21; p. 10 | col. 2:49-52 |
| a control system that automatically sets a speed of the propelling means in response to the receiver, said control system having a first means to set the speed of the propelling means to a first speed when the receiver receives the bounced signal...the first speed being predefined as a speed that causes the vehicle to gain altitude | The Accused Product contains a control board that allegedly increases propeller speed to gain altitude when its sensor detects a hand below (receiving a bounced signal). An annotated image of the product's circuit board is provided as evidence of this system. | ¶22; p. 12 | col. 4:53-55 |
| and the control system having a second means to set the speed of the propelling means to a second speed when the receiver does not receive the bounced signal...the second speed being predefined as a speed that causes the vehicle to lose altitude. | The control system allegedly decreases propeller speed to lose altitude when the sensor no longer detects an object below (does not receive a bounced signal). The complaint cites product instructions stating the drone "Hovers After Launch," suggesting a default state of controlled descent or hovering when no object is immediately beneath it. | ¶22; p. 13 | col. 4:30-34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): Claim 1 uses means-plus-function language for the "means for propelling," "first means to set the speed," and "second means to set the speed." Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6, the scope of these terms is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification and their equivalents. A central dispute may be whether the specific circuitry and control logic (e.g., the flowchart in Fig. 7) of the Accused Product is structurally equivalent to the control system described in the ’866 patent.
- Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the Accused Product's "infrared induction flight" system operates as claimed. For instance, does the system use two distinct, predefined speeds for "climb" and "fall" as required by the claim, or does it employ a different control logic, such as a proportional or variable-speed response? The complaint's evidence shows the product reacts to a hand, but the precise underlying algorithm will be a point of factual dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a control system...having a first means to set the speed...and a second means to set the speed"
- Context and Importance: This is the core functional element of the invention. As these are means-plus-function limitations, their construction will define what specific algorithm and hardware from the patent specification limits the scope of the claim. The outcome of the infringement analysis depends heavily on whether the accused controller is equivalent to the patented structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the corresponding structure is simply "a circuit board 136" (col. 3:20-21) in communication with the sensor and motors, programmed to perform the high-level function of toggling between a climb speed and a fall speed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the structure is strictly limited to the specific control process detailed in the flowchart of Figure 7. This includes distinct steps for checking timers (T1 and T2) before changing from a hover speed to a climb or fall speed (col. 4:35-55; Fig. 7, steps 220, 270). If the accused device does not use this specific timer-based, three-state (climb/fall/hover) logic, it might be argued to be structurally different and non-infringing.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating Defendant provides customers with instructions and online videos that demonstrate how to use the Accused Product in an infringing manner (e.g., by placing a hand underneath it to make it climb) (Compl. ¶¶24-25). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the Accused Products have no substantial non-infringing use and are a material component of the claimed invention (Compl. ¶26).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant was put on notice of the ’866 Patent and its alleged infringement via correspondence on August 11, 2022, and willfully continued its infringing activities thereafter (Compl. ¶¶27, 30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope under § 112, para. 6: Will the "control system" and its associated "means" be construed broadly as any circuit performing a two-state altitude control, or will it be limited to the specific three-state (hover/climb/fall), timer-dependent algorithm disclosed in the patent's Figure 7 flowchart? The answer will determine the structural and functional benchmark for infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused "infrared induction flight" system function in a way that is structurally and functionally equivalent to the control system disclosed in the ’866 patent? Resolution will likely require technical discovery, such as analysis of the accused device's firmware or source code, to determine if it truly implements the claimed two-speed, signal-responsive behavior.