DCT

2:23-cv-10411

Flying Heliball LLC v. Skyrocket LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-10411, C.D. Cal., 12/12/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California based on Defendant Skyrocket’s headquarters in the state since 2010 and both Defendants’ substantial revenue, systematic business contacts, and physical presence (offices and fulfillment centers) within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ SKYVIPER Force Hand-Controlled Drone infringes a patent related to a control system that uses sensors to automatically manage the altitude of a flying vehicle.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue provides for automatic altitude control in small, unmanned flying vehicles, a key feature for usability in the consumer toy and drone market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit was assigned to Plaintiff in 2022. It further alleges that Defendant Skyrocket had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and infringement allegations, stating that third-party retailer Target provided Skyrocket with a copy of the patent. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff has two existing licensees for its technology.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-01-14 ’866 Patent Priority Date
2006-09-05 ’866 Patent Issue Date
2010 Defendant Skyrocket allegedly headquartered in California
2022 ’866 Patent assigned to Plaintiff Flying Heliball, LLC
2023-12-12 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’s background section notes the difficulty for users to maintain a stable flight or hover for toy-grade flying vehicles, which typically require constant adjustment of propeller speed (’866 Patent, col. 1:30-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a control system for a flying vehicle that automates altitude control. It uses a downward-facing transmitter and receiver pair (’866 Patent, col. 3:17-23). When the receiver detects a signal bounced off a surface below, a control system sets the propellers to a "first speed" designed to cause the vehicle to gain altitude. When the signal is not detected, the system sets the propellers to a "second speed" designed to cause a loss of altitude (’866 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-10). By toggling between these two states, the vehicle can automatically hover at a predetermined distance from a surface (’866 Patent, col. 2:57-62).
  • Technical Importance: This technology simplifies the operation of flying toys by providing a "self-hovering" capability, making them more accessible to unskilled users (’866 Patent, col. 1:34-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶¶11, 12, 18).
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A vehicle with a means for vertical propulsion.
    • A downward-facing transmitter and a receiver for detecting a signal bounced off a surface.
    • A control system that automatically sets propeller speed based on whether the bounced signal is received.
    • The control system uses a "first speed" (to gain altitude) when the signal is received and a "second speed" (to lose altitude) when the signal is not received.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 10 include:
    • A control system with a transmitter/receiver pair positioned on the vehicle.
    • A means to fly the vehicle in a direction opposite to the transmitted signal's direction when a bounced signal is received.
    • A means to fly the vehicle in a direction similar to the transmitted signal's direction when a bounced signal is not received.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The SKYVIPER Force Hand-Controlled Drone ("the Accused Product") (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Product contains a controller, battery, four propellers, a lower transmitter, and a receiver (Compl. ¶17).
  • The alleged infringing functionality is that when a signal from the lower transmitter bounces off a surface and is detected by the receiver, the controller adjusts power to the propellers to make the drone "fly away from the surface" (Compl. ¶17).
  • The complaint alleges the Accused Product is sold through major third-party retailers, including Target, Amazon.com, JC Penney, and Walmart (Compl. ¶¶15, 22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories for Claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶18). The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is based on the Accused Product’s physical components and its alleged operational behavior. Plaintiff alleges the drone’s combination of a controller, propellers, a lower transmitter, and a receiver meets the elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17). Specifically, the complaint alleges that when the drone's receiver detects a signal bounced from a surface, its controller directs the propellers to cause the drone to "fly away from the surface" (Compl. ¶17). This functionality is alleged to map onto the claimed system of using a sensor to control upward flight.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Functional Questions: Claim 1 requires a two-part system: gaining altitude upon signal receipt and losing altitude upon signal loss (’866 Patent, col. 8:4-10). The complaint alleges the Accused Product flies "away from the surface" when a signal is received but is silent on what happens when the signal is lost (Compl. ¶17). The case may turn on whether the accused device performs the second, unclaimed function of losing altitude when the signal is not detected.
    • Scope Questions: Both asserted claims use means-plus-function language (e.g., "means for propelling," "control system having a first means to set the speed"). The scope of these terms will be limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent specification and their equivalents. For example, the patent discloses a specific control logic flow-chart (Fig. 7) that includes distinct "climb," "fall," and "hover" speeds, as well as timers governing the transitions between these states (’866 Patent, col. 4:32-55). A dispute may arise over whether the Accused Product's controller contains the structure corresponding to this specific disclosed algorithm.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a control system having a first means to set the speed... to a first speed... and... a second means to set the speed... to a second speed" (from Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its construction will define the specific function and corresponding structure required for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the scope of the "control system" will determine whether infringement requires the specific multi-state (climb/fall/hover) logic disclosed in the patent or if a simpler control scheme suffices.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself describes the function broadly as setting two different speeds—one for gaining altitude and one for losing it—in response to the presence or absence of a signal (’866 Patent, col. 8:1-10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a detailed control algorithm in Figure 7, which includes not only "climb speed" (230) and "fall speed" (280) but also a "hover speed" (215, 265) and predetermined time delays (T1, T2) before the system switches from hover to climb or fall (’866 Patent, col. 4:32-67). A defendant could argue this detailed algorithm is the "corresponding structure" for the claimed "means," thereby narrowing the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement against Defendant Skyrocket, claiming it "actively and knowingly" encouraged third-party sellers (e.g., Target, Walmart) to sell the Accused Products with knowledge of the infringement (Compl. ¶¶19-20, 27).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’866 Patent. The complaint specifically claims that retailer Target provided Defendant Skyrocket with "a copy of the ’866 Patent and infringement allegations" prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶21).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: will the means-plus-function "control system" of Claim 1 be construed narrowly to require the specific three-speed (climb, fall, hover) logic with timers disclosed in the patent's specification (’866 Patent, Fig. 7), or will a simpler two-speed system that causes altitude gain/loss meet the claim?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational completeness: can Plaintiff provide evidence that the Accused Product not only "fl[ies] away from the surface" upon signal detection, as alleged, but also performs the second, unclaimed function of losing altitude when the signal is absent, as required to meet all limitations of Claim 1?
  • The allegation of pre-suit notice via a third-party retailer (Compl. ¶21) raises a significant question for willfulness. The court will have to determine if this notice was sufficient to establish that any ongoing infringement was "knowing, intentional, and willful," potentially exposing Defendants to enhanced damages.