DCT
2:25-cv-03315
Flying Heliball LLC v. Sakar Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flying Heliball, LLC (California) and World Tech Toys, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Sakar International, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McKown Bailey
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-03315, C.D. Cal., 04/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on the parties’ consent in a prior non-disclosure agreement, as well as Defendant’s business contacts and sales of the accused products in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Sonic Heli-Drone Flyer" toy infringes a patent related to automatic altitude control systems for flying vehicles.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns sensor-based control systems that enable small, propeller-driven toys to automatically hover, a key feature for hands-free or gesture-based operation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent has been the subject of extensive prior litigation, including a jury verdict finding the patent valid and infringed, a permanent injunction in another case, and a favorable claim construction ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This history is cited to support claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-01-14 | U.S. Patent No. 7,100,866 Priority Date |
| 2006-09-05 | U.S. Patent No. 7,100,866 Issued |
| 2022-XX-XX | '866 Patent assigned to Plaintiff Flying Heliball, LLC |
| 2024-12-02 | Plaintiff’s counsel sends notice letter to a third-party seller |
| 2025-04-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,100,866 - "Control System for a Flying Vehicle"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty of maintaining stable flight or hover in propeller-driven vehicles "without the user constantly adjusting the speed of the propellers" (’866 Patent, col. 1:30-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-hovering control system for a flying vehicle. A transmitter on the bottom of the vehicle sends a signal downward; a receiver detects the signal when it bounces off a surface below (e.g., a user's hand). A control system then automatically adjusts the propeller speed based on whether the bounced signal is received, causing the vehicle to either gain or lose altitude, thereby allowing it to hover at a predetermined distance from the surface (’866 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-31). Figure 3c illustrates the concept of the signal bouncing off a user's hand to control the vehicle's altitude (’866 Patent, Fig. 3c).
- Technical Importance: This automated system simplifies operation, enabling a "self-hovering vehicle" that can maintain a set height above an object without continuous manual input (’866 Patent, col. 1:33-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12, 19).
- Independent Claim 1 recites:
- A vehicle having a means for propelling in a vertical direction.
- A transmitter on the vehicle's bottom for transmitting a signal downwardly.
- A receiver on the vehicle's bottom for receiving the bounced signal.
- A control system that automatically sets propeller speed in response to the receiver.
- The control system has a "first means" to set a "first speed" (causing altitude gain) when the bounced signal is received.
- The control system has a "second means" to set a "second speed" (causing altitude loss) when the bounced signal is not received.
- Independent Claim 10 recites:
- A system to control a flying vehicle's direction of movement.
- A transmitter/receiver pair on the vehicle transmitting a signal in a predetermined direction.
- A "means to fly" in a direction opposite the signal when it is bounced back and received.
- A "means to fly" in a direction similar to the signal when it is not received.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "Sonic Heli-Drone Flyer" (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product is a flying toy that incorporates a processor, battery, motor assembly, and a "downward-facing sensor and receiver" (Compl. ¶18). The processor is allegedly programmed to emit a signal, and if the signal is bounced off a surface and received, the processor "engages the motor assembly to fly the Sonic Heli-Drone Flyer away from the surface" (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3). The product is allegedly sold by Defendant Sakar through third-party retailers such as Burlington (Compl. ¶16). Exhibit B includes a photograph from the product's packaging that advertises "HAND SENSOR CONTROL," depicting a hand underneath the toy to control its flight (Compl. Ex. B, p. 27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'866 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vehicle having a means for propelling in a vertical direction | The accused product is a "Sonic Heli-Drone Flyer" [A] with a rotor system [B] for vertical propulsion. A photograph depicts the toy and its rotors (Compl. Ex. B, p. 28). | ¶18 | col. 4:3-10 |
| a transmitter positioned on the bottom of said vehicle for transmitting a signal from the vehicle downwardly away from said vehicle | The accused product has a downward-facing sensor [C] that transmits a signal. A close-up photograph shows a component identified as the transmitter on the bottom of the toy's foot (Compl. Ex. B, p. 28). | ¶18 | col. 3:14-16 |
| 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 accused product has a receiver [D] to detect the bounced signal. The same photograph showing the transmitter also identifies an adjacent component as the receiver (Compl. Ex. B, p. 28). | ¶18 | col. 3:16-18 |
| a control system that automatically sets a speed of the propelling means in response to the receiver | The accused product has a processor and associated circuitry [E] on a circuit board that controls the motor assembly based on sensor input. A photograph shows the internal circuit board (Compl. Ex. B, p. 29). | ¶18 | col. 3:14-20 |
| 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 product is alleged to fly away from a surface when the bounced signal is received, consistent with gaining altitude. The "HAND SENSOR CONTROL" packaging graphic illustrates this function (Compl. Ex. B, p. 27). | ¶18 | col. 4:55-56 |
| 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 system is alleged to operate by toggling between states, which implies a loss of altitude when the signal is not received to maintain a hover. | ¶18 | col. 4:58-61 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The core of the dispute may be how the accused product's "control system" actually functions. The claims require a binary system with two distinct, predefined speeds (one for gaining altitude, one for losing it). A potential defense could argue that the accused product uses a more nuanced control logic (e.g., a single "hover" speed, or proportional control) that does not literally map onto the "first speed" / "second speed" structure recited in Claim 1.
- Scope Question: A related question is whether the claim terms "first means to set the speed" and "second means to set the speed" require structurally or logically separate components or if they can be read on different software routines executed by the same processor. The complaint alleges a single processor performs these functions (Compl. ¶18), which raises the question of how the "means" limitations are met.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a first means to set the speed ... and a second means to set the speed"
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused product's control logic embodies these two distinct "means." If the court construes these terms to require two physically separate structures, infringement may be more difficult to prove, as the complaint points to a single processor. If construed as distinct software states or logical paths, the plaintiff's position may be stronger. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation as either structural or functional is dispositive for infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader (Functional) Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and the flowchart in Figure 7 describe a process where the control system sets a "climb speed" (Step 230) or a "fall speed" (Step 280) based on timer-driven conditions (’866 Patent, Fig. 7). This could support an interpretation where different states of a single software-driven controller constitute the different "means."
- Evidence for a Narrower (Structural) Interpretation: The use of "means" in this format raises the possibility of interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). If the terms are found to be means-plus-function limitations, their scope would be limited to the corresponding structures described in the specification (the circuit board and its programming) and their equivalents. The specification describes setting "a speed higher than hover speed to provide a climbing speed and a speed lower than hover speed to provide a fall speed" (’866 Patent, col. 4:58-61), which emphasizes two distinct, predefined speeds, potentially narrowing the scope away from a single, variable hover algorithm.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induced infringement by "reaching out to buyers at the Third-Party Sellers and encouraging those buyers to purchase goods that infringed" (Compl. ¶21).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the ’866 Patent. The complaint alleges that a third-party seller, Burlington, provided Defendant with a copy of a detailed cease-and-desist letter that identified the ’866 patent, included claim charts, and cited the patent's extensive and successful litigation history (Compl. ¶22; Ex. C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope and technical operation: Does the accused product's altitude control system, which creates a "hover" effect, literally operate by switching between a predefined "climb speed" and a predefined "fall speed" as required by the claim language? Or does it employ a different control logic that falls outside the patent's specific two-speed architecture?
- A key question for damages will be willfulness: Given that the complaint alleges Defendant was provided with a detailed notice letter referencing the patent's successful litigation history, what evidence can Defendant present to establish a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity that would be sufficient to overcome the charge of willful infringement?
- An evidentiary question will be one of inducement: What specific acts, beyond simply selling the product to retailers, constitute the alleged "encouragement" of third parties to infringe, as required to prove induced infringement?