Voice Control Vehicles LLC v. Alpha Group US LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Voice Control Vehicles, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Alpha Group US LLC f/k/a Auldey Toys of North America (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fernald Law Group; Nelson Bumgardner Albritton PC
• Case Identification: 8:18-cv-01686, C.D. Cal., 09/18/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a California corporation, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s voice-command toy vehicles, including drones and helicopters, infringe a patent related to systems for controlling remotely controlled model vehicles using both voice commands and a traditional manual controller.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the operational complexity of remote-controlled vehicles by allowing an operator to control non-primary functions via voice, while keeping their hands on the manual controls for primary flight and stability.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initial pleading in this litigation. It does not mention any prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit, any post-grant proceedings before the USPTO, or any prior licensing history.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,401,860 - "Voice-Activated Command and Control for Remotely Controlled Model Vehicles"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,401,860, "Voice-Activated Command and Control for Remotely Controlled Model Vehicles," issued March 19, 2013. (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a key difficulty in operating sophisticated remote-controlled (R/C) vehicles: the operator must often take their eyes off the vehicle to locate and actuate switches for "auxiliary" controls (e.g., landing gear, flaps). This momentary distraction, combined with the need to maintain manual dexterity on the primary "trim" controls (e.g., joysticks for flight), frequently leads to crashes. (’860 Patent, col. 2:6-23).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a dual-control system that separates primary and secondary functions. A traditional hand-held controller is used for the "trim" controls essential for stable flight, such as pitch and banking. Simultaneously, a voice-activated system, using a microphone and control module, allows the operator to command "auxiliary" functions vocally. This enables the operator to manage complex vehicle functions without taking their hands off the primary flight controls or their eyes off the vehicle. (’860 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-18).
• Technical Importance: The described solution aims to reduce the operator's cognitive load and improve the safety and reliability of operating increasingly complex and expensive R/C models by creating a more intuitive and less distracting control interface. (’860 Patent, col. 2:24-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4, 5, and 9. (Compl. ¶13).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A voice-activated command and control system for a remotely controlled model.
  • The model has "trim control functions" required for stable propulsion and control.
  • The system includes a portable microphone to receive audible commands.
  • A portable voice-activated control module transmits a signal responsive to the command.
  • The system allows an operator to use voice to remotely control at least one of the model's functions.
  • A portable hand-held controller with manual "trim-function controls" can achieve stable propulsion and control of the model "independently of the voice-activated control module."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "Sky Rover Voice Command Drone, Sky Rover Voice Command Heli Vehicle, and Sky Rover Voice Command Missile Launcher" as the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are voice-activated, remotely controlled model toys. (Compl. ¶16). It alleges they possess "trim control functions that are required for stable propulsion and control," an onboard controller to receive and execute commands, a portable microphone, and a voice-activated control module. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-21). A central allegation is that the Accused Products include a hand-held controller that allows for stable control "independently of the voice-activated control module," a feature Plaintiff supports by citing the products' user manuals. (Compl. ¶23; Compl. Exs. B, C, D). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint identifies Defendant as a "toy designer and manufacturer" but provides no further market context. (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’860 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint’s allegations track the claim language closely. A central dispute may arise over the definition of "trim control functions that are required for stable propulsion." The patent provides examples related to traditional R/C aircraft, such as ailerons, elevators, and rudder (’860 Patent, col. 2:47-55). A question for the court may be whether the simpler manual controls of the accused toy drones and helicopters fall within the scope of this term as it is defined and used in the patent.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the hand-held controller for the Accused Products can achieve "stable propulsion and control" entirely "independently" of the voice module. The complaint alleges this is the case (Compl. ¶23). The litigation will likely require evidence of how the manual and voice control systems are integrated in the accused devices' hardware and software to determine if they meet the level of independence required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"trim control functions"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational, as it distinguishes the essential manual controls from the non-essential, voice-activated "auxiliary" controls. The entire premise of the invention rests on this division of labor. Whether the manual joystick functions on the accused toys meet this definition will be a critical issue for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim describes these functions functionally as those "that are required for stable propulsion and control of the model." (Compl. ¶15). A party could argue this functional language should not be limited to the specific examples in the specification and should encompass any manual control necessary for a given model's stable operation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific list of what it considers "trim" controls for an airplane: "proportional movement of the airplane's ailerons (banking control)...elevator (pitch control)...rudder (yaw control) and...engine throttle." (’860 Patent, col. 2:47-55). A party could argue the term should be construed as limited to these types of primary flight controls, potentially creating a mismatch with the controls of a toy drone or helicopter.

"independently of the voice-activated control module"

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the required relationship between the manual and voice-control systems. Its construction will determine how separate the two systems must be for a device to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because it goes to the core architecture of the accused system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a key benefit as allowing the pilot to administer other controls "without moving his or her fingers off the aircraft 'trim' controls," suggesting a functional independence where the user can operate the manual controls without needing to rely on the voice system. (’860 Patent, col. 4:9-13). This could support an interpretation that does not require complete hardware or software separation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a "parallel-type system" where the voice-activated system is "independent from operation of manual controls." (’860 Patent, col. 10:3-6). The corresponding Figure 10 shows distinct signal paths for manual control (58, 60, 62) and voice control (12, 14, 18, 20), which could support an argument that a greater degree of electronic or logical separation is required.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint pleads a single count for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not contain factual allegations to support claims for indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "trim control functions," which the patent defines in the context of traditional R/C airplanes with controls for ailerons, rudders, and elevators, be construed to read on the potentially simpler control mechanisms of the accused toy drones and helicopters? The outcome may depend on whether the court adopts a narrow, example-based definition or a broader, functional one.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical independence: what factual evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused toys' manual hand-held controllers can achieve "stable propulsion and control" completely "independently" of the voice-control hardware and software, as required by the patent's claims? The analysis will likely focus on the electronic architecture and operational logic of the accused products.