DCT
8:19-cv-00656
Vector Launch Inc v. Lockheed Martin Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Vector Launch, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Lockheed Martin Corporation (Maryland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
- Case Identification: 8:19-cv-00656, C.D. Cal., 04/05/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains numerous offices and conducts substantial, ongoing business within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "SmartSat" software platform and associated nanosatellites infringe three patents related to in-orbit virtualization, resource scheduling, and state information transfer on satellite platforms.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns software-defined satellites, which allow for in-orbit reprogramming and dynamic resource sharing, aiming to make satellite capabilities more flexible, resilient, and accessible for commercial and government users.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that a meeting occurred between Plaintiff and Defendant in late 2018, which is presented as the basis for pre-suit knowledge in the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-10-19 | Earliest Priority Date for '238, '563, and '319 Patents |
| 2017-05-02 | U.S. Patent No. 9,641,238 Issues |
| 2018-01-23 | U.S. Patent No. 9,876,563 Issues |
| Late 2018 | Meeting alleged to have occurred between Vector and Lockheed |
| 2019-03-20 | Lockheed issues press release for SmartSat platform |
| 2019-04-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,250,319 Issues |
| 2019-04-05 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,641,238 - "Virtualization-Enabled Satellite Platforms," Issued May 2, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of traditional satellites being expensive to build and launch, and functionally inflexible once in orbit, as their capabilities are essentially "hardwired" at launch (Compl. ¶11). This limits access for organizations that do not require a full, dedicated satellite and prevents satellites from adapting to new missions (Compl. ¶11; ’238 Patent, col. 1:15-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a satellite architecture that uses virtualization technology, such as a hypervisor, to create and manage multiple "virtual nodes" on a single satellite's hardware ('238 Patent, col. 2:25-34). This allows different software applications (payloads) to run in isolation, sharing the satellite's underlying processing and sensor resources according to a "resource schedule" that allocates access over time, enabling in-orbit reprogramming and multi-tenant operation ('238 Patent, col. 3:22-34).
- Technical Importance: This software-defined approach aims to decouple a satellite's hardware from its function, creating flexible, multi-mission platforms that can lower the cost and time-to-market for developing and deploying space applications (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A communication interface with ground and inter-satellite portions for receiving user software payloads.
- A satellite control system to operate the satellite's logistical elements (e.g., power, position).
- A virtualized execution system to run the software payloads as "virtual nodes" according to a "resource schedule" that dictates "timewise allocation" of the virtual nodes to the satellite's resources.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 2, 4-7, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-20 (Compl. ¶21).
U.S. Patent No. 9,876,563 - "Virtualization-Enabled Satellite Platforms," Issued January 23, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In addition to the inflexibility of traditional satellites, distributed satellite systems (clusters) face the challenge of ensuring operational continuity and fault tolerance if one satellite in the group fails or can no longer perform its task ('563 Patent, col. 10:4-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention builds on the virtualized satellite concept by adding a mechanism for transferring "state information" between peer satellites in a cluster ('563 Patent, Abstract). This allows one satellite to serve as a backup for another, enabling applications or tasks to be handed off or recovered by a peer satellite in the event of a failure, thereby providing resilience to the satellite system ('563 Patent, col. 9:39-54).
- Technical Importance: This capability for stateful hand-offs is critical for creating robust, distributed satellite networks that can reliably execute complex, multi-satellite missions without interruption (Compl. ¶34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A communication interface to receive software payloads.
- A satellite control system for logistical control.
- A virtualized execution system to run payloads as virtual nodes that share resources.
- A system to transfer "state information" to a "peer satellite system configured as a backup."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14, 16-18, and 20 (Compl. ¶31).
U.S. Patent No. 10,250,319 - "Task Transfer Among Satellite Devices," issued April 2, 2019
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,250,319, "Task Transfer Among Satellite Devices," issued April 2, 2019.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the handoff of active tasks between satellites in a cluster. It describes a satellite device that receives "task information" from a peer, such as initial imaging data for a specific geographic region, and then uses that information to execute its own virtual nodes to capture and process new sensor data, effectively continuing the task as the satellites move in their orbits ('319 Patent, col. 11:31-48). This enables collaborative, continuous operations that a single satellite could not perform alone ('319 Patent, col. 11:31-35).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶42).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Lockheed's "SmartSat" platform of infringing by allegedly being "adapted to execute on one or more virtual nodes for capturing and processing sensor data" based on tasks received from other devices (Compl. ¶44).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Lockheed Accused Products" are identified as Lockheed's "SmartSat" software platform and the nanosatellites on which it is implemented, including the "LM 50 nano-satellites" such as "Linus" and "Pony Express" (Compl. ¶¶ 17-19).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Products are designed to allow users to program and reprogram satellites while in orbit, enabling new missions via a "software push" (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 23). The platform is alleged to use a "hypervisor virtualized execution system" with "containerized virtual machines" to run multiple software payloads by sharing the satellite's resources (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 34). The complaint states, based on a March 20, 2019 press release, that certain of these satellites are planned for launch in 2019 (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'238 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [a] a communication interface comprising at least a ground communication portion and an inter-satellite communication portion, wherein the communication interface is configured to receive user software payloads; | The SmartSat platform is deployed on satellites alleged to have communication interfaces for both ground and inter-satellite communications, which are adapted to receive user software payloads. | ¶24 | col. 6:50-55 |
| [b] a satellite control system configured to operate logistical control elements of the satellite; | Lockheed's nanosats are alleged to be configured with a control system that operates logistical elements such as propulsion, power regulation, and thermal control. | ¶24 | col. 6:56-59 |
| [c] a virtualized execution system configured to execute ones of the user software payloads deployed on the satellite as associated virtual nodes according to at least a resource schedule that indicates timewise allocation of the associated virtual nodes to resources of the satellite. | The Accused Products allegedly include a "hypervisor virtualized execution system" that executes payloads. The "resource schedule" is alleged to be met based on the "understood operations of a hypervisor," which executes tasks via "scheduling tasks in a time-based manner using one or more instruction schedulers." | ¶¶24, 8:1-6 | col. 7:1-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the term "resource schedule." The complaint alleges this element is met by inferring the standard operation of a hypervisor's task scheduler. A question for the court will be whether the general function of a task scheduler satisfies the specific claim requirement for a "resource schedule that indicates timewise allocation," or if the patent requires a more discrete, explicit scheduling component as described in its embodiments.
- Technical Questions: What evidence supports the allegation that the Accused Products employ a "resource schedule" as claimed? The complaint's allegation appears to be based on an inference about how hypervisors generally function, rather than on specific statements from Lockheed about the SmartSat architecture.
'563 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [a] a communication interface configured to receive software payloads for execution by the satellite system; | The Accused Products allegedly include interfaces for ground and inter-satellite communications adapted to receive software payloads. | ¶34 | col. 9:26-28 |
| [b] a satellite control system configured to operate logistical control elements of the satellite system; | Lockheed's nanosats are alleged to have a control system for logistical elements like propulsion and power. | ¶34 | col. 9:29-31 |
| [c] a virtualized execution system configured to execute... software payloads... as associated virtual nodes that share resources of the satellite system, and | The Accused Products are alleged to include a hypervisor with virtual machines that share satellite resources. | ¶34 | col. 9:32-37 |
| [d] transfer the state information over the communication interface for delivery to at least one peer satellite system configured as a backup to the satellite system. | Lockheed's nanosats are allegedly "configured to maintain state information for transfer to a peer or backup nanosat for fault tolerance," and that "during failover, the state of a failed nanosat is transferred to a backup nanosat." | ¶¶10:28-11:2 | col. 10:4-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The definition of "state information" will be critical. The dispute will likely focus on whether the data allegedly transferred by the Accused Products for "fault tolerance" constitutes "state information" within the meaning of the patent.
- Technical Questions: What is the factual basis for the allegation that the Accused Products transfer "state information" during a "failover" event? The complaint makes this specific technical allegation on "information and belief" without citing a direct source for this functionality.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '238 Patent
- The Term: "resource schedule that indicates timewise allocation"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the '238 patent infringement theory. The complaint's allegation for this element is inferential. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the inherent functionality of a standard hypervisor is sufficient to meet the claim, or if a more specific, separate scheduling module is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses scheduling in general terms, such as when a schedule is "used to determine and allocate addressing links between each of the applications to the sensor based on the defined time periods" ('238 Patent, col. 3:30-34), which could be argued to encompass any time-based resource management.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "indicates timewise allocation" and specification discussions of an "orchestration platform" generating a schedule based on requirements ('238 Patent, col. 4:36-52) may support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, explicit data structure for scheduling, rather than just the emergent effect of a task scheduler.
For the '563 Patent
- The Term: "state information"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the data that is transferred between satellites for backup purposes, which is the key feature of the '563 patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the data allegedly transferred by Lockheed's system falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes "state information" broadly as including "current operational state information for each of the applications, such as the tasks or processes that are operating, and may further exchange data generated at least partially from the sensors" ('563 Patent, col. 4:51-56).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Specific examples in the patent focus on substantive application data, like "imaging data" ('563 Patent, col. 9:15-19). This could be used to argue that "state information" requires more than just basic health or connectivity status and must relate to the application's substantive work product.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses its formal counts on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by "making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing" the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 31, 41).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents-in-suit. The complaint alleges this is based on both post-suit knowledge (from the filing of the complaint) and pre-suit knowledge stemming from a "meeting conducted between Lockheed and Vector in late 2018" (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 36, 46). The complaint alleges Lockheed "lacks a justifiable belief" that it does not infringe and has "acted recklessly" (Compl. ¶26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: what factual evidence does the plaintiff possess to support its detailed allegations regarding the internal technical operations of the "SmartSat" platform, particularly concerning the "resource schedule" of the ’238 Patent and the "state information" transfer for failover of the ’563 Patent, for which the complaint relies on inference and "information and belief"?
- The case will likely turn on a question of claim construction scope: can the term "resource schedule," as claimed in the '238 Patent, be construed broadly enough to read on the inherent task-management functions of a general-purpose hypervisor, or does the patent require a more discrete and explicit scheduling component?
- A key factual question for the willfulness claim will be the substance of the "late 2018" meeting: what was specifically discussed, and could it have provided Lockheed with knowledge of the asserted patents (one of which had not yet issued) sufficient to support a finding of pre-suit willful infringement?