DCT
8:19-cv-00762
Advanced Aerodynamics LLC v. Kyosho Corp Of America
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Advanced Aerodynamics, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Kyosho Corporation of America (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Insight, PLC; Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
- Case Identification: 8:19-cv-00762, C.D. Cal., 04/26/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is a California corporation that resides and has its principal place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Kyosho Space Ball drone infringes four patents related to self-righting frame assemblies for aeronautical vehicles.
- Technical Context: The technology involves protective, cage-like frames for small vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) drones that enable the drone to automatically return to an upright position after an inverted or off-kilter landing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff has previously sought to enforce its intellectual property rights against other entities, including the "Flying Sphere" by the Japanese Department of Defense and the "Atlas Flying Ball" by Unmanned Cowboys in the U.S.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-07-23 | Earliest Priority Date (’854, ’808, ’462 Patents) |
| 2010-09-02 | Earliest Priority Date (’667 Patent) |
| 2012-01-01 | Plaintiff's "ORB" product wins CNN Money "Hot Product" award |
| 2013-09-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8,528,854 Issues |
| 2015-06-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,067,667 Issues |
| 2015-12-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,216,808 Issues |
| 2016-09-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,434,462 Issues |
| 2019-04-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,528,854 - "Self-Righting Frame and Aeronautical Vehicle"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,528,854, "Self-Righting Frame and Aeronautical Vehicle," issued September 10, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the tendency for remote-controlled, helicopter-like aircraft to tip over when landing, which requires the operator to manually walk to the vehicle and set it upright before it can take off again (ʼ854 Patent, col. 1:10-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a structural frame for an aeronautical vehicle designed to automatically self-right. The solution combines two key physical principles: a low center of gravity, achieved by placing a weighted mass near the bottom of the frame, and a point of instability at the top, achieved via a protrusion or "apex." When the vehicle lands upside down on this apex, the combination of the high, unstable pivot point and the low center of gravity creates a righting moment that causes the vehicle to roll over into a stable, upright position, ready for its next flight (ʼ854 Patent, col. 2:40-62; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This design enhances the durability and operational ease of small drones by making them resilient to imperfect landings without requiring user intervention (Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A self-righting frame assembly comprising at least two vertically oriented frames arranged in a fixed spatial relationship.
- A weighted mass positioned proximate to the bottom of the frame assembly to position the center of gravity near the bottom.
- An apex formed at a top of the vertical frames for providing an initial instability to begin a self-righting process when the frame assembly is inverted.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,067,667 - "Self-Righting Frame and Aeronautical Vehicle"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,067,667, "Self-Righting Frame and Aeronautical Vehicle," issued June 30, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’854 Patent: the tendency of VTOL aircraft to land in a non-upright orientation, requiring manual recovery (ʼ667 Patent, col. 2:12-24).
- The Patented Solution: This patent, a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the ’854 Patent, describes a similar self-righting frame but adds further structural and functional elements. The claims require the inclusion of "at least one generally horizontally oriented frame" to provide structural support for the vertical frames. The claims also introduce "a lift and stabilization panel" carried by an upper portion of the frame, which can provide aerodynamic benefits such as enhanced stability, lift, or drag during flight or descent (’667 Patent, col. 2:53-65; Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This design suggests an evolution of the core concept, integrating aerodynamic control surfaces into the protective, self-righting cage to potentially improve flight performance (Compl. ¶¶13-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A frame structure comprising at least one generally vertically oriented frame member and at least one generally horizontally oriented frame member, mechanically coupled and defining a central void.
- A weighted mass carried by a lower section of the frame assembly.
- An apex formed at the top of the vertical frame member for providing initial instability to start a self-righting process when the assembly is off-kilter.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,216,808 - "Self-Righting Frame and Aeronautical Vehicle"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,216,808, "Self-Righting Frame and Aeronautical Vehicle," issued December 22, 2015.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a self-righting aeronautical vehicle where the frame members form a "dome shaped section with an apex." The claims focus on the frame structure providing a "passageway for airflow to the interior void" where a propulsion system is located, linking the geometric shape to its aerodynamic function (Compl. ¶¶15-16).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶38).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe by having a self-righting frame with multiple frame members in a fixed relationship, a dome-shaped section with an apex, and a propulsion system in the interior void (Compl. ¶¶15-17).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,434,462 - "Self-Righting Frame and Aeronautical Vehicle"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,434,462, "Self-Righting Frame and Aeronautical Vehicle," issued September 6, 2016.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a "self-righting substantially dome shaped vehicle body" defined by upper and lower regions, airflow passageways, and a convex exterior surface. The claims require that the apex or protrusion be "adapted to provide an initial instability to begin a self-righting process" when the vehicle lands on a horizontal surface (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶45).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products infringe by having a dome-shaped body with upper and lower airflow passageways, a convex exterior, an apex, and an internal propulsion system (Compl. ¶¶19-21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The Kyosho Space Ball drone, also marketed as the Kyosho "Remote Control RC 360-Degree Flying Sphere" (Compl. ¶7).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused product is a small, remote-controlled drone. Its key feature is a spherical, cage-like frame that encloses the rotors and electronics. The complaint alleges this frame assembly enables the drone to self-right when it falls to the ground in any inverted or non-upright position, allowing it to be operated again without manual intervention (Compl. ¶25). An image in the complaint shows the accused drone and its controller (Compl. p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’854 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least two vertically oriented frames, said frames having an uninterrupted, continuous peripheral edge between a top portion and a base portion... | The accused drone's frame assembly allegedly has more than two vertical frames with an uninterrupted, continuous peripheral edge. An annotated photograph points to these structures on the product (Compl. p. 8). | ¶25 | col. 5:19-24 |
| a weighted mass within said frame assembly and positioned proximate to a bottom of said frame assembly... for the purpose of positioning a center of gravity of said frame assembly proximate to a bottom... | The complaint alleges there is a weighted mass positioned at the bottom of the frame assembly to create a center of gravity near the bottom. An annotated image points to the "Base Portion" where the drone's heavier components are located (Compl. p. 9). | ¶25 | col. 5:48-54 |
| an apex formed at a top of said vertical axis at an upper portion of said vertical frames for providing an initial instability to begin a self-righting process when said frame assembly is inverted... | The drone allegedly has an apex that provides initial instability to start a self-righting process. A photographic sequence illustrates the drone flipping from an inverted to an upright position after landing (Compl. p. 9). | ¶25 | col. 2:46-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the wire-like cage of the accused product constitutes "frames" as understood in the patent. The patent figures depict more substantial, solid elliptical members, raising the question of whether the claim scope covers the accused product's lighter construction.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the "apex" provides "initial instability." A point of contention may be whether the product's self-righting action is caused by the specific instability mechanism described in the patent (i.e., a protrusion that angulates the center of gravity) or is simply a consequence of having a low center of gravity and a generally spherical shape.
’667 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame structure comprising... at least one generally vertically oriented frame member... and at least one generally horizontally oriented frame... being mechanically coupled... | The accused product is alleged to have a frame with more than one vertically oriented frame member and at least one generally horizontal frame coupled to the vertical members. Annotated images point out these separate components (Compl. p. 12). | ¶32 | col. 2:36-44 |
| a weighted mass carried by a lower section of the frame assembly for the purpose of positioning a center of gravity of the frame assembly proximate to a bottom... | The product allegedly includes a weighted base in its lower section that positions the center of gravity near the bottom. An annotated image points to this "Base Portion" (Compl. p. 13). | ¶32 | col. 3:3-7 |
| an apex formed at a top of the at least one generally vertically oriented frame member for providing an initial instability to begin a self-righting process when the frame assembly is off-kilter... | The product is alleged to have an apex that provides instability to initiate self-righting from an off-kilter or inverted orientation. A photo sequence shows the accused product righting itself (Compl. p. 13). | ¶32 | col. 3:5-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Similar to the ’854 patent, the interpretation of "frame member" will be critical. The defendant may argue that the thin, crossing wires of its product do not meet the structural definition of separate vertical and horizontal "frame members" as claimed.
- Technical Questions: As with the ’854 patent, the analysis may focus on whether the product's self-righting is attributable to the claimed "apex providing an initial instability" or to other physical properties not explicitly claimed in that limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "frame" / "frame member" (’854 Claim 1; ’667 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the accused product uses a cage made of thin, wire-like elements, whereas the patent figures depict more substantial, solid-looking elliptical structures. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that its wire cage does not constitute "frames" or distinct "frame members" as envisioned by the patent, potentially avoiding infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the frames in functional terms, stating they "define a central void" and provide structural support, without explicitly limiting their thickness or cross-sectional shape (’854 Patent, col. 2:32-40). This may support an interpretation where any structural element performing this function qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: All figures in the ’854 and ’667 patents consistently depict frames as relatively wide, solid, ribbon-like elliptical structures (’854 Patent, Fig. 1; ’667 Patent, Fig. 1). A court may view these consistent depictions as limiting the term to structures of a similar, more substantial character.
The Term: "apex ... for providing an initial instability" (’854 Claim 1; ’667 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation. Infringement requires not just the presence of an apex (a high point), but that the apex performs the specific function of creating instability to initiate the self-righting process. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the self-righting of the accused product is attributable to its overall spherical shape and low center of gravity rather than this specific apex-driven instability, infringement may be contested.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to cover any top structure that, when placed on a surface, results in an unstable state that leads to self-righting, regardless of the precise mechanism.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific technical explanation for how the apex/protrusion creates instability: it "extends from the top of the vertical axis and above the vertical frames a distance such that the central axis is sufficiently angulated from vertical to horizontally displace the center of gravity beyond the point of contact" (’854 Patent, col. 2:55-62). This suggests a specific geometric and physical relationship is required, potentially narrowing the claim's scope to structures that operate in this exact manner.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's alleged actions of encouraging and instructing customers to use the Accused Products through its support and sales materials, such as product listings on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶¶27, 34, 40, 47).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continued infringement despite having knowledge of the patents, with knowledge alleged to begin "as early as the date of service of the Original Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶26, 33, 39, 46). No specific allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: will the term "frame," which is depicted in patent figures as a substantial, solid structure, be construed broadly enough to read on the thin, wire-cage construction of the accused drone?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of causation and function: does the accused product's self-righting capability arise from the specific mechanism claimed in the patents—an "apex providing an initial instability" by displacing the center of gravity—or is it an inherent property of any object with a similar low-slung mass and rounded shape?
- The litigation may also explore the distinctions between the patents: as the patent family evolved, the claims added limitations related to dome shapes, airflow, and stabilization panels. The analysis will require determining whether the accused product meets the specific combination of elements recited in each of the four asserted patents.