DCT
8:19-cv-01807
Voice Control Vehicles LLC v. Best Choice Products Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Voice Control Vehicles, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Best Choice Products, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: FERNALD LAW LLP; NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON PC
- Case Identification: 8:19-cv-01807, C.D. Cal., 09/20/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant is a California corporation with a regular and established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s voice-command-enabled quadcopter drone infringes a patent related to voice-activated command and control systems for remotely controlled model vehicles.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that allow an operator of a remote-controlled vehicle to issue voice commands for certain functions, intended to reduce the need to take one's hands off the primary flight controls.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter regarding the patent-in-suit on January 15, 2019, followed by a claim chart on February 10, 2019, establishing pre-suit knowledge for the purposes of indirect infringement allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-05-06 | ’860 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-03-19 | ’860 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-01-15 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2019-02-10 | Plaintiff sends claim chart to Defendant |
| 2019-09-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
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,” issued March 19, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty of piloting remote-controlled (R/C) aircraft, which requires significant manual dexterity and constant visual contact with the vehicle. An operator looking away from the aircraft to manipulate auxiliary switches on the hand-held controller, even for a moment, can easily lead to a crash (’860 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that allows an operator to control certain vehicle functions using voice commands, which are received by a microphone and processed by a control module. This frees the operator's hands to remain on the primary flight controls (the "trim" controls, or joysticks) and their eyes to remain on the vehicle, improving control and safety (’860 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-10). The system is designed to work in parallel with a conventional manual controller, allowing for independent operation of the two control methods (’860 Patent, col. 10:1-13).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to lower the skill barrier for operating complex R/C vehicles and reduce the risk of crashing expensive equipment by simplifying the user interface during flight (’860 Patent, col. 2:24-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A voice-activated command and control system for a line-of-sight remotely controlled model that has "trim control functions" (e.g., joysticks) for stable flight.
- The system comprises:
- a) a portable microphone for receiving an audible command;
- b) a portable voice-activated control module for transmitting a control signal based on the command;
- c) wherein the microphone and module allow an operator to use their voice to remotely control at least one function of the model; and
- d) a portable hand-held controller with manually operated trim-function controls that can achieve stable control of the model independently of the voice-activated control module.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "2.4 GHz Voice Command Quadcopter" (the "Accused Product"), when used in combination with its associated smartphone application ("app") and a smartphone (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Product is a consumer quadcopter drone that can be controlled in two ways: (1) via a traditional hand-held remote controller with joysticks for primary flight maneuvers, and (2) via a smartphone app that connects to the drone over Wi-Fi (Compl. Ex. B, pp. 28-29, 32). The app provides an on-screen interface for manual control and also enables a "Voice Command" feature. This feature allows a user to speak commands such as "Take off," "Landing," "Forward," and "Backward" into the smartphone's microphone to control the drone's movement (Compl. Ex. B, p. 31). The complaint presents the Accused Product as a "Voice Command Quadcopter," suggesting this feature is a central part of its market identity (Compl. Ex. B, p. 27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’860 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a portable microphone for receiving an audible command from an operator; | The system includes the microphone on the user's smartphone, tablet, or other device running the Accused Product's app. A diagram in the product manual shows the app's "Voice Command" feature. | ¶13; Ex. B, p. 31 | col. 7:26-28 |
| b) a portable voice-activated control module for transmitting a control function signal responsive to the audible command received by the microphone to the model by wireless transmission; | The smartphone app itself, once downloaded and connected to the drone via a Wi-Fi hotspot, allegedly functions as the voice-activated control module that transmits control signals wirelessly. | ¶13; Ex. B, p. 32 | col. 7:34-40 |
| c) wherein the portable microphone and portable voice-activated control module allow the operator, using his or her voice, to speak a word command into the portable microphone to voice activate and remotely control at least one of said control functions of the model; | The smartphone app provides a "Voice Command" button and a list of specific commands (e.g., "Take off," "Landing," "Forward") that the operator can speak to control the drone. The product packaging explicitly advertises these "VOICE COMMAND" capabilities. | Ex. B, pp. 33-34 | col. 11:6-12 |
| d) a portable hand-held controller with manually operated trim-function controls...whereby stable propulsion and control of the model can be achieved with the portable hand-held controller independently of the voice-activated control module. | The Accused Product includes a physical hand-held controller with joysticks (left and right control levers) for manual flight control. The complaint alleges these manual controls allow for stable flight independent of the voice-command features available through the smartphone app. A diagram of the remote labels the manual controls. | Ex. B, pp. 29, 35-36 | col. 12:1-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A question arises whether the combination of a general-purpose smartphone and a third-party app constitutes the "portable voice-activated control module" and "portable microphone" as contemplated by the patent, which illustrates more integrated hardware like a headset or a custom controller (’860 Patent, Figs. 6-7).
- Technical Questions: The requirement that the manual controller operates "independently" of the voice-activated module may be a central point of dispute. The complaint alleges that some voice commands ("Forward," "Backward") replicate the function of the manual joysticks. The court may need to determine if this creates an operational conflict or override that negates the "independent" operation required by claim 1(d), or if the two systems are considered parallel and thus "independent" in the sense that one can be used without the other.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "trim control functions"
Context and Importance: Claim 1 distinguishes between "trim control functions", which are associated with the manual hand-held controller for "stable propulsion and control," and other functions that can be voice-activated. The definition of this term is critical for determining which controls the patent requires to be manual and which can be offloaded to voice command. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused voice commands (e.g., "Forward") appear to overlap with what the patent describes as trim functions.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted broadly to mean any control essential for basic flight. The specification states these controls "collectively" are "generally to referred to herein as aircraft 'trim' controls" (’860 Patent, col. 2:54-57).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific, narrow list: proportional movement of ailerons (banking), elevator (pitch), rudder (yaw), and engine throttle, which are typically mapped to two joysticks (’860 Patent, col. 2:46-54). This could support an argument that only these specific joystick functions are "trim controls."
The Term: "independently of the voice-activated control module"
Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the patent's purported novelty, which is the ability to maintain continuous manual control over primary flight while separately using voice for other tasks. Whether the accused system's manual controller is truly "independent" of the voice system will be a key infringement question.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a "parallel-type system" where operation of the voice-activated system is "independent from operation of manual controls" (’860 Patent, col. 10:3-6). The description of claim 5 further suggests the model is "alternatively responsive" to either manual or voice commands, which could support a broader view of independence meaning the user can choose which system to use at any given time (’860 Patent, col. 12:30-34).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where a voice command for an aerobatic maneuver will "momentarily over ride the manual joy stick controls" (’860 Patent, col. 11:15-16). A defendant could argue this shows that "independent" does not mean the systems can never interact or override one another, but simply that the manual controller can achieve stable flight on its own, without input from the voice module.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that the Defendant instructs and encourages end-users to use the Accused Product in an infringing manner by providing detailed instructions and user manuals (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 20). The infringement claim chart in Exhibit B relies heavily on the Accused Product's instruction manual as evidence (Compl. Ex. B, passim).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that the Defendant has had knowledge of the ’860 patent since at least January 15, 2019, due to a notice letter sent by the Plaintiff, which could form the basis for a later claim of willfulness or a request for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case will likely focus on fundamental questions of claim scope and technical operation. The key issues for the court appear to be:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "portable microphone" and "portable voice-activated control module" be construed to read on the combination of a user's own general-purpose smartphone and a third-party software application, an architecture not explicitly described in the patent?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational independence: does the Accused Product's manual hand-held controller function "independently" of the voice-command system as required by claim 1? The analysis will likely focus on whether the duplication of flight commands (e.g., "Forward") between the manual and voice systems creates an operational relationship that falls outside the scope of the claim's "independently" limitation.