DCT
8:19-cv-01808
Voice Control Vehicles LLC v. Contixo Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Voice Control Vehicles, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Contixo Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fernald Law Group; Nelson Bumgardner Albritton PC
- Case Identification: 8:19-cv-01808, C.D. Cal., 09/20/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a California corporation that has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s voice-command quadcopter drone, when used with its smartphone application, 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 to control a remote vehicle, such as a drone or model airplane, using voice commands in addition to traditional manual controls.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patent-in-suit since at least January 14, 2019, the date it received a notice letter from the Plaintiff.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-05-06 | U.S. Patent No. 8,401,860 Priority Date |
| 2013-03-19 | U.S. Patent No. 8,401,860 Issued |
| 2019-01-14 | Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendant |
| 2019-09-20 | Complaint Filed |
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
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of operating remotely controlled (R/C) model aircraft, which requires significant manual dexterity and concentration (’860 Patent, col. 2:1-5). An operator needing to look away from the aircraft to manipulate auxiliary switches on a controller, even for a moment, risks losing visual contact and crashing the vehicle (’860 Patent, col. 2:6-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that supplements traditional manual controls with voice activation (’860 Patent, Abstract). An operator can speak commands into a microphone to control various functions of the vehicle, allowing the operator to maintain continuous visual line-of-sight with the model while executing complex maneuvers or auxiliary functions (’860 Patent, col. 3:1-15). The system is described as preferably being two-way, providing verbal feedback to the operator to confirm receipt and status of commands (’860 Patent, col. 3:9-15).
- Technical Importance: This technology aims to simplify the control of R/C vehicles, reduce the operator's cognitive load, and mitigate the risk of crashes associated with momentary distractions, thereby making the hobby more accessible and protecting increasingly expensive models (’860 Patent, col. 2:16-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A voice-activated command and control system for a remotely controlled model that has "trim control functions" (e.g., for stable flight) and an on-board controller.
- The system itself comprises a "portable microphone" to receive audible commands.
- A "portable voice-activated control module" transmits control signals to the model based on the voice commands.
- A "portable hand-held controller" with "manually operated trim-function controls" that also transmits signals to the model.
- A key functional requirement is that stable propulsion and control of the model can be achieved using the "portable hand-held controller" 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 "Contixo F8 Foldable Pocket Size Selfie Drone" used in combination with its corresponding smartphone application (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶13; Ex. B, p. 25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Product is a quadcopter drone that is controlled wirelessly via an application running on a user's smartphone or tablet (Compl. Ex. B, p. 26). The application provides an interface with virtual joysticks for manual flight control, which govern functions like ascent, descent, and steering (Compl. Ex. B, p. 27). The application also features a "Voice Control" mode that allows the user to speak commands such as "Forward," "Backward," and "Take Off" to control the drone's movement (Compl. Ex. B, p. 29). A screenshot from the user manual shows the voice control interface, which is activated by a button on the app's screen (Compl. Ex. B, p. 29).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’860 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preamble: A voice-activated command and control system for a line-of-sight remotely controlled model having trim control functions that are required for stable propulsion and control... the model having an on-board controller... | The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a drone that constitutes the "model" and that it has trim control functions for stable flight (e.g., acceleration and steering) and an on-board controller. | ¶15, Ex. B p. 27-28 | col. 11:46-54 |
| a) a portable microphone for receiving an audible command from an operator; | The system allegedly includes the microphone on the user's smartphone or tablet which runs the control app. A user manual screenshot depicts a voice control button and lists available voice commands. | ¶15, Ex. B p. 29 | col. 11:59-61 |
| 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 complaint alleges the smartphone app acts as the control module, transmitting commands via radio frequency to the drone after the operator speaks a command. A referenced video shows an operator saying "forward" and the drone moving accordingly. | ¶15, Ex. B p. 30 | col. 11:62-66 |
| c) wherein the portable microphone and portable voice-activated control module allow the operator, using his or her voice, to speak a word command... to voice activate and remotely control at least one of said control functions of the model; | The user manual for the Accused Product allegedly instructs users to press a "Voice Control button" to control the drone's movement with their voice using commands like "Forward, Backward, Left Side, Right Side, & Take Off." | ¶15, Ex. B p. 31 | col. 12:1-5 |
| d) a portable hand-held controller with manually operated trim-function controls... transmitting said trim control function signals... 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 complaint alleges the smartphone app serves as the hand-held controller, providing virtual joysticks for manual control. It further alleges that stable control can be achieved with this manual controller app independently of the voice module. A screenshot shows manual joystick operation for steering and ascent. | ¶15, Ex. B p. 32-33 | col. 12:6-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on a general-purpose smartphone running a software application meeting the definitions of multiple, distinct claim elements: the "portable microphone," the "portable voice-activated control module," and the "portable hand-held controller." A central dispute may be whether the term "portable hand-held controller," in the context of a patent that depicts a traditional physical R/C transmitter with joysticks, can be construed to read on a software application.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires that stable control be achievable with the "portable hand-held controller independently of the voice-activated control module." A technical question is whether the virtual joystick function within the accused app operates truly independently of the voice control function, given that both are software features within a single application, or if they are integrated in a way that negates the claimed independence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "portable hand-held controller"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint identifies a smartphone running an app as this element. The patent, however, was filed in 2005 and its specification and figures appear to contemplate a traditional, dedicated R/C transmitter with physical joysticks. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a software interface on a general-purpose device falls within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify that the controller must be a dedicated piece of hardware separate from the microphone or voice module. Plaintiff may argue that a smartphone is both portable and hand-held, and when running the app, it functions as a controller.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification consistently refers to a "conventional hand-held controller" with "levers, switches, buttons, etc." and "joy sticks" (’860 Patent, col. 3:15-18, col. 10:15-16). Figure 6 depicts a traditional R/C transmitter, which may suggest that the claims should be interpreted in light of these specific embodiments (’860 Patent, FIG. 6).
The Term: "trim control functions"
Context and Importance: The patent defines these as functions "required for stable propulsion and control" (’860 Patent, col. 11:47-49). The complaint maps this to the accused app's virtual joysticks for acceleration and steering (Compl. Ex. B, p. 27). The construction of this term will determine which features of the accused product must be operable "independently" of the voice controls.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim provides a functional definition—any control needed for stability. The patent also lists examples for different vehicle types, including rudder, elevators, ailerons for planes, and steering and throttle for cars, suggesting the term applies broadly to primary movement controls (’860 Patent, col. 8:19-34).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Background section consistently associates "trim controls" with the primary "flight control levers (commonly referred to as 'joysticks')" on a physical controller, distinguishing them from "auxiliary controls" operated by other switches (’860 Patent, col. 1:47-59). Defendant may argue the term has this specific, conventional meaning in the art.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶¶17-20). The factual basis for this claim is Defendant's alleged provision of "detailed instructions on how to use the Accused Products in combination with the Accused Product's app and a smartphone," which allegedly encourages users to perform the infringing acts (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the ’860 patent since "at least receipt of VCV's January 14, 2019 notice letter," establishing a basis for a potential future claim of post-suit or post-notice willfulness (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "portable hand-held controller", described in a 2005-era patent that illustrates a physical R/C transmitter, be construed to cover a modern, general-purpose smartphone running a software application that serves as the control interface?
- A second central question will be one of functional architecture: Does the accused system, which integrates both virtual joystick and voice control features within a single software application, satisfy the claim 1 requirement that the manual "trim control functions" be operable "independently" of the "voice-activated control module"?
- An evidentiary question will be one of direct infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes through its own "testing and use of the Accused Product" (Compl. Ex. B, p. 26). The ability of the plaintiff to prove these specific acts of direct infringement by the defendant, beyond the inducement of end-users, may be a focus during discovery.