DCT
8:24-cv-01838
Flying Heliball LLC v. Zero Zero Robotics Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flying Heliball, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Zero Zero Robotics, Inc. (Delaware) and affiliated entities
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McKown Bailey
- Case Identification: 8:24-cv-01838, C.D. Cal., 12/06/24
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Zero Zero Robotics, Inc.’s alleged regular and established place of business in Tustin, California, and substantial revenue derived from sales of the accused products within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ HoverAir X1 and V-Coptr Falcon drones infringe a patent related to a control system for automatically managing the altitude of a flying vehicle.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns a system for unmanned aerial vehicles, particularly toy-grade drones, that uses a downward-facing sensor to automatically maintain a set distance from a surface below it.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendants with a copy of the patent-in-suit and infringement allegations in a notice letter prior to filing the lawsuit. The patent was assigned to the Plaintiff in 2022.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-01-14 | '866 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-09-05 | '866 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022 | '866 Patent assigned to Flying Heliball, LLC |
| 2024-12-06 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,100,866 - "Control System for a Flying Vehicle" (issued Sep. 5, 2006)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of maintaining a stable flight or hover for a flying vehicle, which typically requires constant user adjustment of the propeller speed ('866 Patent, col. 2:32-34). The goal was to create a "self-hovering vehicle" capable of automatically adjusting its height relative to a surface without direct user input ('866 Patent, col. 2:35-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a control system for a flying vehicle that uses a downward-facing transmitter and receiver pair, such as an infrared emitter and sensor ('866 Patent, col. 3:17-23). The transmitter sends a signal downwards; if the vehicle is close enough to a surface, the signal bounces back and is detected by the receiver ('866 Patent, col. 4:1-6). The control system is programmed with a simple logic: upon receiving a bounced signal, it sets the propellers to a predefined "climb speed" to gain altitude. When it does not receive a bounced signal, it sets the propellers to a predefined "fall speed" to lose altitude ('866 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-8). The patent describes that this toggling between climb and fall speeds allows the vehicle to maintain a relatively constant hover distance from a surface ('866 Patent, col. 4:15-19).
- Technical Importance: This system provides a simple, low-cost method for automated altitude control, making flying toys more stable and easier to operate for hobbyists ('866 Patent, col. 2:12-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, and 16 (Compl. ¶¶ 28-30, 55).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a vehicle comprising:
- a means for propelling in a vertical direction;
- a transmitter positioned on the bottom of the vehicle for transmitting a signal downwardly;
- a receiver positioned on the bottom of the vehicle for receiving the bounced signal from a surface;
- a control system that automatically sets a speed of the propelling means in response to the receiver;
- the control system having a "first means" to set the speed to a first, predefined speed that causes the vehicle to gain altitude when the receiver receives the bounced signal; and
- the control system having a "second means" to set the speed to a second, predefined speed that causes the vehicle to lose altitude when the receiver does not receive the bounced signal.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The HoverAir X1 drone and the V-Coptr Falcon drone (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶1, 32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as "gesture-controlled devices" that can sense obstacles and trigger evasive maneuvers without a remote control (Compl. ¶33).
- Technically, the HoverAir X1 is alleged to have a processor, four propellers, an infrared light sensor (such as a LiDAR sensor), and a downward-facing camera (Compl. ¶44). The V-Coptr Falcon is alleged to have a similar configuration with two propellers (Compl. ¶50).
- The infringement allegation centers on the infrared sensor, which is alleged to operate as a transmitter/receiver pair to detect proximity to a surface. When a surface is detected, the processor allegedly directs the propellers to fly away from it (Compl. ¶47). The complaint alleges this functionality is used for obstacle and ground avoidance (Compl. ¶52, 53).
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products compete in the American online market for "gesture-controlled toys" with products sold by Plaintiff's licensees (Compl. ¶34). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a Facebook advertisement for the HoverAir X1, promoting its "Pocket-Sized Self-Flying Camera" features (Compl. p. 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least claims 1, 10, and 16 of the ’866 Patent (Compl. ¶55). The narrative infringement theory is based on the operation of the products' infrared sensor and control system for altitude and obstacle avoidance. The complaint references, but does not include, a more detailed claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶55). The following chart is constructed from the narrative allegations in the complaint.
’866 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A vehicle having a means for propelling in a vertical direction | The HoverAir X1 and V-Coptr Falcon drones, which have propellers. | ¶44, 50 | col. 3:9-10 |
| a transmitter positioned on the bottom of said vehicle for transmitting a signal from the vehicle downwardly away from said vehicle | The Accused Products’ infrared sensor, which allegedly transmits a signal that is bounced off a surface. | ¶44, 47, 52 | col. 3:17-19 |
| a receiver positioned on the bottom of said vehicle for receiving said signal as it is bounced off of a surface, defined as a bounced signal | The Accused Products’ infrared sensor, which allegedly operates as a transmitter/receiver to receive a signal reflected off a surface. | ¶44, 47, 52 | col. 3:17-19 |
| a control system that automatically sets a speed of the propelling means in response to the receiver | The processor in the Accused Products, programmed with software, which allegedly engages the propellers based on signals from the infrared sensor. | ¶44, 47 | col. 3:17-19 |
| said control system having a first means to set the speed...to a first speed when the receiver receives the bounced signal, the first speed being predefined as a speed that causes the vehicle to gain altitude | The processor allegedly directs the propellers to "jump up" or "go back up" upon detecting a surface with the sensor. | ¶52, 54 | col. 8:3-6 |
| and the control system having a second means to set the speed...to a second speed when the receiver does not receive the bounced signal...the second speed being predefined as a speed that causes the vehicle to lose altitude | In one alleged mode, the product "goes down until it detects and surface." | ¶54 | col. 8:6-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Do the accused products' integrated infrared/LiDAR sensors (Compl. ¶44) constitute the "transmitter" and "receiver" pair as claimed? The patent specification describes these as distinct components and emphasizes a design that keeps the receiver "blind" from the transmitter's direct signal ('866 Patent, col. 3:25-34), raising the question of whether a modern, integrated sensor meets this limitation.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused system's operational logic match the specific, two-part scheme required by the claims? The claims require a "predefined" speed to gain altitude on signal receipt and a "predefined" speed to lose altitude on signal loss. The complaint describes complex behaviors such as "backs away from the sign, changes course, and evades the Cleveland Sign" (Compl. ¶49), which may suggest a more sophisticated control logic than the binary up/down system recited in the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a transmitter ... a receiver" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on whether the accused drones' single infrared sensor unit (alleged to be a LiDAR sensor) can be considered to be both the claimed "transmitter" and "receiver". The construction of these terms will determine if an integrated sensor component can meet a limitation that lists two seemingly separate components.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly state that the transmitter and receiver must be separate, non-integrated physical structures. A party could argue that a single component performing both functions meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification consistently depicts and describes the transmitter (132) and receiver (134) as distinct parts ('866 Patent, Fig. 3a). The specification also teaches that it is an "important aspect" of the invention that the receiver is "kept blind to the transmitter," which is accomplished by placing the transmitter "within a black tube 138 that is positioned adjacent to the receiver 134" ('866 Patent, col. 3:25-34). This may support an interpretation that the claims require physically or functionally separate components.
The Term: "a first speed being predefined as a speed that causes the vehicle to gain altitude" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the specific control logic. Infringement requires showing the accused products use this specific predefined behavior, not merely a generic "obstacle avoidance" function. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused drones' responsive maneuvering fits this rigid definition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "predefined" simply means the system is programmed to react by increasing thrust in response to a surface, without requiring a single, fixed "climb speed."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's flowchart (Fig. 7) shows the control system setting the "PROPELLING MEANS" to "EQUAL CLIMB SPEED" (230) or "EQUAL FALL SPEED" (280). This supports a narrower reading where "predefined" refers to specific, predetermined speed values, not a dynamic or variable response. The complaint's description of the accused drone "chang[ing] course, and evad[ing]" an obstacle (Compl. ¶49) raises the question of whether its behavior aligns with this more structured, predefined speed-setting logic.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement. The factual basis includes Defendants' alleged encouragement of third-party merchants (e.g., on Amazon, Shopify, TikTok) to sell the Accused Products (Compl. ¶57). It is also alleged that Defendants create advertisements that induce customers to purchase and use the infringing features of the products (Compl. ¶40-41). A screenshot of a Facebook ad is provided as an example of this inducement (Compl. p. 10).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported pre-suit knowledge of the ’866 Patent. The complaint states that Plaintiff "provided Defendants with a copy of the ’866 Patent and infringement allegations prior to filing this lawsuit" via a notice letter (Compl. ¶58-59).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: Does the accused drones’ integrated infrared/LiDAR sensor and its associated software meet the claim limitations for a distinct "transmitter" and "receiver" pair that operates according to the patent’s specific, predefined two-speed (climb/fall) control logic?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused drones’ sophisticated obstacle avoidance and maneuvering systems actually practice the simple, binary altitude-control method described and claimed in the patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
- The viability of the inducement claim may depend on whether the evidence, such as user manuals and advertisements, specifically instructs or encourages users to operate the drones in a manner that performs the claimed method, as opposed to merely promoting their general flight capabilities.