DCT
8:25-cv-00546
Flying Heliball LLC v. Big Time Toys LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flying Heliball, LLC (California) and World Tech Toys, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Big Time Toys LLC (Tennessee)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McKOWN BAILEY
- Case Identification: 8:25-cv-00546, C.D. Cal., 03/20/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on the defendant deriving substantial revenue from sales in California, having systematic and continuous business contacts with the state, and entering into a consignment agreement to ship the accused products to a Target Corporation location within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "LED Helicopter Ball" toy infringes a patent related to automatic altitude control for flying vehicles and also infringes the trade dress of Plaintiffs' "Flying Heliball" product.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a downward-facing proximity sensor on a flying toy to automatically maintain its altitude relative to a surface, a feature that simplifies the toy's operation.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was assigned to Plaintiff Flying Heliball, LLC in 2022. The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs provided Defendant with a copy of the patent and specific infringement allegations prior to filing the lawsuit, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-01-14 | '866 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-09-05 | '866 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-07-XX | Plaintiff WTT allegedly began using the asserted trade dress |
| 2022-XX-XX | '866 Patent assigned to Plaintiff FH |
| 2024-XX-XX | Defendant allegedly began selling the accused product |
| Summer 2024 | Plaintiffs allegedly discovered the infringement |
| 2025-03-20 | 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 September 5, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that for toy helicopters and similar vehicles, the “ability to maintain a stable flight or hover is difficult to implement without the user constantly adjusting the speed of the propellers” (’866 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an automatic altitude control system for a flying vehicle. It uses a downward-facing transmitter and receiver pair to detect the vehicle's proximity to a surface (’866 Patent, col. 2:47-52). A control system then automatically adjusts the speed of the vehicle's propellers based on whether it receives a "bounced signal" from the surface. When a signal is detected, the propeller speed increases to cause a climb; when no signal is detected, the speed decreases to cause a descent, thereby allowing the vehicle to autonomously hover at a certain height (’866 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:18-22).
- Technical Importance: This automated control system simplifies the operation of flying toys, making them more accessible and user-friendly for the hobbyist market (’866 Patent, col. 2:13-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10 of the ’866 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12, 31).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a vehicle comprising:
- A means for propelling in a vertical direction
- A transmitter on the bottom of the vehicle for transmitting a signal downwardly
- A receiver on the bottom for receiving the signal as it is bounced off a surface
- A control system that automatically sets the propeller speed to a first, higher speed (to gain altitude) when the bounced signal is received, and to a second, lower speed (to lose altitude) when the bounced signal is not received
- Independent Claim 10 recites a system to control a flying vehicle's movement, comprising:
- A transmitter/receiver pair that transmits a signal in a predetermined direction
- A means to fly the vehicle in a direction opposite to the predetermined direction when a bounced signal is received
- A means to fly the vehicle in a direction similar to the predetermined direction when a bounced signal is not received
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are identified as the "LED Helicopter Ball" and products sold under the name "TOYPLANET" (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 57).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a flying toy that includes a controller, battery, two propellers with a motor assembly, a receiver, and a transmitter (Compl. ¶ 30).
- The alleged infringing functionality is that when a signal from the transmitter "bounces off a surface and is received by the receiver, the controller adjusts electrical current from the battery to the propellor to cause the Infringing Products to fly away from the surface" (Compl. ¶ 30). The complaint includes a side-by-side photographic comparison of Plaintiffs' and Defendant's products, highlighting similar design features (Compl. p. 7).
- The products are allegedly sold in Target Corporation's retail stores and on Target.com (Compl. ¶ 20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶ 31). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 based on 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 accused products have "two propellors with a motor assembly." | ¶30 | col. 2:45-47 |
| a transmitter positioned on the bottom of said vehicle for transmitting a signal from the vehicle downwardly away from said vehicle... | The accused products have "a transmitter, on the device" that sends a signal that "bounces off a surface." | ¶30 | col. 2:47-49 |
| 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 have "a receiver" that receives the signal after it "bounces off a surface." | ¶30 | col. 2:49-52 |
| a control system that automatically sets a speed of the propelling means...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 accused products have "a controller that is electrically connected to a battery" which "adjusts electrical current...to cause the Infringing Products to fly away from the surface." | ¶30 | col. 2:53-59 |
| and the control system having a second means to set the speed of the propelling means 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. | The complaint quotes this claim language but does not provide a corresponding factual allegation describing how the accused product functions when a bounced signal is not received. | ¶11 | col. 2:59 - 8:10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The complaint alleges the accused product "fl[ies] away from the surface" when a signal is received, which may map to the "gain altitude" limitation of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 30). However, the complaint does not contain a parallel allegation describing what the product does when a signal is not received. A key question will be whether Plaintiffs can produce evidence that the accused product performs the second, "lose altitude" function required by the claim.
- Scope Questions: Claim 10 uses the terms "direction opposite of" and "direction similar to" the transmitted signal's direction (Compl. ¶ 12). While these likely correspond to the "gain altitude" and "lose altitude" functions in Claim 1, the construction of "similar" could become a point of contention if the accused product's downward movement does not conform to the specific "fall speed" described in the patent's specification.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "control system that automatically sets a speed...said control system having a first means...and...a second means..." (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: These are means-plus-function limitations governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Their scope is not determined by the literal words of the claim, but is instead limited to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the recited functions, and their equivalents. Infringement will hinge on whether the accused product's controller constitutes such an equivalent structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the structure as a "circuit board" (e.g., ’866 Patent, col. 3:20), a general term that could support an argument that any modern microcontroller programmed to perform the claimed functions is a structural equivalent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific control logic in the flowchart of Figure 7, which describes discrete "climb speed," "fall speed," and "hover speed" states, along with timers (T1, T2) that govern transitions between them (’866 Patent, Fig. 7; col. 4:32-col. 5:4). A defendant may argue that this specific three-state logic is the corresponding structure, and that a product using a different algorithm (e.g., proportional or continuous control) is not structurally equivalent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant knowingly encouraged infringement by "reaching out to buyers at the Third-Party Sellers" and by causing Target to sell the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 58). It also alleges contributory infringement based on the sale of replacement parts, such as wings and cables, that allegedly have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶ 59).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant having "known of the existence of the '866 Patent" (Compl. ¶ 34). The complaint alleges this knowledge stems from Plaintiffs providing Defendant "with a copy of the '866 Patent and infringement allegations" before filing the lawsuit, indicating alleged pre-suit notice (Compl. ¶ 34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core evidentiary issue will be one of functional completeness: The complaint alleges the accused product performs the first part of the claimed two-part control logic (climbing when a surface is detected). The case may turn on whether Plaintiffs can prove the accused product also performs the second required function—automatically losing altitude when a surface is no longer detected.
- A central legal issue will be the scope of the means-plus-function claims: The dispute will likely focus on whether the "control system" is limited to the specific three-state (climb/fall/hover) algorithm detailed in the patent's specification and Figure 7, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other control logic that achieves a similar automatic hovering effect, which would require an equivalency analysis.