DCT
3:22-cv-04480
Scientific Applications & Research Associates Sara Inc v. Zipline Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Scientific Applications & Research Associates (SARA), Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Zipline International, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Maynard Nexsen LLP
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-04480, N.D. Cal., 02/09/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant has its principal place of business in the Northern District of California, has engaged in systematic and continuous business activities in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) delivery systems infringe a patent related to acoustic collision avoidance technology and that Defendant misappropriated Plaintiff's trade secrets concerning the same technology following partnership discussions held under a non-disclosure agreement.
- Technical Context: The case concerns "Detect and Avoid" (DAA) systems, which are critical for enabling the safe operation of UAVs, or drones, in national airspace alongside manned aircraft.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties engaged in partnership discussions in 2017 under a non-disclosure agreement, during which Plaintiff disclosed its proprietary acoustic DAA technology and identified the patent-in-suit to Defendant. After communications ceased in 2018, Defendant allegedly developed and began marketing a similar acoustic DAA system. The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was recently issued a Certificate of Correction to add a 2006 priority date, and Plaintiff states it seeks infringement damages only from the date of that certificate, January 23, 2024.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-10-17 | Priority date for U.S. Patent No. 7,606,115 (provisional filed) |
| 2009-10-20 | U.S. Patent No. 7606115 issues |
| 2014-XX-XX | Zipline founded |
| 2017-04-05 | Parties enter into a Confidential Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) |
| 2017-06-15 | Plaintiff allegedly identifies the '115 patent to Defendant |
| 2018-XX-XX | Parties cease partnership communications |
| 2019-12-31 | Defendant allegedly begins filing patent applications on DAA tech |
| 2020-04-XX | Alleged start date of Defendant's infringement |
| 2020-04-20 | Plaintiff’s counsel sends letter to Defendant regarding '115 patent |
| 2022-06-07 | Defendant publicly announces its acoustic DAA system |
| 2024-01-23 | USPTO issues Certificate of Correction for '115 patent |
| 2024-02-09 | Plaintiff files Supplemental Complaint |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,606,115 - "Acoustic Airspace Collision Detection System" (Issued Oct. 20, 2009)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a collision detection system for smaller UAVs (Class I and II), as prior art systems like radar and optical sensors were often too heavy, costly, or power-intensive for these platforms. Such a system is necessary to allow UAVs to operate safely in the National Airspace System beyond predetermined corridors and restricted zones (’115 Patent, col. 2:7-13, 1:40-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses an array of externally mounted acoustic probes to passively "listen" for the sound of an approaching aircraft (the "target"). A digital signal processor analyzes the incoming acoustic data to filter out the UAV's own engine and wind noise, and then calculates the target's intensity, bearing, and the rate of change of its bearing angle. Based on these calculations, the system determines if a collision is imminent and can automatically command an evasive maneuver (’115 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:40-52). The system is designed to be lightweight, provide spherical coverage, and operate in all weather conditions, day or night (’115 Patent, col. 2:50-63).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for achieving an equivalent to the "see-and-avoid" capability required for manned aircraft, a key technical hurdle for the broader integration of UAVs into commercial and military airspace (’115 Patent, col. 1:45-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- An acoustic collision detection system for avoiding a potential collision between an aircraft and an approaching target comprising:
- an array of acoustic probes;
- a digital signal processor configured to receive acoustic data from the array of acoustic probes, wherein said digital signal processor:
- filters out noise and its own acoustic signals;
- extracts the acoustic signals emanating from the approaching target;
- calculates the intensity, the bearing and the bearing angle rate of change of the approaching target; and
- determines whether the aircraft and the approaching target are on the potential collision course.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims of the ’115 Patent (Compl. p. 18, fn. 1).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Zipline's unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that incorporate its "Detection and Avoidance (DAA) system" (Compl. ¶19, ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Zipline's DAA system is an "onboard acoustic-based technology" developed to "enable safe and autonomous flights in complex, and even uncontrolled airspaces" (Compl. ¶19). It allegedly "relies on a series of small, lightweight acoustic microphones and onboard processors to navigate airspace and provide 360-degree awareness with a range up to 2,000 meters" (Compl. ¶19). A May 2021 photograph supplied in the complaint shows a Zipline UAV with devices identified as "Acoustic DAA microphones" affixed to its wings (Compl. ¶62-63). The complaint alleges Zipline began manufacturing, using, and selling UAVs with these systems since at least April 2020 and has secured significant investment and partnerships, including with Walmart, based on this technology (Compl. ¶22, ¶69).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'115 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An acoustic collision detection system for avoiding a potential collision between an aircraft and an approaching target comprising: | Zipline's DAA system is described as an "onboard, acoustic detection & avoidance system" designed to ensure "collision-free flights." A photograph in the complaint shows a Zipline drone with components labeled as an "Acoustic DAA collision system" (Compl. ¶89). | ¶89 | col. 1:16-22 |
| an array of acoustic probes; | Zipline's system allegedly "relies on a series of small, lightweight acoustic microphones." The complaint includes a photograph annotated to show an "Array of acoustic probes" on the wings of a Zipline UAV (Compl. ¶89). | ¶89 | col. 6:7-10 |
| a digital signal processor configured to receive acoustic data from the array of acoustic probes, wherein said digital signal processor filters out noise and its own acoustic signals; extracts the acoustic signals emanating from the approaching target;... | Zipline's system allegedly uses "onboard processors." The complaint cites a Zipline patent application allegedly describing a system that can "distinguish between noise produced by intruders" and "noise produced by the aircraft's own engines" or "wind or weather noise" (Compl. ¶89, p. 23). | ¶89 | col. 6:45-48 |
| ...calculates the intensity, the bearing and the bearing angle rate of change of the approaching target, and determines whether the aircraft and the approaching target are on the potential collision course. | Zipline's system allegedly tracks intruding aircraft and commands avoidance maneuvers. The complaint cites a Zipline patent application describing the estimation of an "intruder elevation" and the aggregation of data to "track" the intruder, which is used to command a maneuver (Compl. ¶89, p. 24). | ¶89 | col. 6:48-52 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Zipline’s "acoustic microphones" and "onboard processors," as described in its public statements, meet the specific definitions of "acoustic probes" and "digital signal processor" as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations rely heavily on Zipline's marketing materials and its own patent applications. A key point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused Zipline DAA system, as it actually operates, performs the specific calculations recited in Claim 1—namely, calculating the "intensity, the bearing and the bearing angle rate of change" and using those parameters to "determine" a collision course. The defense may argue that its system uses a different, non-infringing methodology to assess risk.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "bearing angle rate of change"
- Context and Importance: This is a precise technical parameter that forms the core of the collision determination step in Claim 1. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether Zipline's system is found to calculate this specific value, or if it uses an alternative means of assessing collision risk. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent explicitly links a near-zero rate of change to an imminent collision (’115 Patent, col. 6:61-64).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not specify a particular mathematical formula for the calculation, which could support an argument that any method of determining how the bearing angle changes over time falls within the claim's scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains the physical principle underlying the term: "as two vehicles approach one another on a collision course the bearing angle rate of change between the two vehicles decreases to zero" (’115 Patent, col. 6:61-64). This could support a narrower construction requiring a calculation that directly assesses this specific phenomenon, rather than a more general directional tracking.
The Term: "digital signal processor configured to...[filter, extract, calculate, determine]"
- Context and Importance: This term recites the central logic of the invention. The dispute will likely center on what specific functions or algorithms are required to satisfy these claimed steps. The degree to which the specification limits these functions to particular embodiments will be critical.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses general functional language (e.g., "filters," "extracts") without reciting a specific algorithm in the claim itself, which may support a construction that covers any processor capable of performing these functions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides examples of how these functions could be performed, such as using the "Fourier Transform of a time series collection of sound data" or a "beam-forming algorithm" to determine direction (’115 Patent, col. 6:53-60). A defendant could argue these examples limit the scope of the broader functional language in the claim.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement by Zipline for its own actions in making, using, and selling the accused UAVs (Compl. ¶93).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Zipline's infringement has been willful. It claims Zipline had pre-suit knowledge of the ’115 patent as early as June 15, 2017, through an email sent during partnership discussions (Compl. ¶95). The complaint also cites a subsequent letter sent by SARA's counsel on April 20, 2020, which again identified the patent and its relevance (Compl. ¶57).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The dispute appears to hinge on two central questions for the court:
A core issue will be one of technical proof and infringement: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that Zipline's commercial DAA system actually performs the specific sequence of functions recited in Claim 1, particularly the calculation of "bearing angle rate of change" to determine a collision course? The case may turn on whether the evidence, which the complaint sources from Zipline's marketing and its own patent filings, accurately reflects the operation of the accused products.
A second key issue will be the interplay between the patent and trade secret claims: The complaint alleges that Zipline's technology, including details disclosed in its own patent applications, was built upon trade secrets confidentially disclosed by Plaintiff. This raises the question of how evidence used to prove trade secret misappropriation (e.g., Zipline's patent applications) will be used to establish infringement of Plaintiff's pre-existing patent.