Complaint

Complaint Analysis

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

## I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

*   **Parties & Counsel:**
    *   **Plaintiff:** [Firestorm Labs, Inc](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/firestorm-labs-inc). (Delaware)
    *   **Defendant:** [RapidFlight Holdings LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/rapidflight-holdings-llc) (Delaware)
    *   **Plaintiff’s Counsel:** [Perkins Coie LLP](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/law-firm/96)
*   **Case Identification:** [3:24-cv-02387](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/casd/3:24-cv-02387), S.D. Cal., 12/18/2024
*   **Venue Allegations:** Plaintiff Firestorm alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of California because Defendant RapidFlight purposefully directed patent enforcement activities into the district, including sending written communications and making litigation threats to Firestorm, which is based there.
*   **Core Dispute:** This is a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that its modular, 3D-printed unmanned aerial systems do not infringe two of Defendant’s patents.
*   **Technical Context:** The dispute centers on technology for manufacturing unmanned aerial systems (UAS) by combining modular, 3D-printed components with internal reinforcement elements, a field significant for rapid and cost-effective production of mission-specific aircraft.
*   **Key Procedural History:** The action follows over a year of pre-suit communications, initiated by a June 2023 letter from RapidFlight accusing Firestorm of infringing the ’490 Patent. Firestorm alleges that despite its explanations and provision of technical models to demonstrate non-infringement, RapidFlight has persisted in its accusations, including to Firestorm’s potential customers, creating an actual and immediate controversy necessitating this lawsuit.

#### Case Timeline

| **Date** | **Event** |
|:---|:---|
| 2021-12-22 | Priority Date for ’490 and ’323 Patents |
| 2023-03-07 | ’490 Patent Issued |
| 2023-06-28 | RapidFlight sends letter accusing Firestorm of infringing the ’490 Patent |
| 2023-07-12 | Firestorm’s counsel responds to RapidFlight's letter |
| 2023-08-11 | Firestorm sends letter explaining non-infringement, including 3D models |
| 2023-08-31 | RapidFlight’s counsel responds to Firestorm |
| 2023-10-03 | Firestorm’s counsel responds to RapidFlight |
| 2023-11-06 | RapidFlight’s counsel responds to Firestorm |
| 2023-12-12 | ’323 Patent Issued |
| 2024-12-18 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |

## II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

### U.S. Patent No. 11,597,490 - *“Additive Manufactured Airframe Structure Having a Plurality of Reinforcement Elements”* (Issued Mar. 7, 2023)

#### The Invention Explained
*   **Problem Addressed:** The patent’s background section notes that while additive manufacturing (3D printing) is desirable for its speed and flexibility, structures built this way are often "too weak or heavy for use in desired applications," and assembling multiple 3D-printed components can compromise their mechanical properties (’490 Patent, col. 1:13-18, col. 2:46-49).
*   **The Patented Solution:** The invention addresses this by combining modular, 3D-printed airframe sections with separate, high-strength "reinforcement elements" like carbon fiber rods. The 3D-printed segments are manufactured with internal "receiving channels." The segments can then be slid onto and bonded to the reinforcement elements, which pass through multiple segments to link them together, providing the "necessary shear strength, tensile strength, and compressive strength" that the printed material alone may lack (’490 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:2; Fig. 3).
*   **Technical Importance:** This method seeks to leverage the rapid, low-cost, and customizable nature of additive manufacturing while achieving the structural integrity typically associated with more traditional composite fabrication techniques (’490 Patent, col. 2:58-65).

#### Key Claims at a Glance
*   The complaint specifically references an accusation regarding Claim 12 but seeks a declaration of non-infringement as to all claims (Compl. ¶14, ¶57). The key independent claims are 1 (wing structure), 12 (fuselage structure), and 13 (combined wing/fuselage structure).
*   **Independent Claim 1 requires:**
    *   A plurality of separate, additive manufactured wing segments
    *   Each segment has an outer wall, an interior section, and interiorly-extending tabs
    *   Receiving channels are formed within the tabs
    *   A plurality of reinforcement elements are received in the aligned channels to link the wing segments together
*   **Independent Claim 12 requires:**
    *   A plurality of separate, additive manufactured fuselage segments
    *   Each segment has a circumferential outer wall and a hollow interior
    *   Receiving channels extend along the outer wall
    *   A plurality of reinforcement elements are received in the aligned channels to link the fuselage segments together

### U.S. Patent No. 11,840,323 - *“Additive Manufactured Airframe Structure Having a Plurality of Reinforcement Elements”* (Issued Dec. 12, 2023)

#### The Invention Explained
*   **Problem Addressed:** As a continuation of the application that led to the ’490 Patent, the ’323 Patent addresses the same problem: conventional additively manufactured structures can be "too weak or heavy for use in desired applications" (’323 Patent, col. 2:58-60).
*   **The Patented Solution:** The technology is identical to that of the ’490 Patent, describing a system of modular, 3D-printed airframe segments (e.g., wing sections) that are structurally joined by passing reinforcement elements through internal receiving channels (’323 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:54-60).
*   **Technical Importance:** The patent reinforces the same technical approach of creating hybrid structures that combine the benefits of 3D printing and high-strength composite rods for aerospace applications (’323 Patent, col. 3:5-10).

#### Key Claims at a Glance
*   The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any claim" of the ’323 Patent (Compl. ¶66). The independent claims are 1 (wing assembly), 11 (a single wing segment), and 17 (a single wing segment).
*   **Independent Claim 1 requires:**
    *   A first wing segment with a wall, tabs, and receiving channels
    *   A second wing segment with aligned receiving channels, coupled to the first
    *   A plurality of reinforcement elements received within the aligned channels that "links together the first and second wing segments"
*   **Independent Claim 11 requires:**
    *   A single wing segment with an outer wall, internal walls, and interiorly-extending tabs
    *   A plurality of receiving channels within the tabs, each "configured to receive a respective reinforcement element"

## III. The Accused Instrumentality

### Product Identification
The complaint identifies Firestorm’s "Tempest UAS design" as the subject of RapidFlight's infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 60). It also refers more generally to Firestorm's "modular, 3D printed unmanned aerial systems" (Compl. ¶1).

### Functionality and Market Context
Firestorm's products are described as additively manufactured UAS airframes (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges that RapidFlight's infringement theory mischaracterizes a "simple connector component" on these products as a "reinforcement element" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint states that Firestorm provided "three-dimensional models" of its products to RapidFlight to demonstrate how the infringement allegation is incorrect (Compl. ¶23). Firestorm positions itself as a direct and successful competitor to RapidFlight, particularly in the market for government and defense contracts (Compl. ¶¶ 4-7, 35).

## IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include a claim chart but outlines a central non-infringement theory. The following table summarizes the likely dispute based on that theory and an analysis of the patents' independent claims.

#### ’490 Patent Infringement Allegations
| **Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12)** | **Alleged Infringing Functionality** | **Complaint Citation** | **Patent Citation** |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| a plurality of additive manufactured fuselage segments operable to be linked together | Firestorm's modular, 3D-printed UAS fuselage sections | ¶1, ¶23 | col. 9:22-26 |
| a plurality of receiving channels extending along the outer wall | Internal features within Firestorm's fuselage segments | ¶21, ¶23 | col. 9:32-39 |
| a plurality of reinforcement elements operable to be received in the aligned plurality of receiving channels...wherein the received plurality of reinforcing elements links together the plurality of additive manufactured fuselage segments | Firestorm contends this element is not met, alleging that RapidFlight misidentifies a "simple connector component" as the claimed "reinforcement element" | ¶21, ¶22 | col. 9:40-44 |

#### ’323 Patent Infringement Allegations
| **Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)** | **Alleged Infringing Functionality** | **Complaint Citation** | **Patent Citation** |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| a first wing segment...a second wing segment...coupled to the first wing segment | Firestorm's modular, 3D-printed UAS wing sections | ¶1, ¶23 | col. 9:22-40 |
| a plurality of reinforcement elements received within the plurality of receiving channels...wherein the plurality of reinforcement elements links together the first and second wing segments | Firestorm asserts that its products do not contain this element, arguing its "simple connector component" does not function as the claimed "reinforcement element" | ¶21, ¶22 | col. 9:41-45 |

*   **Identified Points of Contention:**
    *   **Scope Questions:** A primary issue for the court will be claim construction. The dispute centers on whether the term "reinforcement element," which the patent describes as providing structural integrity by linking multiple segments, can be interpreted to read on what Firestorm calls a "simple connector component" (Compl. ¶21).
    *   **Technical Questions:** A factual question is whether Firestorm's "connector component" actually performs the function of "linking together" separate airframe segments to provide primary structural strength, as required by the claims. The complaint states that Firestorm provided three-dimensional models of its product to RapidFlight's counsel to demonstrate non-infringement, suggesting this technical evidence will be central to the dispute (Compl. ¶23).

## V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

*   **The Term:** "reinforcement element" / "reinforcing elements"
*   **Context and Importance:** This term is the crux of the dispute as framed by the complaint. Firestorm’s non-infringement position appears to entirely depend on establishing that its accused "simple connector component" does not meet the definition of a "reinforcement element" (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.
*   **Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:**
    *   **Evidence for a Broader Interpretation:** The claims require the element to be "operable to be received" in channels and to "link together" the segments (’490 Patent, col. 9:40-44). The specification discloses a wide variety of materials, including not only carbon fiber but also "fiberglass, E glass, S glass, aramid, metallic, and/or wood," which may support an argument that the term is not limited to a specific material or level of strength (’490 Patent, col. 4:18-19).
    *   **Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation:** A party may argue the term is functionally limited by the patent's stated purpose. The specification repeatedly states the invention solves the problem of weak 3D-printed parts by using reinforcement elements to "provide... the necessary shear strength, tensile strength, and compressive strength" (’490 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:2). This could support a narrower construction requiring the element to be a primary structural member, not merely a connector for alignment. Specific embodiments describing "pultruded carbon fiber rods" may also be used to argue for a more limited scope (’490 Patent, col. 4:15-16).

## VI. Other Allegations

*   **Indirect Infringement:** Firestorm seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not indirectly infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶53, ¶62). The complaint does not, however, detail any specific allegations of inducement or contributory infringement made by RapidFlight.
*   **Willful Infringement:** Willfulness is not alleged by Firestorm. However, the complaint establishes that RapidFlight put Firestorm on notice of the patents-in-suit as of June 28, 2023 (Compl. ¶12). This date would be relevant to any potential future counterclaim by RapidFlight for willful infringement.

## VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action appears to hinge on two central questions for the court:

1.  A core issue will be one of **definitional scope:** can the claim term "reinforcement element," described in the patents as a structural member that links separate 3D-printed segments to provide strength, be properly construed to encompass the "simple connector component" allegedly used in Firestorm's accused UAS design?

2.  A key evidentiary question will be one of **technical function:** does Firestorm's connector component actually perform the claimed function of "linking together" multiple airframe segments to serve as a primary structural element, or does it serve a different, non-infringing purpose such as mere alignment? The analysis of the 3D models and the physical products will be critical to answering this question.

Drone rivals clash as Firestorm seeks DJ clearance from RapidFlight's patents, arguing its connector is not a `reinforcement element` in its 3D-printed UAS.

3:24-cv-02387

Firestorm Labs Inc v. Rapidflight Holdings LLC