DCT

1:25-cv-01945

Shenzhen Mammotion Innovation Co Ltd v. Futuregen Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01945, D.D.C., 06/20/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Columbia because Defendant engaged Washington, D.C.-based counsel to conduct patent enforcement and licensing negotiations, constituting the transaction of business from which the claims arise.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its autonomous robotic lawn mowers do not infringe, and that certain claims are invalid, of three U.S. patents owned by Defendant related to autonomous robot navigation, perimeter definition, and operational monitoring.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the control systems for autonomous robotic lawn mowers, a market segment focused on automating lawn care through virtual boundaries and intelligent navigation.
  • Key Procedural History: The action follows pre-suit interactions initiated by Defendant's patent infringement complaint filed on the Amazon marketplace, which led to licensing negotiations, the execution of a Non-Disclosure Agreement, and the exchange of claim charts and non-infringement arguments between the parties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-06-18 Earliest Priority Date for ’164, ’297, and ’776 Patents
2013-04-23 ’776 Patent Issued
2014-04-22 ’297 Patent Issued
2016-01-01 Mammotion Founded
2019-11-26 ’164 Patent Issued
2025-04-25 Mammotion US receives Amazon.com infringement notice
2025-04-30 FutureGen provides claim chart alleging infringement
2025-05-23 Parties execute a Non-Disclosure Agreement
2025-06-02 Mammotion transmits non-infringement memorandum
2025-06-06 FutureGen proposes a license agreement
2025-06-20 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,485,164 - “System and method for controlling and monitoring operation of an autonomous robot” (Issued Nov. 26, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for an autonomous robot that can perform a task within a confined area efficiently and effectively, overcoming the limitations of prior systems that may use physically defined perimeters like wires or beacons (US 10,485,164 B2, col. 1:23-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system comprising a robot, a server, and an external device (like a smartphone) that allows for remote monitoring and control. The system transmits the robot's location and work session status to the external device for display, enabling features like mapping the completed work area (US10485164B2, col. 2:5-30). Specific operational logic is also claimed, such as using a current sensor coupled to the cutting blades to infer grass thickness and adjusting the robot's movement based on its proximity to a defined boundary (US10485164B2, FIG. 20; col. 32:4-10).
  • Technical Importance: This approach integrates remote monitoring with on-board sensor-based logic to enhance the robot's operational intelligence and provide users with real-time status updates. (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 35).
  • Claim 1 (System):
    • A system with a server, an external device, and an autonomous robot.
    • The robot has a location tracking unit and a central processing unit (CPU).
    • The CPU is configured to transmit location data to the server while the robot is performing a task.
    • The server transmits this data to the external device.
    • The external device displays a visual representation of the work session status, including the boundary and the area where work has been performed.
    • The task is cutting grass, and the CPU is configured to detect grass thickness by comparing a value from a current sensor to a threshold.
  • Claim 8 (System):
    • Includes the server, external device, and robot system elements of Claim 1.
    • The CPU is further configured to: determine a distance between the robot's position and the confinement area boundary, move at a first velocity when the distance is greater than a threshold, and reduce to a second velocity when the distance is less than the threshold.
  • The complaint seeks declaratory judgment regarding claims that depend on these independent claims as well (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 36).

U.S. Patent No. 8,706,297 - “Method for establishing a desired area of confinement for an autonomous robot and autonomous robot implementing a control system for executing the same” (Issued Apr. 22, 2014)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of defining a working area for an autonomous robot with minimal effort and without physical barriers, which can be prone to failure (US 8,706,297 B2, col. 1:21-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system for defining a virtual perimeter by recording discrete location points as the robot moves. A key aspect is the automatic definition of a closed-geometry perimeter by the robot's CPU when it determines that a newly recorded point is "substantially coincident" with the starting point (US8706297B2, col. 2:1-12). Certain claims also describe a safety system using a capacitive proximity sensor coupled to the robot's housing to deactivate the robot upon detecting an object (US8706297B2, col. 2:23-41).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aims to simplify the creation of virtual boundaries by automating the "loop closure" step, removing the need for precise user action to connect the final point to the first. (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 13, and 18 (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 44, 46).
  • Claim 1 (Method):
    • A method of defining a confinement area comprising:
    • a) positioning a robot at a first location point P1 and recording it.
    • b) moving the robot to a plurality of additional points P2-N and recording them.
    • c) defining, with a CPU, a closed-geometry perimeter from points P1 and P2-N.
    • The CPU automatically performs step c) when one of the points P2-N is determined to be substantially coincident with P1.
    • The perimeter is defined as map data and automatically transmitted to a server upon definition.
  • Claim 13 (System):
    • An autonomous robot with a location tracking unit, memory, and CPU.
    • The CPU is configured to track the robot's location, record a first location point, automatically record additional points as it moves along a perimeter, and define a closed-geometry.
    • The closed geometry is automatically defined by the CPU upon determining one of the additional points is substantially coincident with the first.
  • Claim 18 (System):
    • An autonomous robot with a housing and control system.
    • A capacitive proximity sensor coupled to the CPU and to an electrically conductive portion of the housing.
    • The system stores a baseline capacitance value.
    • Upon detecting an object that causes an increase in capacitance, the CPU deactivates the robot.
  • The complaint seeks declaratory judgment regarding claims that depend on these independent claims as well (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45, 47).

Multi-Patent Capsule

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,428,776, “Method for establishing a desired area of confinement for an autonomous robot and autonomous robot implementing a control system for executing the same,” Issued Apr. 23, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for creating a virtual boundary for a robot by establishing an initial starting point (Po) as an internal reference coordinate (e.g., 0,0) (Compl. ¶20). The robot's subsequent position is then tracked relative to this internal starting point using on-board instruments like a "distance-traveled measuring mechanism" and a "directional indicating instrument" as a user manually guides it (US8428776B2, col. 2:5-21).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 10, and 20 are identified in the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 55, 57).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Mammotion's products do not infringe because they rely on an external Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) positioning system with a base station as the reference point, rather than tracking movement relative to an internal starting point recorded in the robot's memory (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 56, 58).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Mammotion Accused Products" include, but are not limited to, the Mammotion YUKA 2000, LUBA Mimi AWD, and YUKA Mini 500H series of robotic lawn mowers (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as autonomous robotic lawn mowers that establish virtual boundaries without physical wires (Compl. ¶21). Their positioning technology is based on Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) systems, which use a fixed external base station as a reference point to calculate the robot's real-time coordinates (Compl. ¶54).
  • When defining a confinement area, the accused products require the user to manually trace the perimeter, and upon completion, the user interface generates a prompt requesting manual confirmation to save and define the area (Compl. ¶45). The system does not automatically save the map data to a server upon definition (Compl. ¶43).
  • The products contain current sensors as part of their motor protection systems, which are allegedly configured to detect electrical overload conditions rather than to measure grass thickness (Compl. ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’164 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...a visual representation of a status of a work session... and a graphical representation of the boundary and a portion of an area within the boundary in which an activity has been performed... is displayed on the display of the external device; and The complaint does not contest this element but focuses its non-infringement arguments on the subsequent limitation. ¶33 col. 36:1-6
wherein the task is cutting grass and wherein the central processing unit is configured to detect, via a current sensor, a thickness of the grass by comparing a current value received by the current sensor to a threshold current value. The accused products' current sensors are alleged to be part of internal motor protection systems configured solely to detect electrical overload, and are not designed or programmed to measure or detect grass thickness. ¶34 col. 36:6-11
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical/Factual Question: The central dispute appears to be factual: do the current sensors in the accused products, which are present for motor protection, inherently or secondarily perform the claimed function of detecting grass thickness? The analysis may depend on whether any measured current fluctuation during operation can be interpreted as corresponding to grass thickness, regardless of the sensor's stated primary purpose.
    • Scope Question ('164 Claim 8): For Claim 8, a key question will be whether the accused products' navigation logic meets the "determine a distance between a position... and a boundary" limitation. The complaint alleges the products' turning and deceleration are not governed by any real-time measurement of distance to the perimeter (Compl. ¶36).

’297 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
c) defining, with a central processing unit, a first closed-geometry comprising the first location point P1 and the plurality of location points P2-N as a perimeter of the area of confinement within the memory device; The complaint does not contest this element directly but disputes the conditions under which it is performed. ¶42 col. 35:3-6
wherein the central processing unit automatically performs step c) upon one of the plurality of location points P2-N being determined to be substantially coincident With the first location point P1; and The accused products are alleged to not automatically define a closed geometry. Instead, after the user outlines the area, the interface requires manual user confirmation via a prompt before the perimeter is defined or stored. ¶45 col. 35:7-11
wherein the perimeter of the area of confinement is defined in the memory device as map data, and further comprising automatically transmitting the map data to a server upon the first closed-geometry being defined. The accused products' memory devices are alleged to not automatically transmit map data to a server once the confinement area is defined. ¶43 col. 35:12-16
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: The dispute centers on the scope of the term "automatically." Does a process that completes a technical step (defining geometry) only after receiving a final manual user confirmation qualify as being performed "automatically"? The complaint's description of a prior art system for detecting a closed loop, which includes a figure showing detection when the distance between a start and end point falls below a threshold, provides context for what an automated process might entail (Compl. p. 26, FIG 18).
    • Technical Question: Does the accused system's architecture perform the claimed function of "automatically transmitting" map data upon definition, or is this a separate, user-initiated step in the accused products?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "detect, via a current sensor, a thickness of the grass" (’164 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint's primary non-infringement argument for the '164 patent is that its current sensors are for electrical overload protection, not grass thickness detection (Compl. ¶34). The case may turn on whether the function of "detecting thickness" requires a specific design and programming intent, or if any system where current draw correlates to grass load meets the limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "wheel slippage, obstruction, and/or delay can be measured by monitoring the current usage of the drive motors" (US 10,485,164 B2, col. 12:9-12), suggesting a general principle of using current monitoring to infer physical conditions.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification includes a detailed flowchart (FIG. 20) showing specific logic where an "Avg. Current Value" is compared to "+10%" and "+30%" thresholds to make explicit determinations of "Thick Grass detected" or "Thin Grass detected" (US 10,485,164 B2, col. 32:4-44). This may support a narrower construction requiring such specific, programmed logic.

  • The Term: "automatically performs" / "automatically defined" (’297 Patent, Claims 1 and 13)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the '297 patent dispute, as the complaint alleges the accused products require a final manual user confirmation step to define the perimeter (Compl. ¶45). The definition of "automatically" will determine whether this intervening user step takes the accused products outside the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with prior art requiring precise user action, suggesting "automatically" means freedom from the need for the user to manually align the start and end points perfectly. A final confirmation click after the system has already identified the loop closure could be argued to be within this scope.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "once the autonomous robot 200 finishes travel... the CPU 235 either automatically recognizes that a closed-geometry has been formed (through proper programming) or the user activates a compute closed perimeter ('CCP') signal" (US 8,706,297 B2, col. 12:44-50). This distinction between "automatically recognizes" and a user-activated signal may support an interpretation of "automatically" as requiring no user intervention whatsoever once the positional condition is met.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement by Plaintiff. It does, however, include a count for Tortious Interference with Business Relationship and Expectancies against Defendant FutureGen (Compl. ¶¶ 61-68). The complaint alleges that FutureGen knew its infringement claims were unfounded and submitted its infringement report to Amazon.com in bad faith, refusing to withdraw it during negotiations in order to leverage Amazon's enforcement mechanisms to coerce a settlement (Compl. ¶¶ 63-64, 66).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological interpretation: does the accused products' use of an external, fixed RTK base station for absolute positioning fall within the scope of the '776 patent's claims, which describe a system that tracks its location relative to an internal, robot-defined starting point (Po) using on-board sensors?
  • A key question of claim scope will concern the term "automatically" in the '297 patent: can a process that requires a final, dispositive user confirmation step to save a mapped perimeter be construed as "automatically" defining a closed geometry upon the system's detection of positional coincidence?
  • The dispute over the '164 patent will likely turn on a factual question of operational function: do the current sensors in the accused products, which Plaintiff characterizes as being solely for motor overload protection, also perform the claimed function of "detecting... a thickness of the grass," either intentionally or inherently, by measuring load on the cutting blades?