DCT
1:18-cv-00244
Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC v. Yuneec USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Yuneec USA, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00244, D. Del., 02/09/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore deemed to reside in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless drone cameras and associated smartphone application infringe patents related to systems for wirelessly distributing and filtering digital images between mobile devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems where an image-capturing device, such as a drone, communicates with a second device, such as a smartphone, to transfer images based on specific pairing and transfer criteria.
- Key Procedural History: The U.S. Patent No. 8,437,797 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,204,437, indicating a shared specification and priority date between the two patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-08-08 | Priority Date for ’437 and ’797 Patents |
| 2012-06-19 | U.S. Patent No. 8,204,437 Issued |
| 2013-05-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,437,797 Issued |
| 2018-02-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,437,797 - "Wireless Image Distribution System and Method," issued May 7, 2013 (’797 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency and frustration associated with sharing digital photos among groups of people at the same event (e.g., weddings, parties, vacations). Manual methods like email or uploading to web services are often delayed and cumbersome. (’797 Patent, col. 1:41-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an image-capturing mobile device that can receive a plurality of photographic images, filter them according to a "transfer criteria" received from a second mobile device, and then transmit the filtered images to that second device. (’797 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-11). This creates a system for more selective and automated image sharing between paired devices.
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to automate and streamline the process of sharing images between individuals in near real-time, moving beyond manual, post-event sharing methods. (’797 Patent, col. 2:6-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 6 and dependent Claim 7. (Compl. ¶13).
- Independent Claim 6 recites an image-capturing mobile device with essential elements including:
- A wireless receiver, a wireless transmitter, and a processor.
- The processor is configured to perform steps including:
- Receiving a plurality of photographic images.
- Filtering the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria.
- Transmitting the filtered images to a second mobile device.
- Receiving the transfer criteria from the second mobile device.
U.S. Patent No. 8,204,437 - "Wireless Image Distribution System and Method," issued June 19, 2012 (’437 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’797 Patent: the difficulty of easily sharing digital images among co-located individuals. (’437 Patent, col. 1:41-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system comprising a "capturing device" and a "receiving device" that establish a "selectively paired relationship" over a wireless network. This pairing is based on a "pre-defined pairing criteria," which explicitly "comprises a geographic location of said capturing device." (’437 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:63-col. 7:6). This allows devices to pair and share images based on their geographic context.
- Technical Importance: The invention proposed a system for location-aware image sharing, enabling devices to automatically find and connect with other relevant devices based on geographic criteria, among others. (’437 Patent, col. 2:20-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶30).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a system with essential elements including:
- At least one capturing device and at least one receiving device disposable in a communicative relation via a wireless network.
- The capturing device has a capture assembly and a network component to communicate an image.
- The receiving device has a network component to receive the image.
- The devices are disposed in a "selectively paired relationship."
- This relationship is based on the devices being associated with a "common pre-defined pairing criteria."
- The "pre-defined pairing criteria comprises a geographic location of said capturing device."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "Yuneec International Breeze" and "Breeze Cam app," and similar wireless drone camera systems. (Compl. ¶14, ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused product is a drone equipped with a camera that is controlled by a smartphone running the Breeze Cam application. (Compl. ¶15). The drone and smartphone communicate over a 5 GHz Wi-Fi network, allowing the drone to transmit a live video feed to the smartphone. (Compl. p. 4, p. 7). The complaint alleges that a user can command the drone, via the app, to capture still images (snapshots) from this video feed. (Compl. ¶18). The system also features a "Follow Me" mode, which the complaint notes "uses GPS to track your movement," as shown in a screenshot from Defendant's website. (Compl. p. 26). The user manual, referenced in the complaint, provides instructions for "binding" the drone to a smart device over a Wi-Fi network. (Compl. p. 12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’797 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An image-capturing mobile device, comprising a wireless receiver; a wireless transmitter... | The Yuneec Breeze drone is an image-capturing mobile device with a camera, Wi-Fi receiver, and Wi-Fi transmitter. | ¶15 | col. 13:5-12 |
| a processor operably connected... | The drone contains a processor connected to its Wi-Fi module to manage image capture and transmission, as illustrated in a diagram of drone components. (Compl. p. 5). | ¶16 | col. 16:47-52 |
| receiving a plurality of photographic images; | The drone's camera assembly captures digital images and video, including the frames that constitute a live video stream. | ¶17 | col. 16:32-34 |
| filtering the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria; | The user, via the Breeze Cam app, selects particular image frames from the live stream to be captured as still snapshots, which is alleged to be the filtering. | ¶18 | col. 16:35-41 |
| transmitting, via the wireless transmitter and to a second mobile device, the filtered plurality of photographic images... | The drone transmits the selected snapshot images to the user's smartphone. | ¶19 | col. 16:42-46 |
| receiving, via the wireless receiver and from the second mobile device, the transfer criteria. | The drone receives the user's command to capture a snapshot from the smartphone, which is alleged to be the transfer criteria. | ¶20 | col. 16:50-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A central question is whether a user's manual command to capture a single still image from a live video stream meets the claim limitation of "filtering the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria." The patent's description of filtering based on data like "object recognition" or "locational information" (’437 Patent, col. 2:34-36) may suggest a more complex, automated sorting process than the manual selection alleged.
- Technical Question: What evidence demonstrates that the stream of video frames constitutes a "plurality of photographic images" that is then subject to "filtering," as opposed to a process of initiating a single new capture?
’437 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system to distribute... comprising: at least one capturing device and at least one receiving device... | The system consists of the drone (capturing device) and a smartphone with the Breeze Cam app (receiving device). | ¶32-33 | col. 3:12-16 |
| ...cooperatively disposable in a communicative relation with one another via at least one wireless network... | The drone and smartphone connect and communicate over a Wi-Fi network, as shown in the product's user manual. (Compl. p. 21). | ¶34 | col. 3:17-24 |
| ...disposed in a selectively paired relationship... based on... at least one common pre-defined pairing criteria... | The drone and smartphone are selectively paired by connecting to the same Wi-Fi network. | ¶38-39 | col. 6:63-65 |
| ...said pre-defined pairing criteria comprises a geographic location of said capturing device. | The complaint alleges this is met because the drone "must be located at a geographic location within the signal range of the Wi-Fi network" to pair with the smartphone. | ¶40 | col. 13:21-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: The primary dispute may center on whether the physical requirement of being within Wi-Fi range satisfies the limitation "pre-defined pairing criteria comprises a geographic location." The patent specification discusses more explicit criteria like GPS information or subject matter (’437 Patent, col. 7:1-20), raising the question of whether "geographic location" must be an active data point in the pairing logic, rather than a passive physical condition for connectivity.
- Technical Question: The complaint provides evidence that the drone's "Follow Me" mode uses GPS. (Compl. p. 26). A key question for the court will be whether this GPS functionality, which appears to be for flight control, is in any way used for the "selectively paired relationship" as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "filtering" (’797 Patent, Claim 6)
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement theory for the ’797 Patent rests on this term being construed to cover a user's real-time command to capture a single still image from a video stream. The defense will likely argue this is not "filtering."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the invention comprises "filtering the at least one digital photographic image" (’437 Patent, col. 2:29-31), which could be read to cover selecting one (or more) images from a larger set (the video frames). The action of selecting constitutes applying a criterion that "filters" out unwanted frames.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of transfer criteria for filtering, such as "object recognition, locational information, time, date, image name, etc." (’437 Patent, col. 2:34-36). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a data-driven, analytical process rather than a simple manual trigger.
The Term: "pre-defined pairing criteria comprises a geographic location of said capturing device" (’437 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the ’437 Patent infringement allegation. Plaintiff's theory equates this with the need for physical proximity for Wi-Fi to function, while the patent may require a more explicit use of location data for pairing.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states devices may be paired when "disposed in a predetermined and/or proximate relation with one another" (’437 Patent, col. 2:25-28), which could suggest that physical proximity itself is a form of geographic pairing criterion.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the criterion to comprise a location, not that pairing requires a location. The specification lists "geographic location of the device" as one of several distinct types of pairing criteria, alongside device ID and social groups (’437 Patent, col. 7:3-6). This suggests "geographic location" is a specific data point used for matching, not a synonym for the physical necessity of proximity.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges facts that could potentially support such a claim, such as Defendant providing the "Breeze Cam app" and user manuals that instruct users on how to operate the system in an allegedly infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14, ¶20, p. 12).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute will likely focus on fundamental questions of claim scope and how the accused technology operates. The central issues for the court may be:
A question of definitional scope: Can the claim term "filtering", in the context of the ’797 Patent, be construed to cover a user's manual command to capture a single still photo from a video stream, or does the patent's language require a more complex, data-based sorting of a plurality of existing images?
A key question of technical and legal scope: Does the "geographic location" pairing requirement of the ’437 Patent's claims read on the general physical necessity for devices to be within Wi-Fi range to connect, or must the system use a specific geographic data point (e.g., GPS coordinates) as an explicit parameter in the logic that establishes the "selectively paired relationship"?