Fury Tech LLC v. Dronedeploy Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fury Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: DroneDeploy, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00572, D. Del., 04/28/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in the state, which establishes residency for venue purposes under the standard set in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s drone software solutions, specifically its "Construction Solution," infringe two patents related to automatically and adaptively controlling a UAV's flight path to generate 3D models of structures.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of automated aerial surveying, where unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are used to capture images for creating detailed 3D models, a process with applications in construction, inspection, and mapping.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint indicates that U.S. Patent No. 9,352,833 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 8,965,598, establishing a direct familial link between the patents-in-suit. No other prior litigation, licensing, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,965,598 - "AUTOMATIC FLIGHT CONTROL FOR UAV BASED SOLID MODELING," Issued Feb. 24, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies limitations in using UAVs for structural inspections, noting that predefined flight paths may fail to capture all necessary data for a complete 3D model, requiring costly and time-consuming repeat flights. Operational constraints like limited power and flight time exacerbate this problem (’598 Patent, col. 1:36-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated system where a controller actively analyzes images captured by a UAV during flight. Based on these images, the controller identifies areas of a structure that have not been observed, forms "hypotheses" about these missing surfaces, and then calculates a new, optimized "least impact path" for the UAV to fly to capture the missing information. This creates a dynamic feedback loop to ensure complete data capture efficiently (’598 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-15).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to shift UAV-based modeling from a static, pre-programmed process to a dynamic, adaptive one, thereby improving the quality of the resulting 3D model while optimizing flight resources like time and energy (’598 Patent, col. 1:46-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 14-16).
• Claim 1 requires a system comprising:
  • a UAV with an onboard camera;
  • a controller capable of communicating with the UAV's flight control module;
  • the controller is configured to perform a sequence of steps: determining an initial path, capturing images, forming "surface hypotheses for unobserved surfaces" from those images, determining the missing information, and finally, determining a "least impact path" for the UAV based on that missing information and flight parameters (’598 Patent, col. 15:50-col. 16:1).

U.S. Patent No. 9,352,833 - "AUTOMATIC FLIGHT CONTROL FOR UAV BASED SOLID MODELING," Issued May 31, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation, the ’833 Patent addresses the same technical problem of incomplete data capture during UAV-based 3D modeling missions (’833 Patent, col. 1:45-55).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims the system from the perspective of the UAV. The invention describes a UAV that communicates with a separate controller. The UAV receives an initial path, captures images, transmits them to the controller for analysis (where surface hypotheses are formed), and then receives an updated "least impact path" back from the controller to execute. This emphasizes a distributed architecture where the UAV is the data-gathering and flight-execution device, while the computationally intensive analysis occurs on a remote controller (’833 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:55-65).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention is well-suited for modern cloud-based drone operations, where the UAV acts as an edge device, offloading complex processing to a more powerful remote server or ground station, and then receiving updated flight commands (’833 Patent, Fig. 2).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶¶ 21-23).
• Claim 11 requires a system comprising:
  • a UAV capable of communication with a controller;
  • the UAV is configured to: receive an initial path from the controller, capture images, transmit the images to the controller (where they are used to form surface hypotheses), and receive a "least impact path" back from the controller (’833 Patent, col. 17:60-col. 18:13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "DroneDeploy Construction Solution" as the "Accused System" (Compl. ¶ 24).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Accused System is a "flight control system for solid modeling" that, based on Plaintiff's "internal testing and usage," performs the steps recited in the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 26). The allegations track the claim language, asserting that the system determines initial paths, captures images, and dynamically adjusts the flight path to model a structure (Compl. ¶¶ 29-32, 37-40). The complaint does not provide further technical details on how the accused product operates or any information regarding its market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'598 Patent Infringement Allegations

'833 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and rely on unspecified "internal testing" (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 35). A central question for the court will be an evidentiary one: what evidence demonstrates that the DroneDeploy system performs the specific, adaptive feedback loop of (1) analyzing images to (2) form "hypotheses" about unseen areas and (3) calculating a "least impact path" to capture them? The dispute may focus on whether the accused system performs this dynamic, on-the-fly rerouting, or if it merely executes a more static, pre-planned flight path that is determined before the mission begins.
  • Scope Questions: The complaint asserts infringement of both the controller-centric claims of the ’598 Patent and the UAV-centric claims of the ’833 Patent against the same system. This raises the question of whether the architecture of the single Accused System can simultaneously meet the distinct claim structures of both patents, which assign the core analytical and decision-making functions differently between the controller and the UAV.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "surface hypotheses for unobserved surfaces" ('598 Claim 1; '833 Claim 11)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's adaptive capability. The definition will determine the level of analytical complexity required for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will dictate whether any form of digital gap-filling suffices, or if a more sophisticated geometric modeling process is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not further define the term, which may support an argument for a broader, plain-and-ordinary meaning that could encompass any programmatic estimation of unseen structural features based on available image data (’598 Patent, col. 15:58-60).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific, complex embodiments for generating these hypotheses, such as employing a "Random Sample Consensus Surface Extraction (RANSAC) algorithm" and computing "surface normal cones." This could support an argument that the term should be construed more narrowly to require these or technically similar methods (’598 Patent, col. 5:44-51; col. 6:35-42).

• The Term: "least impact path" ('598 Claim 1; '833 Claim 11)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the output of the patented optimization process. Its construction is critical to determining what constitutes an infringing flight path adjustment. The key dispute will be whether any new, more efficient path qualifies, or if the path must result from the specific optimization criteria disclosed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires the path to be based on "missing Surface information and desired flight parameters," which could be argued to cover any path optimized against those two inputs (’598 Patent, col. 15:63-67).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details a "multidimensional optimization" that considers a "goodness gradient" and a "cost function" representing flight parameters like total flight time, available power, and noise limitations. This may support a narrower construction requiring a path determined through such a multi-factor computational process (’598 Patent, col. 11:18-25; col. 11:53-67).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, stating Defendant encouraged acts that it knew constituted infringement (Compl. ¶ 46). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support this, such as references to user manuals, marketing materials, or other instructions that would encourage infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶ 44). This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for potential post-filing willfulness and a claim for enhanced damages, but it does not assert any facts to support pre-suit knowledge or willfulness.

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

1. A central issue will be one of technical proof: Can Plaintiff produce evidence from its "internal testing" or through discovery that the DroneDeploy system performs the specific, dynamic feedback loop claimed in the patents? The case will likely hinge on whether the accused system merely executes a pre-planned mission or if it truly analyzes image data in-process to identify and then autonomously navigate to cover "unobserved surfaces."
2. The case will also involve a core question of claim construction: Will the key terms "surface hypotheses" and "least impact path" be interpreted broadly, or will they be limited to the more complex computational methods disclosed in the patents' specifications, such as RANSAC algorithms and multi-dimensional "goodness gradient" optimizations? The outcome of this definitional dispute will significantly shape the infringement analysis.
3. A final point of contention may be one of architectural scope: Can the Plaintiff successfully argue that a single accused system infringes both the controller-focused claims of the ’598 Patent and the distinct, UAV-focused claims of the ’833 Patent? This may require a detailed examination of how processing and decision-making are distributed within the accused system.