Fury Tech LLC v. 3D Robotics Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fury Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: 3D Robotics, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00573, D. Del., 04/28/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation, consistent with the standard established in TC Heartland.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "3DR 3D Modeling Solution" infringes two patents related to automatic flight control systems for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) used for solid modeling.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that enable UAVs to autonomously create 3D models of structures by intelligently and dynamically planning flight paths to ensure complete visual data capture.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, post-grant proceedings, or licensing history for the patents-in-suit. The U.S. Patent No. 9,352,833 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 8,965,598, indicating a shared specification and priority date.

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 with then-existing UAV-based inspection systems, including limited power and the operational inefficiency of requiring repeated flights to capture data from surfaces missed on initial passes (ʼ598 Patent, col. 1:41-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system comprising a UAV and a separate controller. The controller determines an initial flight path, analyzes captured images, and then forms "surface hypotheses" to model unobserved areas of a structure. Based on this, it determines a "least impact path" for the UAV to fly to capture the missing visual data, thereby creating a more complete model efficiently (ʼ598 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:16-24).
• Technical Importance: The technology seeks to automate the complex task of planning UAV flights for 3D modeling, potentially reducing the need for highly-trained operators and optimizing flight time to conserve limited battery power (ʼ598 Patent, col. 1:49-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
• 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: determine an initial movement path; capture images; form surface hypotheses for unobserved surfaces; determine missing surface information from these hypotheses; and determine a least impact path for the UAV based on the missing information and flight parameters.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶51).

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 ʼ833 Patent addresses the same problem of optimizing UAV flight paths for efficient 3D modeling of structures to overcome power and operational limitations (ʼ833 Patent, col. 1:45-55).
• The Patented Solution: The claims of the ʼ833 patent describe the system from the UAV’s perspective, complementing the controller-focused claims of the ʼ598 patent. The invention is framed as a UAV system configured to: receive an initial path from a controller; capture images; transmit those images to the controller (where hypotheses are formed); and then receive a new, optimized "least impact path" back from the controller (ʼ833 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-54).
• Technical Importance: This approach highlights the distributed, cooperative architecture between the UAV and a ground-based controller to achieve autonomous and efficient data collection.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶21).
• Claim 11 requires a UAV system comprising:
  • A UAV capable of communicating with a controller.
  • The UAV is configured to: receive an initial movement path; capture images; transmit the images to the controller (for use in forming surface hypotheses); and receive a least impact path from the controller.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "3DR 3D Modeling Solution," referred to as the "Accused System" (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused System as a "flight control system for solid modeling" (Compl. ¶24). It alleges, in conclusory terms, that the system performs the steps recited in the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶16, 23). The complaint does not provide specific, independent technical details about how the Accused System operates, its architecture, or the algorithms it employs for path planning. No allegations regarding the product's specific market positioning are included. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach claim chart exhibits (Compl. ¶¶25, 34). The following tables summarize the infringement theory as narrated in the complaint's body.

’598 Patent Infringement Allegations

’833 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the Accused System performs the key functions of "form[ing] surface hypotheses" or "determin[ing] a least impact path." A central question will be what, if any, predictive modeling or path optimization algorithms are used by the Accused System and whether their operation meets these claim limitations.
• Scope Questions: The division of computational labor is claimed differently in the two patents (’598 focuses on the controller, ’833 on the UAV). The analysis may turn on whether the architecture of the Accused System matches the specific configuration recited in each asserted claim. For example, does the defendant's controller perform the "surface hypotheses" step, or is this function performed elsewhere or not at all?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "surface hypotheses"

Context and Importance

• This term appears central to the inventive concept of predicting and then imaging unobserved areas. Its construction will be critical, as the complaint offers no facts on how the accused product performs this function. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the defendant's path-planning or obstacle-avoidance logic, whatever it may be, can be characterized as generating "hypotheses" about a structure's geometry.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept generally as being "based on the observed surfaces" to "cover unobserved surfaces" ('598 Patent, col. 5:23-26), which could support a construction covering a wide range of predictive algorithms.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific method for this step, using "Random Sample Consensus" (RANSAC) to fit "hypothetical surfaces to the point cloud" ('598 Patent, col. 6:44-48). This may support an argument that the term is limited to a specific type of geometric surface-fitting algorithm.

The Term: "least impact path"

Context and Importance

• This term defines the optimized, dynamically-generated flight path. The dispute may turn on what parameters define "impact" and how optimized the path must be to qualify as "least" impact.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims link the term to "desired flight parameters" without limitation ('598 Patent, cl. 1). This could support a reading on any path that is optimized against a set of constraints.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an exemplary list of such parameters, including "total flight time, available UAV energy, a noise limitation, and/or a user defined restriction" ('598 Patent, col. 2:31-34). This could support a narrower construction requiring optimization against these specific types of operational, rather than purely navigational, constraints.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, stating Defendant encouraged acts that it knew constituted infringement (Compl. ¶46). No specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, are provided to support this allegation.

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶44). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing willfulness only, as no facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are pled. The prayer for relief includes a request for enhanced damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶f).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the non-standard claim terms "surface hypotheses" and "least impact path," which are defined in the patent through specific algorithmic examples like RANSAC, be construed broadly enough to read on the actual path-planning methods used by the Defendant's 3D Modeling Solution?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: the complaint's allegations are conclusory. The case will depend on evidence obtained in discovery that reveals whether the accused system actually performs the iterative process claimed in the patents—specifically, analyzing initial image data, computationally modeling or "hypothesizing" unseen geometry, and then dynamically calculating a new, optimized flight path to capture data from those unseen areas.