DCT

1:22-cv-01483

Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01483, D. Del., 11/11/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant, Ghost Robotics, is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s quadrupedal unmanned ground vehicles (Q-UGVs), the Vision 60 and Spirit 40 robots, infringe seven patents related to robotic self-righting, stair negotiation, gait disturbance handling, and screw actuator design.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns highly mobile, four-legged robots designed for dynamic motion and navigation across challenging terrain, a market with significant industrial, public safety, and military applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint references a series of pre-suit communications, including a July 2020 letter requesting a review of Boston Dynamics' patents, and two subsequent cease and desist letters in March 2021 and May 2022 that specifically identified several of the patents-in-suit. This history is presented to support allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-07-25 Priority Date for ’648 Patent
2013-08-23 Priority Date for ’588 Patent
2015-01-29 Priority Date for ’791 Patent
2016-04-12 ’648 Patent Issued
2016-07-12 ’588 Patent Issued
2016-12-15 Priority Date for ’855 Patent
2017-05-30 ’791 Patent Issued
2018-02-28 Priority Date for ’368 Patent
2019-04-09 ’855 Patent Issued
2019-Fall Accused Vision 60 Product Introduced
2020-01-25 Priority Date for ’869 and ’842 Patents
2020-02-01 Accused Spirit 40 Product Introduced
2020-07-07 Plaintiff sends first letter to Defendant
2021-03-01 Plaintiff sends first cease and desist letter
2021-09-21 ’869 Patent Issued
2021-09-28 ’368 Patent Issued
2021-07-27 ’842 Patent Issued
2022-05-09 Plaintiff sends second cease and desist letter
2022-11-11 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,308,648 - “Systems and Methods for Robotic Self-Right” (Issued April 12, 2016)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Legged robots operating in real-world environments can be knocked over or fall into unstable positions (e.g., on their side or back), rendering them unable to operate ('648 Patent, col. 1:12-25). Manually righting the robot is often difficult, time-consuming, or impossible, creating a need for an autonomous self-righting capability.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a multi-stage method for a robot to autonomously return to a stable, upright stance. The robot first determines its orientation relative to the ground and identifies that it is in an unstable position (Compl. ¶30). It then executes a "first action" by moving a leg to initiate a roll, followed by a "second action" if necessary, which involves extending a leg away from its body to increase its gravitational potential energy and complete the roll onto its stomach, from which it can then stand ('648 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:28-40).
  • Technical Importance: This technology is foundational for enabling robust, autonomous operation of legged robots in unpredictable or hostile environments where human intervention is not feasible.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Determining an orientation of a legged robotic device's bottom surface to a ground surface.
    • Based on the orientation, determining the device is in an unstable position where it is unable to maintain a stance.
    • Providing instructions for a "first action" to return to a stable position, which includes moving a first leg from a first to a second position to lift its distal end.
    • If the first action returns the device to a stable position, providing instructions to extend at least two legs.
    • If the device is still unstable after the first action, providing instructions for a "second action" that includes extending the first leg away from the body to increase the device's gravitational potential energy.
  • Independent Claim 11 (Robotic Device):
    • A robotic device with a body, two or more legs, a processor, and data storage with program logic to perform the functions recited in method claim 1.
  • The complaint asserts claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11, and 13-15 (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Patent No. 9,662,791 - “Systems and Methods for Robotic Self-Right” (Issued May 30, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent '648 patent, the ’791 Patent addresses the critical technical problem of enabling a legged robot that has fallen into an unstable, non-operational position to right itself autonomously (’791 Patent, col. 1:12-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’791 Patent claims a similar method for self-righting. It describes a process where the robot's computing device determines its orientation, identifies an unstable position, and provides instructions for a "first action" involving specific leg movements to initiate a return to stability (’791 Patent, col. 3:30-41). The claims of the ’791 Patent notably do not require the "second action" of increasing gravitational potential energy that is a required element of the '648 Patent's independent claims.
  • Technical Importance: This patent family provides core logic for robot autonomy and resilience, allowing systems to recover from mission-critical failures without human assistance.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Determining an orientation of a legged robotic device's bottom surface to a ground surface.
    • Based on the orientation, determining the device is in an unstable position where it is unable to maintain a stance.
    • Providing instructions for a "first action" to return to a stable position, which includes moving a first leg from a first to a second position such that its distal end is further from the ground.
  • Independent Claim 11 (Robotic Device):
    • A robotic device with a body, legs, a processor, and data storage with logic to perform functions similar to method claim 1, including performing a "first action" and, under certain conditions, a "second action" to increase gravitational potential energy.
  • The complaint asserts claims 1-6, 10, 11, 13, and 14 (Compl. ¶60).

U.S. Patent No. 11,123,869 - “Robotically Negotiating Stairs”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses methods for a legged robot to safely traverse stairs. The invention involves receiving image data indicating the presence of stairs, establishing a specific "stance pose" for a front leg, and then, while traversing, shifting its weight forward and reducing the stance angle by moving the knee joint towards its body to maintain stability on the stair tread (Compl. ¶92).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶91).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Vision 60 product's stair-climbing capability, which is activated via a controller, infringes by performing the claimed weight shifting and stance angle reduction maneuvers (Compl. ¶¶94-97). A screenshot of the accused product's controller shows a user-selectable "Stairs" mode (Compl. p. 37).

U.S. Patent No. 9,387,588 - “Handling Gait Disturbances with Asynchronous Timing”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for a robot to maintain balance when its gait is disturbed (e.g., by slipping on an uneven or low-friction surface). Upon detecting a disturbance, the robot prematurely ends the "swing state" of a foot and enters a "step down state" to make contact with the ground earlier than planned. Based on that early contact, it then causes a second foot to lift off to continue its gait (Compl. ¶127).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶126).
  • Accused Features: The accused products' alleged ability to traverse a range of terrains, including balancing on ice by making rapid, premature foot placements after a slip, is accused of infringing (Compl. ¶¶128, 130-131).

U.S. Patent No. 11,073,842 - “Perception and Fitting for a Stair Tracker”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a system where a robot uses a vision system to identify that it is near a staircase and communicates that image data to a remote controller. The controller displays the image and a graphical user interface for a user to activate a "stair mode." In response, the robot traverses the stairs using dedicated controllers that constrain its stride length and engage an obstacle avoidance protocol (Compl. ¶152).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶151).
  • Accused Features: The Vision 60's remote controller, which allegedly displays image data from the robot and provides a "stair mode" option, and its subsequent stair traversal with obstacle avoidance, are the accused features (Compl. ¶¶154-157). A photograph shows the accused controller displaying an image from the robot's perspective (Compl. p. 64).

U.S. Patent No. 10,253,855 - “Screw Actuator for a Legged Robot”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a specific mechanical assembly for a robot leg actuator. It claims a screw actuator (with a screw shaft and nut) disposed within the upper leg member, a motor mounted at an upper portion of the leg, and a linkage system that converts the motor's rotation and the resulting linear travel of the nut into rotational movement of the lower leg member at the knee joint ('855 Patent, Abstract). The configuration is designed such that when the robot rests on its foot, the screw shaft is subjected to a compressive force (Compl. ¶182).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶181).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges on information and belief that diagrams of the Vision 60's leg structure, showing motors located proximally and linkages extending to the knee joint, indicate the use of the claimed screw actuator configuration (Compl. ¶¶184-191). A diagram of the Vision 60 robot shows its leg members and linkages (Compl. p. 78).

U.S. Patent No. 11,131,368 - “Screw Actuator for a Legged Robot”

  • Technology Synopsis: As part of the same family as the '855 Patent, this patent claims a similar screw actuator assembly for a robot leg. The key components include a leg with upper and lower members, a screw actuator within the upper member, a motor mounted at or adjacent to the hip joint, a carrier, and a linkage. Rotation of the motor causes the nut and carrier to travel along the screw shaft's axis, which in turn rotates the lower leg member at the knee pivot (Compl. ¶212).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 14 (Compl. ¶211).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegations are based on the same features as for the ’855 Patent: the physical construction of the Vision 60's leg actuators, as inferred from product documentation and diagrams (Compl. ¶¶213-220).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's quadrupedal robots, specifically the Vision 60 and Spirit 40 products (Compl. ¶¶21-22).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these are highly mobile "Q-UGVs for enterprise and military" use (Compl. ¶31). The accused functionality focuses on specific software-controlled behaviors and mechanical design. This includes the "Self-Right & Inverted Operation" feature, which allegedly allows the robots to recover from any immobilization (Compl. ¶32), their ability to traverse difficult terrain such as stairs (Compl. ¶¶94-97) and ice (Compl. ¶¶130-131), and their operation via a remote controller that displays images from the robot's vision system (Compl. ¶154). The complaint further makes allegations about the internal mechanical design of the robots' leg actuators based on diagrams in product literature (Compl. ¶¶184-185).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'648 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
determining an orientation of a bottom surface of a legged robotic device with respect to a ground surface... The Spirit 40 product is capable of a "Self-Right & Inverted Operation" which requires determining its orientation to self-right from immobilization. ¶32 col. 2:54-57
...determining that the legged robotic device is in an unstable position...unable to maintain a stance... The accused product's self-righting feature is triggered when it is in an unstable position, such as lying on its back after a kick, from which it cannot stand. ¶33-34 col. 2:57-61
...providing...instructions to perform a first action...moving a first leg...such that a distal end of the first leg is further away from the ground surface... When lying on its back, the Spirit 40 robot allegedly lifts its feet on one side and tucks them under its shoulders to initiate a roll. A video screenshot shows the robot on its back with legs lifted (Compl. p. 11). ¶34 col. 3:28-35
if the first action causes the legged robotic device to return to the stable position, providing instructions to extend at least two...legs... The complaint alleges that after the initial leg tuck, the Spirit 40 extends its legs in an attempt to stand up. ¶35 col. 3:41-44
if the legged robotic device is in the unstable position after the first action, providing...instructions to perform a second action...extending the distal end of the first leg...away from the body...such that a gravitational potential energy...is increased. After the initial leg movements, the robot allegedly pushes against the ground to roll onto its stomach, a motion that increases its potential energy by raising its center of gravity. A video screenshot shows the robot pushing off the ground to roll over (Compl. p. 12-13). ¶36 col. 3:35-40
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does the accused product's self-righting sequence map to the specific two-part "first action" and conditional "second action" structure required by the claim? The complaint presents a sequence of screenshots from a single video, and a court may need to determine if this single example embodies all claimed steps in the claimed order.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused robot's act of "push[ing] against the ground to roll onto its stomach" necessarily results in an "increase" of "gravitational potential energy"? This is a specific physical limitation that may require expert testimony to prove is met by the accused product's operation.

'791 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
determining an orientation of a bottom surface of a legged robotic device with respect to a ground surface... The Spirit 40's "Self-Right & Inverted Operation" capability is alleged to require determining its orientation to self-right from immobilization. A product diagram shows the robot's body and legs (Compl. p. 24). ¶64 col. 2:55-58
...determining that the legged robotic device is in an unstable position...unable to maintain a stance... The self-right feature is initiated when the robot is immobilized in a lying position from which it cannot maintain a stance. ¶65 col. 2:58-62
...providing...instructions to perform a first action...moving a first leg...such that a distal end of the first leg is further away from the ground surface... When lying on its back, the Spirit 40 allegedly lifts its feet on one side and tucks them under its shoulders, lifting the distal ends of the legs away from the ground. ¶66 col. 3:30-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The independent claims of the ’791 Patent are broader than those of the '648 Patent, omitting certain conditional steps. A central question will be whether the accused self-righting functionality, as shown in product videos and manuals, meets every limitation of at least one asserted independent claim.
    • Technical Questions: How does the accused robot's control system determine that it is in an "unstable position"? The complaint relies on marketing terms like "Self-right from any immobilization," which may not directly correspond to the claim language of being "unable to maintain a stance."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '648 and '791 Patents

  • The Term: "unstable position"

  • Context and Importance: This term is a crucial trigger for the claimed methods. The definition determines the conditions under which infringement can occur. Practitioners may focus on this term because its claim definition—"the legged robotic device is unable to maintain a stance in the unstable position"—could be construed narrowly to require complete inability to stand, or more broadly to include situations where standing is merely difficult or unstable.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the problem as a robot that may "fall or tip over," which could encompass a range of non-optimal positions, not just being completely inverted ('648 Patent, col. 1:15-16).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the "unstable position" as the robot lying completely on its side or back (e.g., '648 Patent, Fig. 3A-3B), suggesting the term may be limited to these specific, non-recoverable orientations.

  • The Term: "increasing" the "gravitational potential energy" ('648 Patent Only)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation in the '648 Patent's "second action" is a technical, physics-based requirement. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused rolling motion can be proven to satisfy this specific physical outcome.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this step in functional terms as causing the robot "to roll over," which could imply that any motion achieving a roll inherently satisfies the limitation ('648 Patent, col. 3:39-40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language is a precise statement of physics. A defendant may argue that this requires a measurable and direct increase in the center of gravity's height, and that a simple rolling motion without a distinct upward push does not meet this limitation. The patent does not define a threshold for the "increase."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement across all asserted patents, stating that Defendant provides specification sheets, product support, and instructions to customers on how to use the accused features, such as "self-right" and stair-climbing (Compl. ¶¶51, 81, 116, 141, 171, etc.).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for multiple patents based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Defendant knew of the '648, '791, and '588 patents since at least March 1, 2021, and of the '869, '842, and '855 patents since at least May 9, 2022, from cease and desist letters sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶57, 87, 122, 147, 177, 206). The '368 patent is alleged to be willfully infringed based on post-suit knowledge via service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶232).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: for the actuator patents ('855, '368), can Plaintiff prove, likely through reverse engineering or discovery, that the internal mechanics of the accused robots read on the specific combination of a screw actuator, motor, carrier, and linkage claimed in the patents? The complaint's allegations are currently based on "information and belief" and interpretation of external diagrams.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: for the self-righting ('648, '791), stair-climbing ('869, '842), and gait-disturbance ('588) patents, does the accused software perform the exact sequence of determining, providing instructions, and executing specific physical motions (e.g., "reducing the stance angle," "increasing...potential energy") as recited in the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the underlying control logic and physical execution?
  • A central legal question will be one of willfulness: given the detailed pre-suit letters that explicitly identified most of the patents-in-suit, the case will likely feature a significant dispute over whether Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving notice was objectively reckless, potentially exposing Defendant to enhanced damages.