Boston Dynamics Inc v. Ghost Robotics Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Boston Dynamics, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Ghost Robotics Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00184, D. Del., 02/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and therefore resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s quadrupedal robots infringe patents related to autonomous terrain navigation, posture control, and gait disturbance handling.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns advanced legged robots, a technology domain with significant applications in industrial inspection, public safety, and military operations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of communications, including letters from Plaintiff to Defendant on July 7, 2020, and cease and desist letters on March 1, 2021, and May 9, 2022, which identified three of the four patents-in-suit. Plaintiff also notes a separate, prior lawsuit filed against Defendant on November 11, 2022, asserting a different set of patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-07-24	’819 Patent Priority Date
2014-08-25	’611 Patent Priority Date
2015-05-12	’377 Patent Priority Date
2015-05-15	’240 Patent Priority Date
2017-03-14	’377 Patent Issue Date
2017-10-17	’611 Patent Issue Date
2018-03-06	’240 Patent Issue Date
2019-01-01	Accused Product Vision 60 Introduced (approx.)
2020-01-01	Accused Product Spirit 40 Introduced (approx.)
2020-07-07	Plaintiff first writes to Defendant regarding potential infringement
2021-03-01	Plaintiff sends first cease and desist letter, identifying ’377, ’240, and ’611 patents
2022-03-29	’819 Patent Issue Date
2022-05-09	Plaintiff sends second cease and desist letter
2022-11-11	Plaintiff files prior, separate patent infringement lawsuit against Defendant
2024-02-12	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,594,377 - “Auto-Height Swing Adjustment”

• Issued: March 14, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Legged robots must be able to alter their steps to navigate environmental features, but constantly taking high steps to clear potential obstacles is energy inefficient (’377 Patent, col. 3:39-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses sensors to create a topographical map of the surrounding environment, represented as a grid of cells with height data. For an upcoming step, the system defines a "scan patch" of cells along the foot's planned trajectory, identifies the highest point within that patch, and directs the robot to lift its foot to a swing height sufficient to clear that specific point, adjusting the step height only when necessary (’377 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-19). Figure 5 of the patent illustrates this concept, showing a robot (200) traversing a topographical map (500) composed of discrete cells (502) (’377 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for adaptive and energy-efficient locomotion over uneven terrain by tailoring step height to specific, detected obstacles rather than using a constant, high-stepping gait.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Receiving sensor data indicating topographical features.
  • Processing the data into a topographical map comprising a two-dimensional matrix of cells indicating sample heights.
  • Determining a pre-planned step path for a foot, from a lift-off to a touch-down location.
  • Identifying a "first scan patch of cells" that encompasses the step path.
  • Determining that a "first high point" in the scan patch is greater than a threshold obstacle height.
  • Causing the robot to lift the foot to a swing height that is higher than the determined high point.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,908,240 - “Ground Plane Compensation for Legged Robots”

• Issued: March 6, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: When a legged robot traverses sloped ground, it needs to adjust its body posture (pitch) to maintain stability and ensure its legs can properly reach the ground on subsequent steps (’240 Patent, col. 3:15-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses sensors to determine the height and distance of a topographical feature in the robot's direction of travel. It then computationally "estimates a plane" extending from the robot to that feature to determine the upcoming ground slope. If the slope is positive (uphill), the system controls the robot's actuators to pitch its torso forward, aligning its posture with the incline (’240 Patent, Abstract). Figure 8A illustrates a quadruped robot adjusting its pitch to be parallel with an estimated ground plane (’240 Patent, col. 5:49-53).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables proactive posture control, allowing legged robots to maintain balance and operational stability while ascending or descending slopes.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Determining, using sensor data, a height and distance of a topographical feature in the direction of travel.
  • Estimating a plane extending toward the feature, with the plane's slope based on the height and distance.
  • Determining whether the slope is positive or negative.
  • When the slope is positive, controlling actuators to "pitch a torso of the robot in the direction of travel of the robot."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,789,611 - “Handling Gait Disturbances with Asynchronous Timing”

• Issued: October 17, 2017 (Compl. ¶14)
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problem of a robot's leg failing to make contact with the ground as expected during a step, such as when stepping off a ledge or into a hole (’611 Patent, col. 3:15-20). The patented solution detects when a joint in the swinging leg reaches its range-of-motion limit before the foot touches down. In response, it causes a different leg that is already on the ground to reduce its downward force, which lowers the robot's entire body and allows the swinging foot to contact the surface (’611 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶76).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Vision 60 robot can detect when a swinging leg has fully extended without contacting a surface and, in response, will bend a supporting leg to lower the first foot to the ground (Compl. ¶84, 86).

U.S. Patent No. 11,287,819 - “System and Methods for Ground Plane Estimation”

• Issued: March 29, 2022 (Compl. ¶15)
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for estimating the ground plane by combining two types of data: the robot's overall "pose" (its position and orientation relative to a gravity-aligned frame) and the specific locations of "one or more contact points" between the robot's feet and the ground, derived from sensors (’819 Patent, Abstract). Based on a ground plane estimation derived from this combined data, the system commands the robot to adjust its pose to match the terrain.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶103).
• Accused Features: The Vision 60 is accused of infringing by receiving its pose, receiving ground contact points via sensors (such as a ToF sensor and motor current spikes), determining a ground plane estimation, and commanding a pose adjustment, such as pitching its body to match the slope of stairs (Compl. ¶108, 109, 110, 111).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s Vision 60 and Spirit 40 quadrupedal robots (Compl. ¶16-17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused products as four-legged robots designed for enterprise and military use (Compl. ¶36). Their accused functionality relies on a control system ("Ghost OS and Robot Software") that uses sensors, including a Time-of-Flight (ToF) sensor alleged to be an "Intel 435 depth sensor," to perceive and map the surrounding terrain (Compl. ¶27, 31). This allows the robots to perform tasks such as traversing unstructured terrain, avoiding collisions, and climbing stairs (Compl. ¶41). The complaint alleges the Spirit 40 product uses the same software as the Vision 60 (Compl. ¶36). As illustrated in an annotated diagram from Defendant's materials, the Vision 60's ToF sensor is located on the front of its torso, positioned to map the ground plane ahead of the robot (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

9,594,377 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
receive, from a robotic device, sensor data that indicates topographical features of an environment...	The Vision 60 contains "Operational & Task Sensors," including a ToF sensor, used to minimize collision risk with environmental objects.	¶31	col. 2:62-65
process the sensor data into a topographical map that includes a two-dimensional matrix of cells...	The ToF sensor is alleged to be an "Intel 435 depth sensor that lets it map the ground plane."	¶31	col. 2:1-4
determine, for a first foot of the robotic device, a first pre-planned step path...	As the Vision 60 approaches a raised surface, it is "able to plan a step path that includes where to lift-off and where to touch-down."	¶32	col. 2:5-7
identify, within the topographical map, a first scan patch of cells that encompass the first pre-planned step path;	In planning the step, the Vision 60 "is able to detect a raised surface that will affect the step path."	¶33	col. 2:7-9
determine that a first high point among the first scan patch of cells is greater than a threshold obstacle height;	The Vision 60 is "able to determine the height of the forthcoming raised surface."	¶34	col. 2:9-10
...cause the robotic device to lift the first foot to a first swing height that is higher than the determined first high point.	The Vision 60 is "able to swing the first foot to be higher than the minimum height needed to step onto the raised surface."	¶35	col. 2:10-13

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's alleged function of "detect[ing] a raised surface" (Compl. ¶33) meets the more specific claim requirement of identifying a "scan patch of cells that encompass the first pre-planned step path." The defense may argue that its system uses a more general form of obstacle detection that does not rely on the specific data structure claimed in the ’377 Patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on screenshots from a marketing video showing the Vision 60 stepping onto a ledge (Compl. ¶33-35). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product's control software performs the specific sequence of steps recited in claim 1—specifically, that it first determines a "high point" and then causes the foot to lift to a height "that is higher than" that specific point.

9,908,240 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
determining, using sensor data... a height of a particular topographical feature... and a distance between the robot and the particular topographical feature;	The Vision 60 uses a ToF sensor to map the ground plane and navigate obstacles, including stairs.	¶57	col. 2:4-8
estimating a plane extending from the robot... the estimated plane having a slope based on the height... and the distance...	The Vision 60 is "able to detect the plane of a raised surface relative to its current position based on the distance and height of the raised surface."	¶58	col. 2:8-12
determining whether the slope of the estimated plane comprises a positive slope or a negative slope;	The Vision 60 is "able to determine whether the oncoming surface is on a positive or negative slope relative to its current position."	¶59	col. 2:12-14
when the slope... comprises the positive slope, controlling actuators of the robot to cause the robot to pitch a torso of the robot in the direction of travel...	The Vision 60 is "able to adjust the pitch of its torso to be substantially parallel to the positive slope of the surface that it is climbing." A visual from a product video shows this alleged pitch adjustment (Compl. ¶60).	¶60	col. 2:14-18

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of "estimating a plane." The defense could argue that its system calculates a general ground slope or detects an obstacle without performing the specific claimed step of computationally "estimating a plane" based on the height and distance of a particular feature.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's pitching motion is specifically caused by the determination of a "positive slope" of an "estimated plane," as required by the claim's logic? The defense might argue that its robot's posture adjustment is triggered by a different control logic, even if the resulting motion appears similar.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’377 Patent:

• The Term: "scan patch of cells"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the specific portion of the topographical map that is analyzed for obstacles. The case may hinge on whether the accused system uses a comparable, defined data structure or a more generalized obstacle detection method. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a specific implementation choice, not a generic concept.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself defines the patch functionally as one that "encompass[es] the first pre-planned step path," which could be argued to cover any method of analyzing the area along a trajectory (Claim 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the scan patch in more detail, for example, as having an "approximately trapezoidal shape" that widens along the step path to account for increasing uncertainty ('377 Patent, col. 4:15-19). This suggests a specific geometric and data-driven structure, not just any analyzed area.

For the ’240 Patent:

• The Term: "estimating a plane"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central algorithmic step of claim 1. The infringement question will likely depend on whether the accused products perform an operation that meets this definition. If the accused system calculates a slope without the intermediate step of "estimating a plane," it may not infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim ties the plane's slope directly to the "height of the particular topographical feature and the distance between the robot and the particular topographical feature," which could be argued to broadly cover any slope calculation based on those two inputs (Claim 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description refers to a "line of 'best fit,' such as a linear regression" being used to determine the ground plane from multiple data points, suggesting a specific mathematical process ('240 Patent, col. 15:1-8). The Abstract also describes the plane as "fitting to the determined distance and height," implying a modeling step.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents, stating Defendant provides specification sheets and user support that instruct customers on how to use the infringing features, such as traversing unstructured terrain and climbing stairs (Compl. ¶38, 41, 63, 66, 90, 93, 114, 117). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶43, 68, 95, 119).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations for the ’377, ’240, and ’611 patents are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from cease and desist letters sent on March 1, 2021, and May 9, 2022 (Compl. ¶47, 72, 99). For the ’819 patent, which issued in March 2022, willfulness is alleged based on constructive knowledge from Plaintiff's patent marking website and actual notice provided by the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶115, 121). A screenshot from a video, allegedly showing the Vision 60 performing the technique of the '611 patent by bending a support leg to lower a swinging leg to the ground, is provided as evidence of ongoing infringement (Compl. ¶86).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent terms describing specific data structures and computational methods, such as "scan patch of cells" (’377 Patent) and "estimating a plane" (’240 Patent), be construed to cover the accused products’ more generally described capabilities for obstacle avoidance and terrain adaptation?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic equivalence: does discovery on the accused products' "Ghost OS" software reveal control logic that performs the specific, ordered steps recited in the asserted claims, or will it show that a similar outcome (e.g., clearing an obstacle or climbing a slope) is achieved through a fundamentally different technical method?
• The case will also present a question of knowledge and intent, particularly for willfulness, given the complaint's detailed history of pre-suit notice letters identifying three of the four asserted patents well before the lawsuit was filed.