DCT
1:24-cv-01284
Experimental Propulsion Lab LLC v. BAE Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Experimental Propulsion Lab, LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: BAE Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01284, D. Del., 11/22/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in that state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hypervelocity Projectile infringes a patent related to additively manufactured propulsion systems where the structural casing is also consumable solid fuel.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using additive manufacturing (e.g., 3D printing) to create integrated and structurally efficient propulsion systems for aerospace and defense applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had actual notice of the patent-in-suit as of an August 28, 2023 letter from Plaintiff. It further alleges Defendant was aware or willfully blind to the patent's existence prior to that date, based on Plaintiff’s publications and Defendant’s awareness of allegedly similar technology developed by Raytheon.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-08-09 | Test firing of additively manufactured hybrid rocket motor prototype mentioned in provisional application |
| 2010-09-13 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,086,033 |
| 2015-07-21 | U.S. Patent No. 9,086,033 Issued |
| 2023-08-28 | Plaintiff sent notice letter identifying the patent and accused product to Defendant |
| 2024-11-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,086,033 - "Additive Manufactured Propulsion System," issued July 21, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that conventional propulsion systems for objects like rockets and missiles suffer from complexity, high cost, and structural inefficiency due to the assembly of numerous separate components with bonded or bolted joints (’033 Patent, col. 1:17-47; Compl. ¶3).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses additive manufacturing to fabricate a propulsion system as a "single-piece structure" (’033 Patent, col. 1:50-52). In this structure, the casing body itself is composed of a material that also functions as solid rocket fuel, which allows for the integration of features like internal passageways and eliminates the need for separate structural and fuel components, thereby saving weight and volume (’033 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:48-8:2).
- Technical Importance: This integrated design approach allows for the creation of compact, lightweight, and cost-effective propulsion systems, which is particularly valuable for applications with strict size and mass constraints, such as small satellites or guided munitions (’033 Patent, col. 6:31-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and notes this is an example, suggesting other claims may be asserted later (Compl. ¶13).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a propulsion system with the following essential elements:
- A casing body "consisting of a material useful as a solid rocket fuel" and which can be consumed during combustion.
- A "combustion chamber" located within the casing body.
- A "fuel chamber" also located within the casing body that circumscribes at least part of the combustion chamber.
- The fuel chamber stores an "oxidizer" which is injected into the combustion chamber via an "oxidizer outlet port" included in the casing body.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "Hypervelocity Projectile" (HVP), also marketed under names including XM1155-SC and Scorpio-XR (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The HVP is described as a "next-generation, common, low drag, guided projectile" designed for use with multiple gun systems (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges that for the projectile to be precision-guided, it contains an "attitude control propulsion system" to provide yaw and pitch control in flight (Compl. ¶13). A computer rendering in the complaint highlights the portion of the projectile where this propulsion system is allegedly located (Compl. p. 7). This propulsion system is alleged to be distinct from the initial propulsion provided by the gun launch.
- The complaint presents the HVP as a compact, lightweight, and low-cost munition, whose performance benefits are derived from its allegedly infringing design (Compl. ¶¶6-7). Visuals in the complaint depict the HVP in various configurations, such as with different sabots for compatibility with various gun systems, illustrating its intended operational context (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’033 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [preamble] A propulsion system, comprising: | The accused HVP contains an "attitude control propulsion system" used for in-flight guidance and steering. | ¶13 | col. 1:19-20 |
| [a] a casing body consisting of a material useful as a solid rocket fuel and capable of being consumed during combustion; | The casing body of the HVP's propulsion system allegedly consists of solid rocket fuel, which provides structural support and serves as the fuel source to aid compactness. | ¶13 | col. 1:53-56 |
| [b] a combustion chamber defined within the casing body | A combustion chamber is allegedly contained within the casing body of the HVP's propulsion system for volume efficiency. | ¶13 | col. 1:57-58 |
| [c] a fuel chamber defined within the casing body and circumscribing at least a portion of the combustion chamber, the fuel chamber storing an oxidizer prior to the oxidizer being injected into the combustion chamber, wherein the casing body includes an oxidizer outlet port which outlets oxidizer from the casing body prior to being injected into the combustion chamber. | The HVP allegedly includes a fuel chamber that stores a liquid or gas oxidizer (such as Nitrous Oxide), at least partially surrounds the combustion chamber, and injects the oxidizer into the combustion chamber through outlet ports. | ¶13 | col. 14:56-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the HVP's secondary "attitude control propulsion system" for in-flight steering falls within the scope of the claimed "propulsion system," which the patent also describes in the context of primary propulsion for rockets and satellites (e.g., col. 6:26-31). The defense may argue that the claimed invention relates to a primary rocket motor, not a small guidance thruster on a gun-launched projectile.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the HVP's "casing body consists of a material useful as a solid rocket fuel" (Compl. ¶13). A key factual question will be whether the accused casing is made entirely of a fuel material, as the claim term "consisting of" typically allows for no other components. If the casing is a non-fuel material that merely contains a fuel grain, it may not meet this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the HVP has a "fuel chamber" that stores an "oxidizer" (Compl. ¶13). While this is consistent with the language of claim 1, a factual dispute may arise over whether the accused product's architecture truly matches this specific hybrid-rocket configuration, where a chamber designated for "fuel" in the claim is alleged to store oxidizer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "casing body consisting of a material useful as a solid rocket fuel"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because "consisting of" is a closed-ended transition phrase in patent law. Its construction will determine whether a casing body that includes any non-fuel structural materials infringes. The infringement analysis for this element appears to be a primary focus of the dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent's overall purpose is structural integration, and the term should not be read so literally as to exclude minor, insignificant non-fuel elements like coatings or additives. The summary of the invention in the specification describes the casing body as being "at least partially composed of" fuel, which may suggest the patentee's intended scope was broader than what the claim language captured (’033 Patent, col. 1:53-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "consisting of" excludes all other elements. The fact that the patentee used the broader phrase "at least partially composed of" in the specification but the narrower phrase "consisting of" in the claim may be viewed as a deliberate choice to limit the claim's scope.
The Term: "fuel chamber...storing an oxidizer"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific hybrid rocket architecture at issue. Infringement depends on the accused HVP having a chamber that both meets the structural definition of a "fuel chamber" and performs the function of storing an "oxidizer." Practitioners may focus on this term because its phrasing is unconventional.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff will likely argue that, in the context of a hybrid rocket system where the fuel is the solid casing, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand "fuel chamber" to refer to the tank for the other propellant component, which the claim explicitly identifies as the oxidizer. The specification discusses hybrid systems where solid material is fuel and a liquid is the oxidizer (’033 Patent, col. 7:60-8:2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term is indefinite or nonsensical, as a "fuel chamber" is conventionally understood to store fuel, not oxidizer. They may contend that the patentee failed to act as their own lexicographer with sufficient clarity, creating ambiguity as to the structure being claimed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on two grounds. First, it alleges BAE Systems had actual knowledge of the ’033 patent and its infringement from a notice letter dated August 28, 2023, but continued its infringing activities. Second, it alleges BAE Systems was willfully blind to the patent's existence even before that date, due to EPL's public work and BAE's likely awareness of related patents filed by Raytheon that allegedly copied EPL's invention (Compl. ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and factual proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused projectile's casing "consists of" a solid fuel material, as required by the claim's restrictive language, or does it merely contain fuel within a separate structural housing?
- A second key question will be one of definitional scope: will the term "propulsion system," described in the patent in the context of rockets and satellites, be construed to cover the secondary in-flight "attitude control system" of a gun-launched projectile?
- Finally, the case may turn on an issue of technical and linguistic interpretation: does the accused device contain the specific and unconventionally described "fuel chamber storing an oxidizer," and is this claim term sufficiently clear to be enforceable?