DCT

1:26-cv-00040

Vortical Systems LLC v. Dronedeploy Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00040, D. Del., 01/14/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s drone navigation products and services infringe a patent related to controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) by selecting waypoints on a graphical user interface.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves simplifying UAV mission planning by allowing an operator to designate a target location on a digital map, which is then automatically translated into navigational commands for the UAV.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-10-23 ’294 Patent Priority Date
2007-06-12 ’294 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-14 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,231,294 - *"Navigating a UAV"*, issued June 12, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the complexity of conventional UAV operation, which it describes as typically requiring manual control and specific operator knowledge of the vehicle's location and flight characteristics, with limited automation available for navigation (ʼ294 Patent, col. 1:19-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for navigating a UAV where an operator on a remote device selects a single pixel on a graphical user interface (GUI) map (ʼ294 Patent, Fig. 4). The system then automatically maps that pixel's location to real-world Earth coordinates, transmits those coordinates as a "waypoint" to the UAV, and the UAV's onboard navigation computer pilots the vehicle from its current position to the new waypoint using a navigation algorithm (ʼ294 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-21).
  • Technical Importance: This approach significantly simplifies the process of mission planning and execution, enabling an operator to direct a UAV with a single interface operation like a mouse-click rather than complex manual piloting (ʼ294 Patent, col. 2:41-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of one or more "exemplary method claims" of the ’294 Patent but does not identify any specific claims being asserted (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in an "Exhibit 2," which is incorporated by reference but not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '294 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). Based on the patent's subject matter, this suggests the accused functionality involves software and systems that allow users to plan and execute drone flights by selecting points or defining routes on a digital map. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided in an Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶13). As this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative theory of infringement is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims by providing a system for navigating a UAV based on user selections on a map interface (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused products, which likely use modern touch-based or vector map interfaces, fall within the scope of claims centered on the "selection of a GUI map pixel."
    • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the specific method by which the accused products translate a user's map selection into navigational data for a drone corresponds to the steps recited in the asserted claims, particularly the "mapping" and "piloting" elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While no specific claims are asserted, an analysis of Claim 1, the patent's first independent method claim, suggests the following terms may be central to the dispute.

  • The Term: "a GUI map pixel"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining whether the patent's scope covers modern mapping interfaces. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products likely allow users to select points on a digital map through actions (e.g., a screen tap) that may not correspond to the selection of a literal, single screen "pixel" in a raster image.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the user's action as a "single interface operation, a mouseclick or joystick button click," suggesting the focus is on the user's simple action rather than the underlying display technology (ʼ294 Patent, col. 2:36-38). This may support a construction covering any user-designated point on a graphical map.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides detailed mathematical formulas for "mapping the pixel's location" that are based on pixel row and column numbers (ʼ294 Patent, col. 11:18-col. 12:51). This explicit reliance on a pixel-grid structure could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to raster-based map displays.

  • The Term: "piloting the UAV...from the starting position to the waypoint in accordance with a navigation algorithm"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the automated navigation function of the invention. The dispute will likely involve comparing the specific navigation and flight control logic of the accused products to the scope of this claim element.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad, referring simply to "a navigation algorithm." The specification discloses several distinct exemplary algorithms, such as flying directly toward the waypoint or flying to intercept a "cross track," which may support a view that the term covers any algorithm that directs the UAV to the designated coordinates (ʼ294 Patent, col. 2:56-62; col. 3:11-21).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term should be limited by the specific types of algorithms detailed in the specification (e.g., those depicted in Figs. 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14). This could raise the question of whether an accused product that uses a fundamentally different navigation logic (e.g., one based on obstacle avoidance or dynamic routing not described in the patent) falls outside the claim's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege willful or indirect infringement. It requests that the case be declared exceptional for the purpose of recovering attorneys' fees but pleads no specific facts to support this request (Compl. ¶E.i).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "GUI map pixel," which is grounded in the display technology of the early 2000s, be construed to read on the user interactions with modern, vector-based, and touch-sensitive mapping software allegedly used by the Defendant?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: given the complaint's lack of specificity, the case will depend on whether discovery reveals that the unnamed accused products perform the automated navigation process using a "navigation algorithm" that is functionally and structurally equivalent to that which is claimed in the ’294 Patent.