0:17-cv-01100
QFO Labs Inc v. Brookstone Stores Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: QFO Labs, Inc. (Delaware / Minnesota)
- Defendant: Brookstone Stores, Inc. (New Hampshire)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lommen Abdo, P.A.; Law Offices of Chaz De La Garza
- Case Identification: 0:17-cv-01100, D. Minn., 04/07/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant having a registered office in Minnesota, transacting business in the state, and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s drone products, which feature a "tilt-to-fly" control system, infringe two patents related to homeostatic control technology for flying craft.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns intuitive control systems for unmanned aerial vehicles, where the craft’s orientation is controlled by mimicking the physical orientation of a handheld device.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship between the parties from 2013-2014, wherein Defendant was a retail distributor for Plaintiff’s "QuadFighter QF-1" product. Plaintiff asserts this product was marked with one of the patents-in-suit, a fact which may be material to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-02-13 | Priority Date for '239 and '532 Patents |
| 2011-04-26 | U.S. Patent No. 7,931,239 Issued |
| 2013-10-30 | Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of '239 Patent |
| 2015-07-07 | U.S. Patent No. 9,073,532 Issued |
| 2017-04-06 | Plaintiff accessed accused product webpages and app stores |
| 2017-04-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
Note: The complaint asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 7,931,239 and 9,073,532. The analysis proceeds based on these patents, which relate to drone control technology. The patent document images provided with the prompt (U.S. 7,931,293 and 9,732,532) appear to be erroneous, as they relate to unrelated technologies (vehicle airbags and construction methods) and one was issued after the complaint was filed.
U.S. Patent No. 7,931,239 - “Homeostatic Flying Hovercraft” (Issued Apr. 26, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes conventional remote-controlled aircraft as being difficult to operate, requiring significant user skill and coordination to manage multiple controls for thrust, pitch, roll, and yaw (U.S. Patent No. 7,931,239, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "homeostatic" control system that simplifies flight control. It uses a handheld controller with orientation sensors (e.g., accelerometers) and a flying craft with its own sensors. A processor on the craft receives orientation data from the controller and adjusts the craft's motors to make the craft's physical orientation "substantially match" the controller's orientation, creating an intuitive "tilt-to-fly" experience ('239 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-59).
- Technical Importance: This approach lowers the barrier to entry for operating unmanned aerial vehicles, making the technology accessible to a broader consumer market beyond skilled hobbyists ('239 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 6, and 8 (Compl. ¶16).
- Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) requires:
- A handheld controller with a first plurality of accelerometers for determining its orientation.
- A flying craft with a body, one or more motors, and a second plurality of accelerometers for determining its orientation.
- A processor on the craft operatively coupled to the motors and configured to receive orientation data from both the controller and the craft, and to adjust the motors to cause the craft's orientation to "substantially match" the controller's orientation.
U.S. Patent No. 9,073,532 - “Homeostatic Flying Hovercraft” (Issued Jul. 7, 2015)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '239 Patent, this patent addresses the same fundamental problem of simplifying drone control (U.S. Patent No. 9,073,532, col. 1:24-37).
- The Patented Solution: The '532 Patent claims a similar homeostatic system but with claims specifically directed to implementing the handheld controller as a software application on a general-purpose device like a smartphone. The application uses the phone's built-in sensors to detect orientation, which is then transmitted to the flying craft to control its flight in a "tilt-to-fly mode" ('532 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-21).
- Technical Importance: This solution leverages the ubiquity of smartphones to eliminate the need for a dedicated, single-purpose controller, further reducing cost and increasing convenience for consumers ('532 Patent, col. 5:14-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 21 (Compl. ¶17).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim) requires steps of:
- Providing a handheld controller having a body and accelerometers.
- Detecting the orientation of the controller body.
- Transmitting orientation data to a flying craft.
- Receiving the data at the craft.
- Adjusting the craft's motors to cause the craft's orientation to mimic the controller's orientation.
- Independent Claim 21 (System Claim) requires:
- A "handheld controller implemented as a software application on a phone," where the phone has a body and accelerometers.
- A flying craft with a processor.
- The processor is configured to receive orientation data from the phone and adjust motors to cause the craft's orientation to mimic the phone's orientation.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "Flight Force Expedition Drone" and the associated "Flight Force Expedition Drone App" available for download on smartphones (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the drone is controlled via the app running on a smartphone (Compl. ¶13). In what the complaint terms a "tilt-to-fly mode," the drone's flight is controlled by the physical orientation of the phone, such that the drone "mimics the orientation of the handheld phone" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint provides a screenshot of the product's webpage, which describes its "Motion-Sensing Control" feature (Compl. ¶14, Ex. C). It also includes screenshots of the companion app on the Apple and Google app stores (Compl. ¶15, Exs. D, E). The complaint further alleges that the product's user manual instructs customers on how to use this infringing functionality (Compl. ¶18, Ex. H).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'239 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a handheld controller having a body and a first plurality of accelerometers | The smartphone device running the "Flight Force Expedition Drone App," which contains internal accelerometers to detect its orientation (Compl. ¶¶12, 13, 15). | ¶15 | col. 2:48-52 |
| a flying craft having a body, one or more motors for generating lift, and a second plurality of accelerometers | The "Flight Force Expedition Drone" product, which has a body, motors, and internal sensors (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 2:53-56 |
| a processor on the flying craft...configured to...cause the orientation of the body of the flying craft to substantially match an orientation of the body of the handheld controller | The processor within the drone that receives signals from the smartphone and adjusts the drone's motors, causing the drone to mimic the tilt and orientation of the user's phone in its "tilt-to-fly mode" (Compl. ¶¶12, 18, 28). | ¶28 | col. 2:56-59 |
'532 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a handheld controller implemented as a software application on a phone | The "Flight Force Expedition Drone App," which is a software application available for download from the Apple and Google app stores for use on a smartphone (Compl. ¶¶15, 28). | ¶15 | col. 6:49-51 |
| said phone having a body and a first plurality of accelerometers | The smartphone on which the app is installed, which has a physical body and built-in accelerometers (Compl. ¶13). | ¶13 | col. 6:51-52 |
| a flying craft having a body, one or more motors for generating lift, and a processor | The "Flight Force Expedition Drone," which is a physical craft with motors and an internal processor (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 6:53-55 |
| said processor...configured to...cause the orientation of the body of the flying craft to mimic an orientation of the body of said phone | The drone's processor receives orientation data from the phone via the app and adjusts motor speeds to make the drone copy the phone's tilt, as shown in a demonstration video (Compl. ¶¶12, 18, 35). | ¶18 | col. 6:57-62 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: A key factual dispute may arise over whether the accused drone's control system truly causes the craft's orientation to "match" or "mimic" the controller's orientation, as required by the claims. The defense could argue that the system uses a simpler control scheme where controller tilt is merely mapped to directional commands (e.g., tilt forward to command "move forward") without the direct, continuous orientation matching described in the patents. The evidence cited in the complaint (e.g., marketing materials, demo video) may not be sufficient to resolve this technical question without further discovery.
- Scope Question: The '239 Patent claims a "handheld controller." A point of contention could be whether this term, in the context of the 2007 priority date, should be construed to cover a general-purpose smartphone running an application, or if it is limited to a dedicated hardware controller. The '532 Patent's explicit claiming of a "software application on a phone" may suggest the former term is broader, but it raises the question for the court.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "homeostatic"
Context and Importance
This term appears in the patent titles and the complaint's description of the technology (Compl. ¶9). Its construction is critical because it may define the required nature of the control system. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue it implies a specific type of complex, self-stabilizing, bi-directional feedback system that is not present in the accused products.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system as one where the craft "strives to achieve the same orientation as the controller," which could be argued to be a general description of seeking equilibrium, not a highly technical one ('239 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title and repeated use of "homeostatic" could be argued to invoke a specific technical meaning that distinguishes the invention from simple "master-slave" or "follow-me" control schemes.
The Term: "cause the orientation of the body of the flying craft to substantially match" ('239 Patent) / "mimic an orientation" ('532 Patent)
Context and Importance
This phrase is the functional heart of the asserted claims. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused drone's operation falls within the scope of "match" or "mimic."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents describe the general concept of "tilt-to-fly," which a court could find covers any system where controller tilt corresponds to craft tilt for directional control ('239 Patent, col. 2:48-59).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures may show a direct, 1-to-1 relationship between the pitch and roll angles of the controller and the craft. The defense may argue that "match" or "mimic" requires this specific angular correspondence, not just a system where tilting the controller forward causes the craft to pitch down to achieve forward flight.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant knowingly encourages its customers to infringe by providing the drone products and instructing them, via user manuals and other materials, to download and use the accused app in the "tilt-to-fly" mode (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 35). The complaint cites the "Brookstone Flight Force Expedition Drone User Manual" as direct evidence of these instructions (Compl. ¶18, Ex. H).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. For the '239 Patent, knowledge is alleged to date from at least October 30, 2013, due to Defendant's prior role as a distributor of Plaintiff's own "QuadFighter QF-1" product, which was allegedly marked with the '239 patent number (Compl. ¶¶ 20-22). The photograph of the product packaging showing the patent marking is referenced as evidence (Compl. ¶21, Ex. I). For the '532 Patent, knowledge is alleged from its date of issue (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of claim construction and technical operation: Can Plaintiff prove that the accused "tilt-to-fly" mode functions by causing the drone's orientation to "substantially match" the controller's orientation, as required by the patent claims? Or will the evidence show a simpler control scheme where controller tilt is merely mapped to directional commands, potentially falling outside the scope of the claims as construed by the court?
A second central question will concern willful infringement and damages: The allegation of a prior business relationship where Defendant sold Plaintiff's patent-marked product is a significant fact. A key question for the court will be whether this history establishes pre-suit knowledge of the '239 patent, which would substantiate the willfulness claim and expose Defendant to a risk of enhanced damages.
Finally, the case may turn on a question of claim scope differentiation: Does the '239 patent’s general term "handheld controller" read on the accused smartphone-and-app combination? The '532 patent’s more specific claim to a "software application on a phone" appears to cover the accused instrumentality more directly, raising the question of whether infringement can be proven for the earlier, broader patent or only for the later, more specific one.