DCT

0:17-cv-05011

QFO Labs Inc v. Best Buy Co Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:17-cv-05011, D. Minn., 11/03/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in Minnesota, maintains its principal place of business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of certain Parrot-manufactured drones and their associated control software infringes three patents related to "tilt-to-fly" control systems for flying craft.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves controlling a drone's flight by sensing and mimicking the physical orientation of a handheld controller, a common user interface paradigm in the consumer drone industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses a complex litigation history, including a stayed declaratory judgment action filed by the drone manufacturer (Parrot) against Plaintiff in Delaware and a prior suit by Plaintiff against Parrot in Minnesota that was dismissed for improper venue. The patents-in-suit have been subject to five inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Parrot, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declining to institute trial on some petitions and instituting trial on claims not asserted in this complaint. A prior suit against another retailer, Brookstone, was dismissed pursuant to a settlement. Subsequent to the complaint's filing, the provided patent documents for U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 indicate that all claims (1-17) were statutorily disclaimed on September 8, 2020, and a Reexamination Certificate confirming the disclaimer of all claims was issued on July 23, 2021.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-08-30 Earliest Priority Date for '239, '532, and '580 Patents
2011-04-26 '239 Patent Issued
2015-07-07 '532 Patent Issued
2016-08-08 Parrot files DJ Action vs. QFO in Delaware
2016-08-08 IPR Petition filed against '239 Patent (IPR2016-01550)
2016-08-08 IPR Petition filed against '532 Patent (IPR2016-01559)
2016-10-12 QFO files suit vs. Parrot in Minnesota
2017-03-15 IPR Petitions filed against '239 & '532 Patents (denied)
2017-04-07 QFO files suit vs. Brookstone in Minnesota
2017-05-09 '580 Patent Issued
2017-05-10 IPR Petition filed against '580 Patent (IPR2017-01400)
2017-09-29 QFO vs. Brookstone suit dismissed pursuant to settlement
2017-10-11 Plaintiff captures screenshots of accused products and apps
2017-11-03 Complaint Filing Date
2020-09-08 Statutory Disclaimer filed for all claims of '580 Patent
2021-07-23 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued disclaiming all claims of '580 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,931,239 - "HOMEOSTATIC FLYING HOVERCRAFT," Issued April 26, 2011

The provided patent document for U.S. Patent No. 7,931,293 is titled "CURTAIN AIRBAG" and relates to automotive safety systems. This document does not correspond to the '239 Patent described in the complaint, which pertains to drone control technology (Compl. ¶¶7, 9). Analysis of the '239 Patent’s technology and claims is not possible based on the provided materials.

U.S. Patent No. 9,732,532 - "HOMEOSTATIC FLYING HOVERCRAFT," Issued July 7, 2015

The provided patent document for U.S. Patent No. 9,732,532 is titled "CONSTRUCTION METHOD FOR PROTECTING A SURFACE OF A STRUCTURE" and relates to construction materials. This document does not correspond to the '532 Patent described in the complaint, which pertains to drone control technology (Compl. ¶¶10, 12). Analysis of the '532 Patent’s technology and claims is not possible based on the provided materials.

U.S. Patent No. 9,645,580 - "RADIO-CONTROLLED FLYING CRAFT," Issued May 9, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the significant difficulty in manually controlling flying craft and the complexity of conventional auto-pilot systems ('580 Patent, col. 5:1-6). It notes that such systems typically rely on an initial, static "boresighting" process to establish a gravitational reference, which makes them unable to dynamically correct for in-flight forces and sensor precession that can lead to instability ('580 Patent, col. 5:11-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "homeostatic flying hovercraft" with a control system that provides "true homeostasis" and intuitive "fly-by-wire" control ('580 Patent, Abstract). The system dynamically determines its own inertial gravitational reference, rather than relying on a static one, to maintain a desired orientation ('580 Patent, col. 7:4-9). This allows the craft to be controlled by mimicking the orientation of a handheld remote controller, simplifying flight for the user ('580 Patent, col. 6:35-44).
  • Technical Importance: The technology seeks to make small, multi-rotor aircraft easier to control and more inherently stable than existing remote-controlled models, which often require extensive skill to operate and are prone to crashing ('580 Patent, col. 4:5-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 7, and 15, along with several dependent claims (Compl. ¶47). However, the provided patent documents include a statutory disclaimer and a reexamination certificate showing all claims of the '580 Patent (1-17) were disclaimed as of September 8, 2020.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1, now disclaimed, include:
    • A flying structure with four electrically powered motors generating downward thrust.
    • A "homeostatic control system" connected to the motors, which includes a three-dimensional sensor system and control circuitry configured to "determine an inertial gravitational reference" to automatically maintain a desired orientation.
    • An RF transceiver for communicating with a hand-held controller.
    • A battery system.
    • Control software in the hand-held controller that uses the controller's own sensor system to generate control commands based on the controller's orientation.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are certain remote-controlled drones manufactured by Parrot and sold by Defendant Best Buy, including the Bebop 2, MAMBO, and AR.Drone 2.0 models, along with the corresponding "AR. FreeFlight Pro App" used to control them (Compl. ¶¶18-19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused drones are controlled via a software application downloaded to a smart phone or tablet (Compl. ¶19). The core accused functionality is the "tilt-to-fly mode," in which the drone is controlled by and "mimics the orientation of the handheld controller" (Compl. ¶16). A screenshot from Defendant's website shows several of the accused Parrot drone models offered for sale (Compl. ¶18, Ex. D). Additional screenshots show the "FreeFlight Pro Drone App" available for download from the Apple and Google app stores (Compl. ¶19, Ex. E, F). The complaint alleges these products incorporate the "important and valuable technical innovations" embodied in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶20-22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits G, H, I) that were not provided with the filing. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

The central infringement theory is that the combination of an accused Parrot drone and a handheld device running the "AR. FreeFlight Pro" application constitutes an infringing system (Compl. ¶¶34, 41, 49). The complaint alleges that when users operate the system in the "tilt-to-fly" mode, they are practicing the patented methods (Compl. ¶16). Specifically, the drone's flight system (motors, on-board sensors, battery) in communication with the controller (smartphone/tablet with its own sensors and the control app) is alleged to meet the elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶49). The complaint points to a publicly available YouTube video as evidence demonstrating the accused "tilt-to-fly" mode of operation (Compl. ¶23).

  • Identified Points of Contention (for '580 Patent):
    • Enforceability: The primary and likely dispositive issue is that all asserted claims of the '580 Patent have been statutorily disclaimed. A patent with no valid claims cannot be infringed. This raises the question of whether the cause of action related to the '580 Patent is moot.
    • Technical Scope: Should the claims be considered enforceable, a key question would be whether the standard Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) and flight control software in the Parrot drones and a controlling smartphone perform the function of the claimed "homeostatic control system." The dispute would focus on whether the accused system "determine[s] an inertial gravitational reference" in the specific dynamic manner described in the patent, or if it uses a conventional control method that falls outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis is provided for the '580 Patent, as it is the only patent for which the specification was provided.

  • The Term: "homeostatic control system"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent's abstract and is central to defining the invention. Its construction will determine whether a conventional drone flight controller falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent appears to use it to distinguish the invention from prior art control systems.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the system functionally as one that "provides true homeostasis of the craft with a true fly-by-wire flight control and control-by-wire system control" ('580 Patent, Abstract). Plaintiff may argue this language supports a construction covering any system that achieves stable, intuitive, orientation-based flight control.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the system overcomes the limitations of prior art autopilots that rely on a static ground reference ('580 Patent, col. 5:1-34). The specification also provides detailed block diagrams and circuit schematics showing a specific architecture for processing sensor data to achieve this ('580 Patent, Figs. 28-31). Defendant would likely argue the term is limited to this disclosed architecture or its equivalent, not any generic flight controller.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by selling the Parrot drones and encouraging customers to download the control application (Compl. ¶¶34, 41, 49). The factual basis includes Defendant's alleged provision of a "Parrot Drone User Manual" (Ex. J), which purportedly instructs customers on how to use the infringing "tilt-to-fly" mode (Compl. ¶23).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The complaint pleads knowledge based on dates corresponding to the issuance of each patent or earlier, for the '239 Patent (Compl. ¶¶35, 42, 50). It further alleges that Defendant acted despite an "objectively high likelihood" that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent, tracking the standard for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶36, 43, 51).

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

  1. A threshold issue for the '580 Patent is one of enforceability. Given the post-filing statutory disclaimer of all claims, as documented in the provided materials, can an infringement action seeking damages and injunctive relief for this patent proceed?

  2. For the remaining patents ('239 and '532), assuming they are valid and enforceable, a core issue will be one of technical scope. Can the term "homeostatic control system," described in the patent family as dynamically determining a gravitational reference, be construed to read on the accused Parrot drones, which use a combination of drone and standard smartphone sensors for flight control?

  3. A central question for Defendant Best Buy's liability, as a retailer rather than the manufacturer, will be one of induced infringement. What evidence will Plaintiff need to produce to demonstrate that Best Buy possessed the specific intent to encourage its customers to infringe, beyond merely selling the products and making user manuals available?