DCT
1:17-cv-00105
AntennaSys Inc v. AQYR Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: AntennaSys, Inc. (New Hampshire)
- Defendant: AQYR Technologies, Inc. (New Hampshire) and Windmill International, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cook, Little, Rosenblatt & Manson, p.l.l.c.; Grossman, Tucker, Perrault & Pfleger, pllc
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00105, D.N.H., 05/16/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Hampshire as both defendants maintain a principal place of business and transact business within the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that portable satellite terminals sold by Defendant AQYR infringe a patent co-owned by Plaintiff, in a dispute rooted in a related license agreement between Plaintiff and AQYR's parent company, Defendant Windmill.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, auto-aligning satellite communication antennas, a field with significant application in military, disaster relief, and remote media operations.
- Key Procedural History: The dispute arises from a complex business relationship where Plaintiff and Defendant Windmill co-own the patent-in-suit under a 2008 License Agreement. Plaintiff alleges Windmill failed to meet minimum sales requirements under the agreement, thereby losing its exclusive license and granting Plaintiff the right to sue for infringement. The complaint notes that the parties have agreed to waive an arbitration clause in the license agreement and proceed with all claims in federal court.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-04-26 | '868 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-04-04 | License Agreement executed between AntennaSys and Windmill |
| 2008-10-07 | '868 Patent Issue Date |
| 2010-01-01 | License Agreement minimum sales milestone date |
| 2016-08-25 | Windmill provides limited audit information to AntennaSys |
| 2016-09-16 | Windmill states Disputed Products use "different positioner technology" |
| 2017-05-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,432,868 - Portable Antenna Positioner Apparatus and Method
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,432,868, "Portable Antenna Positioner Apparatus and Method," issued October 7, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need unmet by then-existing technology, stating that "Existing antenna positioners are heavy structures that are bulky and require many workers to manually setup and initially orient" and "fail to satisfactorily achieve the full spectrum of compact storage, ease of transport and rapid setup" (’868 Patent, col. 1:36-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "lightweight, collapsible and rugged antenna positioner" designed to be easily carried and deployed by a single person, potentially fitting within a standard carry-on bag (’868 Patent, col. 1:50-58). The system, as illustrated in figures such as Figure 8, uses a specific mechanical architecture where an antenna (601) pivots for elevation via an elevation motor (802) on a positioning arm (801), and the entire arm assembly rotates on a positioner base (600) for azimuth via an azimuth motor (800). The base houses a computer for automated alignment (’868 Patent, col. 11:12 - col. 12:53).
- Technical Importance: This design addresses the logistical challenges of deploying satellite communication systems in remote or tactical environments where portability, rapid setup, and minimal manpower are critical.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5, 6, and 9 (’868 Patent, col. 17:5 - col. 18:50; Compl. ¶47).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An antenna with a centrally located pivot point.
- An elevation motor that rotates the antenna about the pivot point.
- At least one positioning arm coupled to the elevation motor.
- An azimuth motor coupled to the positioning arm.
- A positioner base coupled to the azimuth motor, which houses a control computer.
- The entire assembly is configured to be stowed, deployed, and carried by a single person.
- The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted in the future.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names the "AQYR products," including the TYPHOON Ku-Band Terminal, the KA-PRT Portable Receive Terminal, the DIAMONDBACK AutoAQYR, and the ThinPack AutoAQYR Terminal (Compl. ¶¶2, 19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that these are portable antenna products whose functionality mirrors the patented invention (Compl. ¶47). Specifically, the complaint asserts that the products "comprise an antenna with a centrally located pivot point, an elevation motor..., at least one positioning arm..., an azimuth motor..., [and] a positioner base... configured to be stowed and deployed and carried by a single person" (Compl. ¶47). The complaint also states that prior to the suit, Defendant Windmill communicated that these products use a "different positioner technology" than that covered by the parties' license agreement (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Claim Chart Summary
- The complaint provides a narrative infringement theory against the accused AQYR products for claim 1.
'868 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an antenna with a centrally located pivot point; | The AQYR products are alleged to comprise an antenna with a centrally located pivot point. | ¶47 | col. 17:7-8 |
| an elevation motor coupled with said antenna wherein said antenna rotates about said centrally located pivot point... | An elevation motor is allegedly coupled with the antenna to rotate it about the pivot point. | ¶47 | col. 17:9-12 |
| at least one positioning arm coupled with said elevation motor; | The products are alleged to include at least one positioning arm coupled with the elevation motor. | ¶47 | col. 17:13-14 |
| an azimuth motor coupled with said at least one positioning arm; | An azimuth motor is allegedly coupled to the positioning arm. | ¶47 | col. 17:15-16 |
| a positioner base coupled with said azimuth motor wherein said positioner base houses a computer configured to control said antenna; and, | A positioner base is alleged to be coupled to the azimuth motor and to house a computer for controlling the antenna. | ¶47 | col. 17:17-20 |
| said antenna, said elevation motor, said at least one positioning arm, said azimuth motor and said positioning base configured to be stowed and deployed and carried by a single person. | The entire assembly of the accused products is alleged to be configured to be stowed, deployed, and carried by a single person. | ¶47 | col. 17:21-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of the functional limitation "configured to be... carried by a single person." The parties may contest the specific weight, size, or ease-of-use requirements implied by this term, as the patent provides examples but does not set explicit limits in the claim itself (’868 Patent, col. 3:12-15).
- Technical Questions: The primary technical question is evidentiary. The complaint alleges infringement based on "information and belief" while also noting that Defendants have previously claimed the accused products use a "different positioner technology" (Compl. ¶¶20, 47). The case will therefore require discovery to determine the actual mechanical construction of the accused products and whether they in fact possess the specific arrangement of motors, arms, and pivot points recited in claim 1.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "coupled with"
Context and Importance
- This term appears repeatedly in claim 1 to define the relationship between the core mechanical components (antenna, motors, arm, base). Its construction is critical because the specific structural arrangement is the essence of the claimed apparatus. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the connections in the accused products meet the claimed configuration.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may support a functional, rather than strictly direct, connection. For example, the patent describes how "Plate mounts 402, 403 and 404 act to couple antenna mounting plate 222... to positioner arms" (’868 Patent, col. 10:30-33), suggesting that coupling can occur through intermediate components.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, particularly Figure 8, depict a specific physical arrangement. A party could argue that "coupled with" should be construed as being limited to the direct or nearly direct connections shown in the preferred embodiments.
The Term: "configured to be stowed and deployed and carried by a single person"
Context and Importance
- This functional limitation in the claim's final clause is a core feature distinguishing the invention from prior art. The definition of the required level of portability and ease of handling will be central to determining the scope of infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the invention in general terms as being "readily carried by hand or shipped in a compact container" (’868 Patent, col. 1:53-55), suggesting the term should be interpreted broadly to cover a range of portable designs.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as an embodiment that "weigh[s] less than 20 pounds" and can "fit in an airplane roll-on bag" (’868 Patent, col. 3:12-15). A party may argue these examples should inform a narrower construction of what it means to be "carried by a single person."
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not contain a specific count for indirect infringement and does not allege specific facts to support a theory of inducement or contributory infringement against Defendant AQYR. The allegations in Count VI are for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶47).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶52). The factual basis cited is that Plaintiff notified AQYR of its belief of infringement and that AQYR has continued its allegedly infringing activities and "refused to indicate in what way it does not infringe" (Compl. ¶¶48, 49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A principal issue in this case will be one of evidentiary proof: does the mechanical architecture of AQYR's accused terminals map onto the specific arrangement of a pivoting antenna, elevation motor, positioning arm, and azimuth motor as recited in Claim 1? This is a central factual dispute, highlighted by Defendant's pre-suit claim of using "different positioner technology," and its resolution will depend on technical evidence revealed in discovery.
- The case will also turn on a question of claim scope: how will the court construe the functional limitation "configured to be stowed and deployed and carried by a single person"? The interpretation of the required degree of portability and collapsibility will be critical in defining the patent's boundary and determining whether the accused products fall within it.
- Finally, an underlying question of standing and contract will be foundational to the patent dispute. The court's interpretation of the License Agreement and whether Defendant Windmill's alleged breach was sufficient to terminate its exclusive rights will determine whether Plaintiff has the legal standing to bring this patent infringement suit against AQYR.