Fury Tech LLC v. Parrot Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fury Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Parrot, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Nicholas Loaknauth, P.C.; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-03329, S.D.N.Y., 04/28/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because the Defendant is incorporated in the District, which Plaintiff asserts makes it a resident of the District under TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 3D modeling solutions for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) infringe patents related to automatically controlling a UAV's flight path to generate a complete solid model of a structure.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to autonomous drone technology used for surveying and creating 3D models of objects like buildings, a process with applications in construction, inspection, and mapping.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. The ’833 Patent is a continuation of the application that led to the ’598 Patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,965,598 - "AUTOMATIC FLIGHT CONTROL FOR UAV BASED SOLID MODELING" (Issued Feb. 24, 2015)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the operational limitations of using UAVs for structural inspection and modeling, such as limited power, flight time, and the high cost and inefficiency of making repeated flights to capture data from surfaces that were missed on initial passes (’598 Patent, col. 1:41-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a flight control system where a remote controller dynamically plans a UAV's flight path to ensure complete data capture for 3D modeling (’598 Patent, col. 1:56-65). The system first determines an initial path, captures images, and then analyzes those images to "form surface hypotheses for unobserved surfaces" (’598 Patent, col. 4:16-24). Based on this analysis of missing information, it calculates a "least impact path" for the UAV to fly to capture the remaining data, optimizing the flight within given parameters like fuel or time (’598 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to automate and optimize the 3D modeling process, reducing the need for manual intervention and multiple flights, thereby saving operational cost and time (’598 Patent, col. 1:46-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
• Claim 1 requires a system comprising:
  • A UAV with an onboard camera.
  • A controller capable of communicating with the UAV's flight control module.
  • The controller is configured to perform a sequence of steps:
    • determine an initial movement path based on an estimate of a structure;
    • capture images of the structure;
    • form surface hypotheses for unobserved surfaces based on the captured images;
    • determine missing surface information from the hypotheses; and
    • determine a least impact path for the UAV based on the missing information and flight parameters.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,352,833 - "AUTOMATIC FLIGHT CONTROL FOR UAV BASED SOLID MODELING" (Issued May 31, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’598 Patent's application, this patent addresses the same technical problem of inefficient data capture in UAV-based 3D modeling (’833 Patent, col. 1:45-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is similar to the ’598 Patent but is claimed from the perspective of the UAV system itself rather than the controller. The UAV is configured to receive an initial path from a controller, capture and transmit images back to the controller (which then uses them to form hypotheses), and subsequently receive an optimized "least impact path" from the controller to complete the data capture (’833 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:46-54). This partitions the system's logic, with the UAV handling flight execution and data I/O, while the controller performs the heavier computational tasks.
• Technical Importance: This patent describes a distributed system architecture for achieving the same operational efficiencies as the ’598 Patent: automated, single-flight 3D model creation (’833 Patent, col. 1:50-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 11 (Compl. ¶22).
• Claim 11 requires a system comprising:
  • A UAV capable of communication with a controller.
  • The UAV is configured to:
    • receive an initial movement path from the controller;
    • capture one or more images of the structure;
    • transmit the captured images to the controller (where they are used to form hypotheses and determine missing information); and
    • receive a least impact path from the controller.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Parrot 3D Modeling Solution" as the "Accused System" (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Accused System as a "flight control system for solid modeling" (Compl. ¶24). The allegations state that the system, at least in internal testing and usage, utilizes a UAV with a camera, communicates with a controller, and performs the functions of determining and executing flight paths to model a structure (Compl. ¶¶26-32, 35-40). The complaint does not provide specific, public-facing technical details about the operation of the Accused System, instead alleging that its functionality maps to the elements of the asserted claims. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’598 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be what evidence supports the allegation that the Accused System’s controller performs the specific functions of "form[ing] surface hypotheses" and "determin[ing] a least impact path." The complaint’s repeated reliance on "internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶26) suggests that this functionality may not be described in publicly available materials, raising an evidentiary question for discovery.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused controller's method for planning a subsequent flight path meets the specific claim requirements of first creating "hypotheses" about unobserved surfaces and then calculating a "least impact path" based on that speculative data, or if it uses a more generic or pre-programmed method.

’833 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: Similar to the ’598 Patent, a key factual question is whether the Accused System's architecture and data flow match the claim. Does the accused UAV transmit images for the specific purpose of hypothesis formation and then receive a computationally-derived "least impact path," or does the system operate differently?
  • Scope Questions: This claim is structurally different, focusing on the UAV's actions (receive, capture, transmit, receive). The infringement analysis will depend on proving this specific sequence of I/O operations occurs for the purposes recited in the claim, raising questions about the division of labor between the accused drone and its controller.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

1. "form surface hypotheses for unobserved surfaces"

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's predictive capability. Its construction will determine whether infringement requires a sophisticated, model-based prediction of unseen geometry, or if any method of identifying and planning a path to an unobserved area meets the limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary point of novelty.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the step generally as "hypothesizing surface normals and view cones of unobserved surfaces based on the observed surfaces" (’598 Patent, col. 4:26-28), which could suggest any predictive estimation of a surface's properties.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific, complex algorithms for this step, such as "Random Sample Consensus Surface Extraction (RANSAC)" (’598 Patent, col. 11:33-35) and using a "Voronoi tessellation" for non-planar surfaces (’598 Patent, col. 7:6-15). A defendant may argue these specific embodiments limit the term to more than just generic gap-filling.

2. "determine a least impact path"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the optimization step that allegedly makes the patented system efficient. The central question is what level of "optimization" is required. Is any new path that is calculated "least impact," or must it be the result of a specific cost-function analysis against "desired flight parameters"?
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself links the path to "missing Surface information and desired flight parameters" (’598 Patent, col. 16:1-2), which could be read to cover any path that considers those inputs. The summary describes it as determining a path based on "desired locations and desired flight parameters" (’598 Patent, col. 2:3-4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description lists specific, formal "optimization algorithm[s]" such as "branch and bound optimization, Newton's method, simulated annealing algorithm, [and] differential evolution" (’598 Patent, col. 5:27-33). A party could argue that "least impact" implies the use of such a formal optimization method, not just an ad-hoc path selection.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, stating Defendant encouraged infringement (Compl. ¶46). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support this allegation, such as references to user manuals, advertisements, or other instructional materials that would teach users to infringe.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not explicitly pleaded as a separate count. However, the complaint alleges Defendant "has had knowledge of infringement of the ’598 Patent and the ’833 Patent at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶44). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing willful infringement only and does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "form surface hypotheses" and "determine a least impact path", which are described in the patent with reference to specific computational algorithms (e.g., RANSAC, simulated annealing), be construed broadly enough to read on the functionality of the accused "Parrot 3D Modeling Solution"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational reality: given the complaint's reliance on "internal testing and usage," what evidence will Plaintiff produce during discovery to demonstrate that the accused system actually performs the specific multi-step process of predictive modeling and path optimization, as opposed to following a more generic, pre-programmed, or user-guided flight plan?
• A third question relates to system architecture: will Plaintiff be able to prove that the division of computational labor in the accused system—what happens on the controller versus what happens on the drone—precisely maps onto the distinct claim structures of both the controller-centric ’598 Patent and the UAV-centric ’833 Patent?