DCT
2:23-cv-00036
Flying Heliball LLC v. Target Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Flying Heliball, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Target Corporation (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Capshaw Derieux, L.L.P.; Workman | Nydegger
- Case Identification: Flying Heliball, LLC v. Target Corporation, 2:23-cv-00036, E.D. Tex., 01/31/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates numerous regular and established places of business in the district, including 15 retail stores and a large distribution center, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Sky Viper Force Hover Sphere" flying toy infringes a patent related to a control system that enables a flying vehicle to automatically maintain its altitude above a surface.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns autonomous altitude control for small, propeller-based flying vehicles, a feature that simplifies operation and enhances user experience in the consumer toy market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit was assigned to Plaintiff in 2022. It further alleges that Defendant was notified of the alleged infringement via correspondence on August 10, 2022, a fact which forms the basis for the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-01-14 | ’866 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-09-05 | ’866 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-08-10 | Alleged notice of infringement sent to Defendant |
| 2023-01-31 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,100,866 - "Control System for a Flying Vehicle"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,100,866, "Control System for a Flying Vehicle," issued September 5, 2006 (the “’866 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that for toy flying vehicles, maintaining a stable flight or hover is difficult and typically requires constant user adjustment of the propeller speed (’866 Patent, col. 2:31-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-hovering control system. It uses a transmitter/receiver pair, typically an infrared sensor, positioned on the bottom of the vehicle to send a signal downward (’866 Patent, col. 3:45-50). When the receiver detects the signal bouncing off a surface, a control system increases the propeller speed to make the vehicle climb. When the signal is lost (i.e., the vehicle is too high), the control system decreases the propeller speed, causing it to descend. By toggling between these two states, the vehicle can automatically maintain a relatively constant height above a surface or object (’866 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-18). The patent’s Figure 7 provides a flowchart illustrating this control logic.
- Technical Importance: This technology automates altitude control, a key challenge in operating small aerial toys, thereby making them more accessible and user-friendly (’866 Patent, col. 2:34-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 10 and provides infringement allegations mapping the Accused Products to its elements (Compl. ¶¶30-34). The complaint also contains an apparent scrivener's error, stating it reproduces Claim 10 in paragraph 29 but instead providing the text of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
- Independent Claim 10 is a system claim comprising the following essential elements:
- a transmitter/receiver pair positioned on the vehicle, the transmitter transmitting a signal from the vehicle in a predetermined direction;
- a means to fly said vehicle in a direction opposite of said predetermined direction when said signal is bounced off of a surface and received back by the receiver; and
- a means to fly said vehicle in a direction similar to said predetermined direction when said receiver does not receive said signal.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Sky Viper Force Hover Sphere" flying vehicle (the “Accused Product”) (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a flying toy vehicle that incorporates a control system for managing its movement (Compl. ¶30, p. 7 visual). A photograph included in the complaint shows the Accused Product, which is a caged drone-like toy (Compl. ¶2). The complaint alleges the product includes a downward-facing transmitter/receiver pair that allows it to sense and react to surfaces below it (Compl. ¶31, p. 8 visual).
- The complaint alleges Defendant sells the Accused Product through its retail stores and website, and provides online instructions and videos demonstrating its use (Compl. ¶¶11, 36). One annotated image in the complaint points to the propellers as the "means to fly said vehicle" (Compl. ¶32, p. 9 visual).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’866 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a transmitter/receiver pair positioned on the vehicle, the transmitter transmitting a signal from the vehicle in a predetermined direction; | The Accused Product allegedly has a downward-facing sensor, identified as a transmitter/receiver pair, that transmits a signal. An annotated image points to a component on the underside of the product. | ¶31 | col. 6:58-62 |
| a means to fly said vehicle in a direction opposite of said predetermined direction when said signal is bounced off of a surface and received back by the receiver; and | The Accused Product's propellers and control system are alleged to be the "means" that cause the vehicle to fly upward when the sensor receives a bounced signal. | ¶32 | col. 7:1-5 |
| a means to fly said vehicle in a direction similar to said predetermined direction when said receiver does not receive said signal. | The Accused Product's propellers and control system are alleged to be the "means" that cause the vehicle to fly downward when the sensor does not receive a signal. | ¶33 | col. 7:6-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 10 includes two "means-plus-function" limitations. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the scope of such limitations is restricted to the specific "structure" disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the claimed function, and its equivalents. The patent discloses a specific control logic in Figure 7 that uses timers and sets distinct "climb speed" and "fall speed" values (’866 Patent, col. 4:53-64; Fig. 7). A primary point of contention will be whether the control system in the Accused Product contains a structure that is identical or equivalent to this disclosed algorithm.
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that the Accused Product's flight system performs the functions recited in the "means" clauses. A key evidentiary question for the court will be what proof exists that the Accused Product’s control logic operates in the specific two-mode manner claimed (fly up on signal receipt, fly down on signal loss), as opposed to, for example, a more complex proportional-integral-derivative (PID) or other control scheme that might not be structurally equivalent to the patent's disclosed implementation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a means to fly said vehicle..." (appearing in the second and third limitations of Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function term, and its construction will be dispositive of infringement. The dispute will center on identifying the corresponding structure in the ’866 Patent specification that performs the stated functions of flying the vehicle up or down based on signal reception. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope is not determined by the plain meaning of the words, but by a detailed analysis of the patent's disclosure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the disclosed structure is a general-purpose processor in communication with a sensor and propellers, programmed to perform the basic functions, suggesting that any controller achieving this result could be equivalent (’866 Patent, col. 3:18-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the "structure" is not just a processor, but the specific algorithm disclosed in the specification. The patent describes a distinct process of setting propeller speed to a "climb speed" after a predetermined time (T1) of signal detection, and a "fall speed" after a time (T2) of no signal detection (’866 Patent, col. 4:33-55; Fig. 7). This suggests the structure is this specific timed, multi-state logic, and systems that do not use it (e.g., those using continuous proportional control) would not be covered.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides customers with "online instructions and instructional videos" that instruct them on how to use the Accused Product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶36). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the assertion that the Accused Products have no substantial non-infringing use and are a material component especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶37).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Defendant was put on notice of the ’866 Patent and its alleged infringement via correspondence dated August 10, 2022, but continued its infringing activities (Compl. ¶38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope under § 112(f): Is the "structure" corresponding to the "means to fly" limitations in Claim 10 a generic controller, or is it the specific, timer-based, multi-state control algorithm detailed in the patent's specification and Figure 7? The answer to this construction question will define the scope of the patent's protection.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural equivalence: Assuming a narrow construction, can the Plaintiff provide evidence that the Accused Product's internal software and hardware implement a control logic that is structurally the same as, or equivalent to, the specific algorithm disclosed in the ’866 Patent? The case may depend on a technical comparison of the control systems at a structural level, not merely a comparison of their ultimate function.