Drone Control LLC v. SwellPro Technology Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Drone-Control LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: SwellPro Technology Ltd. (Hong Kong)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00198, E.D. Tex., 05/04/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the district because the Defendant is a corporation organized outside of the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s radio-controlled aircraft infringe three patents related to intuitive drone control systems that translate user commands from a controller-based perspective to an aircraft-based perspective.
• Technical Context: The technology, commonly known as "headless mode," simplifies drone piloting by allowing the aircraft to respond to commands relative to the pilot's position, rather than the aircraft's own forward-facing orientation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the Asserted Patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,095,226 - "Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller And Methods For Use Therewith"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,095,226, "Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller And Methods For Use Therewith," issued October 9, 2018. (Compl. ¶18).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional radio-controlled aircraft can be "very difficult to control" because a user must constantly consider the aircraft's orientation. A command that makes the aircraft turn right when moving away from the user will make it turn left (from the user's perspective) when moving toward the user, which requires "great skill" to manage. (’226 Patent, col. 1:35-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method of control that makes operation intuitive regardless of the aircraft's orientation. It achieves this by receiving command data from the user's remote control (a "first coordinate system"), using on-board sensors to determine the aircraft's own position and orientation relative to the user, and then "transforming" the user's command into control data appropriate for the aircraft's perspective (a "second coordinate system"). (’226 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:17-24).
• Technical Importance: This control scheme significantly lowers the operational complexity and skill required to fly remote aircraft, making the technology more accessible to novice users. (’226 Patent, col. 1:44-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 23. (Compl. ¶23).
• The essential elements of claim 23 include:
  • Receiving an RF signal at a remote controlled vehicle (RCV) from a remote control device (RCD), with the signal containing command data from the RCD's perspective.
  • Generating motion data from at least one motion sensor on the RCV indicating its position and orientation.
  • Transforming the command data into control data based on the motion data and in accordance with a second coordinate system from the RCV's perspective.
  • Wherein the command and control data both include related yaw-velocity data.
  • Controlling the motion of the RCV based on the resulting control data.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,248,117 - "Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller And Methods For Use Therewith"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,248,117, "Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller And Methods For Use Therewith," issued April 2, 2019. (Compl. ¶35).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’226 Patent: the difficulty and non-intuitive nature of controlling remote aircraft due to the need for the pilot to mentally track the vehicle's orientation. (’117 Patent, col. 1:35-49).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims an apparatus—a remote controlled vehicle device—that embodies the intuitive control solution. The device includes a receiver, a motion sensor, and a processor configured to perform the key step of transforming command data from a user-centric coordinate system into control data for the vehicle's aircraft-centric coordinate system. (’117 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:19-24).
• Technical Importance: By claiming the vehicle itself, the patent covers the physical implementation of the technology that simplifies drone operation for a broader consumer market. (’117 Patent, col. 1:46-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent apparatus claim 9. (Compl. ¶40).
• The essential elements of claim 9 include:
  • A receiver configured to receive an RF signal containing command data from the perspective of the remote control device.
  • A motion sensor configured to generate motion data.
  • A processor configured to transform the command data into control data based on a second coordinate system from the perspective of the RC vehicle.
  • Wherein the command and control data both include related yaw-velocity data.
  • One or more control devices to control the vehicle's motion based on the control data.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,281,205 - "Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller And Methods For Use Therewith"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,281,205, "Radio Controlled Aircraft, Remote Controller And Methods For Use Therewith," issued March 22, 2022. (Compl. ¶52).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a remote-controlled vehicle device that solves the orientation-based control problem by transforming user commands. The claims specify a device with at least two motion sensors (an accelerometer and a gyroscope), a processor to transform command data (including roll, pitch, and yaw-velocity components) into control data, and a configuration that allows the vehicle to enter a hovering state in response to a lift command. (’205 Patent, Abstract, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent apparatus claim 1. (Compl. ¶57).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the SplashDrone 4 infringes by being a remote-controlled vehicle with an RF receiver, propellers for motion control, and the ability to operate in an intuitive "headless" mode and to hover. (Compl. ¶¶58, 59). A visual from the user manual shows the two pairs of clockwise and counter-clockwise propellers used to control motion, including hovering. (Compl. Ex. H, at H-12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies Defendant's "radio-controlled aircraft products," and specifically names the "SplashDrone 4" as an accused product. (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The SplashDrone 4 is a waterproof quadcopter drone designed for use in and around water. (Compl. Ex. E, at E-1). It is controlled by a remote control device that communicates via an RF signal. (Compl. ¶25, Ex. H, at H-28). It is equipped with GPS/GLONASS for satellite positioning. (Compl. Ex. G, at G-11).
• The product has a "headless" mode of operation, which the user manual states is "more intuitive" because it dismisses the drone's head orientation and allows it to move in a direction relative to the user's point of view. (Compl. Ex. H, at H-45). The complaint alleges this mode is central to the infringement. (Compl. ¶25).
• The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the specific market share of the Accused Products but states that Defendant is a global company that ships, sells, and advertises its products in the United States and the Eastern District of Texas. (Compl. ¶¶4, 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’226 Patent Infringement Allegations

’117 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "transforming," as used in the patents, should be limited to the specific mathematical equations disclosed in the specification or can be construed more broadly to cover the general functionality of the accused "headless mode." The complaint relies on high-level descriptions from user manuals, which may not align with the specific implementation detailed in the patents.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for the "transforming" step rests on the assertion that the accused product uses motion data (its own orientation) to translate command data. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's "headless mode" actually performs this specific two-step process, as opposed to another method of achieving an intuitive control effect? The complaint alleges the function but does not provide technical evidence of the underlying software process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "transforming the command data into control data based on the motion data"

• Context and Importance: This term describes the core inventive concept. The definition will be critical, as the outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused product's "headless mode" software performs a process that meets the definition of this transformation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function in general terms, stating the purpose is to allow the aircraft to be "controlled based on its orientation to the user, rather than the orientation of an imaginary pilot." (’226 Patent, col. 3:20-24). Plaintiff may argue this supports a functional definition covering any process that achieves this result.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed embodiment with specific mathematical equations for the transformation (e.g., φ₁=Ψ₁ cos(φ₃-θ)+Ψ₂ sin(φ₃-θ)). (’226 Patent, col. 4:1-16). Defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this disclosed algorithm or its structural equivalent.

• The Term: "coordinate system that is established from the perspective of the RCD"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the input to the claimed transformation. Whether the accused controller's signals constitute such a coordinate system is a key infringement question. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents describe a specific polar coordinate system, and a mismatch with the accused product's system could be a non-infringement defense.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that in this system, a user command for the aircraft to "pitch forward" will cause it to move away from the user, regardless of its actual orientation. (’226 Patent, col. 3:25-44). This could support an interpretation covering any user-relative control scheme.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes a "user coordinate system" as a "polar coordinate system" with an origin at the user and the aircraft's position defined by distance (R), angle (θ), and altitude (Z). (’226 Patent, col. 3:48-55; Figs. 3-4). Defendant could argue the term requires this specific polar coordinate structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant's user manuals and advertisements instruct and encourage customers to use the infringing "headless mode" feature of the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶¶27, 44, 61). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the "headless mode" is a special feature with no substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶28, 45, 62).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after having knowledge of the patents from the filing of the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶30, 47, 64). The complaint also alleges Defendant's actions are "at least objectively reckless." (Compl. ¶¶29, 46, 63).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "transforming," which is supported in the patent specification by specific mathematical equations for converting user-relative commands, be construed to cover the accused "headless mode," for which the complaint primarily provides high-level functional descriptions from a user manual?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the plaintiff demonstrate with technical evidence that the accused drone's software actually performs the claimed method of generating aircraft orientation data and using that data to mathematically convert user commands, or does it achieve an intuitive control effect through a technically distinct process?
• A third question concerns the scope of the input: does the command signal from the accused remote control constitute a "coordinate system from the perspective of the RCD" as defined by the patents, which describe a specific polar coordinate system, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the structure of the command data?