LightSure LLC v. Auterion AG

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: LightSure LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Auterion AG (Switzerland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00631, E.D. Tex., 06/13/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the district and committing acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products related to unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems infringe a patent for UAV communication and traffic management.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and methods for managing drone traffic by using communications equipment co-located with roadway infrastructure, such as streetlights, to communicate with UAVs.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-07-14	U.S. Patent No. 9,087,451 Priority Date
2014-07-28	Application for U.S. Patent No. 9,087,451 Filed
2015-07-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,087,451 Issued
2025-06-13	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,087,451 - Unmanned aerial vehicle communication, monitoring, and traffic management

Issued: July 21, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background section discusses public concerns regarding the domestic use of UAVs, including issues of privacy and the potential for injury or property damage from their operation (U.S. Patent No. 9,087,451, col. 1:42-52). This suggests a need for a system to manage and monitor UAVs to enhance safety and mitigate such concerns.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a network of ground-based “communications stations” mounted on existing “lighting assemblies” (e.g., streetlights) located near roadways to communicate with and manage UAVs (’971 Patent, col. 1:53-col. 2:4). These stations can transmit flight parameters, such as a required altitude, to a UAV and receive identifying information from the UAV in return (’971 Patent, Abstract). The system creates defined air corridors for UAV traffic that are tied to existing ground infrastructure, as illustrated in the patent’s figures (Compl. ¶9; ’971 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technical approach leverages ubiquitous roadway infrastructure to create a decentralized, scalable traffic management system for low-altitude UAVs, addressing the challenge of safely integrating autonomous drones into complex urban environments (’971 Patent, col. 4:14-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them, but reserves the right to rely on the claims identified in an exhibit not attached to the public filing (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). The patent contains two independent claims, one directed to a method and one to a system.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • transmitting a first message from a communications station mounted to a lighting assembly, which is located near a roadway;
  • receiving a second message from the UAV containing a UAV identifier; and
  • transmitting a third message to the UAV indicating an altitude at which the UAV should fly.
• Independent Claim 28 (System):
  • A lighting assembly comprising a light pole near a roadway, a luminaire, and a communications station mounted to the pole;
  • The communications station comprises a transmitter, a receiver, and a processing module;
  • The components are configured to transmit a first message with a station identifier, receive a second message with a UAV identifier, and transmit a third message indicating a flight altitude for the UAV.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name specific accused products, referring generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in an incorporated but unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '7451 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No specific details about the functionality, operation, or market context of the accused products are provided in the complaint itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '7451 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in an unattached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). As this exhibit is not provided, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement asserts that Defendant's products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '7451 Patent Claims" either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶16). The complaint contains a visual, incorporated by reference, depicting a conceptual flight environment with UAVs, roadways, and communications stations (Compl. ¶9; ’971 Patent, Fig. 1). This figure illustrates the overall system architecture that the accused products allegedly infringe. However, the complaint lacks specific factual allegations connecting the functionality of any particular product to the elements of the patent’s claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent claims are directed to physical hardware—a "lighting assembly" (Claim 28) and a "communications station mounted to a lighting assembly" (Claim 1). A primary legal question will be whether Defendant, a known provider of software and cloud services for drones, can be liable for infringing claims directed to a physical apparatus. The viability of the case may depend on a theory of indirect infringement, which would raise the question of whether Defendant's customers combine its software with hardware that meets the "lighting assembly" limitation.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the real-world systems that use Defendant's software actually perform the claimed functions. For example, the complaint does not provide facts to suggest that any ground control station running Defendant’s software is "mounted to a lighting assembly" or that it transmits the specific sequence of messages required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "lighting assembly"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in both independent claims and is foundational to the patent's scope. The dispute may turn on whether this term can be construed broadly enough to read on the hardware systems that use Defendant's software. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to anchor the invention in a physical, infrastructure-based context, which may not align with the accused products.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that communications stations can be placed on a wide variety of structures near a roadway, including "streetlights, traffic lights, utility poles, towers... buildings, trees, billboards, bridges, or other structures" (’971 Patent, col. 5:56-62). A party may argue this supports construing "lighting assembly" as exemplary rather than strictly limiting.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Independent claim 28 explicitly defines the assembly as comprising a "light pole" and a "luminaire" (’971 Patent, col. 37:1-6). The patent's figures and detailed descriptions consistently depict conventional streetlights as the core embodiment (’971 Patent, Fig. 1, 144a; col. 7:4-10). This may support a narrower construction limited to actual illumination-providing structures.

• The Term: "communications station mounted to a lighting assembly"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation from independent claim 1 is critical for determining direct infringement. If Defendant only supplies software, it does not manufacture or sell a physical station "mounted to" anything.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for a broad interpretation. A party could speculatively argue for a "functional" or "logical" mounting, but there is no clear support for this in the patent.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ordinary meaning of "mounted to" suggests physical attachment. The specification repeatedly describes the communications station as "attached to the lighting assembly" (’971 Patent, col. 7:8-9, 7:39-40). This supports a construction requiring direct physical connection, which would present a significant hurdle for an infringement theory against a software-only provider.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant sells its products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to operate the products in a manner that directly infringes the ’971 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge of the ’971 Patent obtained upon service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that any continued infringement by Defendant after receiving this notice is willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶14-15).

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

• A core issue will be one of infringement theory and definitional scope: can claims requiring a physical "lighting assembly" be asserted against a software provider? The case will likely depend on whether Plaintiff can successfully advance a theory of indirect infringement by pleading and proving that Defendant’s customers directly infringe by using its software on hardware that meets the patent’s physical limitations.
• A key threshold question will be pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which lacks specific factual allegations and relies on an unattached exhibit for its infringement contentions, provide a plausible basis for relief against this specific Defendant? The court will have to determine if the allegations rise above a speculative level, particularly given the apparent mismatch between the patent’s hardware-centric claims and the Defendant’s software-based business model.