DCT
2:25-cv-00949
Cellspin Soft Inc v. SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cellspin Soft, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. (China); DJI Europe B.V. (Netherlands)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00949, E.D. Tex., 09/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants, as foreign entities, may be sued in any judicial district. The complaint further asserts that Defendants conduct substantial business in the district through online sales, authorized retailers, and the employment of field-based drone pilots in Texas for sales, demonstrations, and product testing.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s camera and drone products, when used with its DJI Mimo and DJI Fly mobile applications, infringe three patents related to methods and systems for automatically transferring multimedia content from a data capture device to a mobile device and uploading it to web services.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the automated wireless transfer of media files (photos, videos) from capture devices like cameras and drones to internet-based services, a core feature in the modern consumer and professional electronics market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants received actual notice of the patents-in-suit via a licensing letter sent in or around August 2025, a fact central to the willfulness allegations. The complaint also notes that DJI has previously defended patent infringement suits in Texas, which Plaintiff presents to support jurisdictional and venue arguments.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-12-28 | Earliest Priority Date for ’766, ’806, and ’121 Patents |
| 2018-02-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,900,766 Issues |
| 2019-05-01 | Accused Product Osmo Action Released |
| 2019-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. 10,425,806 Issues |
| 2020-10-01 | Accused Product Osmo Pocket 2 Released |
| 2022-01-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,234,121 Issues |
| 2022-09-01 | Accused Product Osmo Action 3 Released |
| 2023-04-01 | Accused Product Mavic 3 Pro Released |
| 2023-07-01 | Accused Product Air 3 Released |
| 2023-08-01 | Accused Product Osmo Action 4 Released |
| 2023-09-01 | Accused Product Mini 4 Pro Released |
| 2023-10-01 | Accused Product Osmo Pocket 3 Released |
| 2024-09-01 | Accused Product Osmo Action 5 Pro Released |
| 2024-10-01 | Accused Product Air 3S Released |
| 2025-05-01 | Accused Product Mavic 4 Pro Released |
| 2025-08-01 | Plaintiff allegedly sends licensing letter to Defendant |
| 2025-09-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,900,766 - "Automatic Multimedia Upload for Publishing Data and Multimedia Content," Issued Feb. 20, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of transferring multimedia from a digital camera to a website as inconvenient and time-consuming, typically requiring physical cables (e.g., USB) to connect the camera to a computer, followed by a manual upload process ('766 Patent, col. 1:54-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part wireless system to automate this process. A "digital data capture device" (e.g., a camera) establishes a short-range wireless connection, such as Bluetooth, with a "mobile device" (e.g., a smartphone) running a special client application. After media is captured, the system automatically transfers the files from the camera to the phone, and the phone's application then automatically publishes the content to one or more pre-selected websites ('766 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to streamline content sharing by removing the need for a personal computer as an intermediary and automating the transfer and upload steps, a significant convenience for users capturing media in the field ('766 Patent, col. 2:22-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of all claims (Compl. ¶46). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A short-range wireless enabled data capture device, comprising a memory device, a processor, a communication device, and data capture circuitry.
- The processor is configured to acquire "new-data" after a short-range paired wireless connection with a cellular phone is established.
- The processor is further configured to store the new-data and create a "new-data object" containing the data and a "signal to notify."
- The processor is further configured to "transfer automatically" the new-data object to the authenticated cellular phone over the paired connection.
- The cellular phone is configured to listen for the signal, receive the object, and use a mobile client application to process the signal and store the received data.
U.S. Patent No. 10,425,806 - "Automatic Multimedia Upload for Publishing Data and Multimedia Content," Issued Sep. 24, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’806 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’766 Patent: the cumbersome, multi-step manual process of getting media from a capture device onto the internet ('806 Patent, col. 1:47-64).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is a method for media transfer focused on a "pull" mechanism initiated by the mobile device. After a cryptographically authenticated wireless pairing is established, a mobile software application on a cellular phone can initiate a "data transfer request" to the camera. In response, the camera transfers the newly created media file to the phone, which then uses HTTP to upload the file to a publishing website ('806 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:51-64). The patent specification also describes an alternative "push" mode where the camera can initiate the transfer ('806 Patent, col. 5:12-24).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a secure and structured way for a mobile application to query a peripheral device for new content and manage its subsequent upload, enhancing the interoperability between standalone cameras and internet-connected phones ('806 Patent, col. 2:16-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of all claims (Compl. ¶59). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A machine-implemented method of media transfer for a digital camera device.
- Establishing a short-range paired wireless connection with a cellular phone via cryptographic authentication.
- Acquiring and storing new media after the connection is established.
- Receiving a "data transfer request" initiated by a mobile software application on the cellular phone for the new media file.
- Transferring the new media file to the cellular phone in response to the request.
- The mobile application is configured to receive the file and use HTTP to upload it to a user media publishing website.
U.S. Patent No. 11,234,121 - "Automatic Multimedia Upload for Publishing Data and Multimedia Content," Issued Jan. 25, 2022
- Technology Synopsis: The ’121 Patent describes a data capture device that, after establishing a paired wireless connection with a cellular phone, acquires new data and automatically sends an "event notification" along with the new data to the phone. A single mobile client application on the phone is configured to process the notification, store the data, and upload it to a publishing website, potentially based on a timer setting or user preferences like GPS information (’121 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:44-54).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of all claims (Compl. ¶73). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the combination of DJI's cameras and drones with the DJI Mimo and Fly apps implements the claimed system, where the devices connect wirelessly to a phone running the app, which then facilitates the transfer and upload of multimedia content (Compl. ¶¶27-29, 73).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint names eleven DJI camera and drone products, including the Osmo Action, Osmo Pocket, Mini, Air, and Mavic series, as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶27). The functionality is enabled by two mobile applications: the DJI Mimo app (for handheld devices) and the DJI Fly app (for drones) (Compl. ¶27).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products constitute a system for capturing multimedia data (photos and videos) and transferring it wirelessly to a mobile device running one of the accused apps (Compl. ¶¶7, 27). The apps facilitate connectivity via Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, allowing for automatic or streamlined transfer of content from the camera/drone to the smartphone (Compl. ¶¶28, 29). The apps then enable users to upload the content to web services, including DJI's SkyPixel platform or third-party services like Google Drive (Compl. ¶¶14, 28, 42). The complaint provides screenshots from Apple's App Store showing the user interface for the DJI Fly and DJI Mimo apps, which highlight features like "Quick Transfer" (Compl., p. 2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references, but does not include, detailed claim chart exhibits (Compl. ¶43). The following analysis maps the complaint's narrative allegations to the elements of representative claims.
’766 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A short-range wireless enabled data capture device... | DJI's Osmo, Mavic, Air, and Mini series cameras and drones are identified as data capture devices with Bluetooth and Wi-Fi capability. | ¶27, ¶¶31-41 | col. 4:50-60 |
| configured to...establish a short-range paired wireless connection with...a short-range wireless enabled cellular phone... | The accused DJI devices are alleged to establish a secure paired connection with a smartphone via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi to enable data transfer. | ¶24, ¶28, ¶29 | col. 4:11-14 |
| said processor configured to acquire new-data in the...data capture device...after establishing the...connection... | The DJI devices are designed to capture photos and videos after pairing with a mobile device running the DJI Mimo or Fly app. | ¶7, ¶27 | col. 4:45-46 |
| said processor further configured to...create a new-data object...[comprising a] signal to notify...and the acquired new-data... | The complaint alleges a system of automatic transfer, which raises the question of whether a specific notification signal and data object are created and sent as claimed. | ¶24, ¶46 | col. 6:30-34 |
| said processor further configured to transfer automatically the new-data object to the cryptographically authenticated short-range wireless enabled cellular phone... | The accused system is alleged to automatically transfer multimedia from the DJI device to the paired mobile device with minimal user intervention. | ¶2, ¶42, ¶46 | col. 5:12-20 |
’806 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A machine-implemented method of media transfer, comprising...establishing a short-range paired wireless connection between the digital camera device and the cellular phone... | The DJI cameras and drones are alleged to connect to smartphones running the DJI apps via paired Bluetooth or Wi-Fi connections. | ¶24, ¶28, ¶29 | col. 4:11-21 |
| acquiring new-media...after establishing the short-range paired wireless connection... | DJI devices capture photos and videos while connected to the mobile app. | ¶7, ¶27 | col. 4:45-46 |
| receiving a data transfer request initiated by a mobile software application on the...cellular phone... | The DJI Mimo and Fly apps allegedly facilitate the transfer of content. The "Quick Transfer" feature shown in an app store screenshot may embody this request. (Compl., p. 2) | ¶28, ¶29, ¶46 | col. 4:51-56 |
| transferring the new-media file to the...cellular phone...wherein the mobile software application...is configured to use HTTP to upload the received new-media file...to a user media publishing website... | The DJI apps are alleged to receive the transferred files and subsequently upload them to web services like SkyPixel or Google Drive using HTTP/HTTPS. | ¶14, ¶24, ¶42 | col. 4:57-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Do the accused drones, which are flying vehicles, meet the definition of a "digital camera device" as contemplated by the patents, which primarily use a handheld digital camera as an exemplar?
- Technical Questions:
- What is the specific mechanism for initiating data transfer in the accused system? The ’806 patent claims a "pull" method where the mobile app requests data, while the ’766 patent claims a "push" method where the camera automatically transfers a data object. The complaint alleges "automatic transfer" (Compl. ¶46), but also references app-based features like "QuickTransfer" (Compl., p. 2), creating ambiguity about whether the process is truly automatic (push) or user-initiated (pull).
- What level of "cryptographic authentication" is required by the claims versus what is implemented in the accused Bluetooth/Wi-Fi pairing protocols? The evidence regarding the security protocols of the connection will be a key factual issue.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "transfer automatically" (’766 Patent, Claim 1) / "receiving a data transfer request" (’806 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: These terms are central to the distinction between the "push" architecture of the ’766 patent and the "pull" architecture of the ’806 patent. The complaint alleges "automatic" transfer, but also suggests some user interaction via the app may be required (Compl. ¶2, ¶46). The factual nature of the data transfer process in the accused products—whether it is initiated by the camera upon data capture or by the user via the mobile app—will be critical to the infringement analysis for both patents. Practitioners may focus on whether "automatic" can encompass a process requiring "minimal user intervention."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (supporting infringement): The specification discusses both "push" and "pull" modes of operation, suggesting the invention is not strictly limited to one or the other. For example, it states, "The transfer of the data...may also take place in a push mode of operation" and in other places describes the client application initiating the transfer in a "pull mode" (’806 Patent, col. 5:12-13, 51-53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (against infringement): Claim 1 of the ’806 patent explicitly recites "receiving a data transfer request initiated by a mobile software application," which points to a specific "pull" sequence. Claim 1 of the ’766 patent requires the processor to "transfer automatically the new-data object," suggesting a "push" that occurs without a request from the mobile device. These distinct claim limitations may support a narrower construction for each respective patent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that DJI provides instructions, user manuals, and promotional materials that encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶47, ¶60, ¶74). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the DJI Mimo and Fly apps are material components "especially adapted for infringing use" and not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶47, ¶61, ¶75).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on continued infringement after DJI purportedly received actual notice of the patents-in-suit via a licensing letter sent in August 2025 (Compl. ¶54, ¶68, ¶82).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of operational mechanics: does the accused DJI system operate via a "push" mechanism (automatic transfer from the camera/drone) as claimed in the ’766 patent, a "pull" mechanism (a request from the mobile app) as claimed in the ’806 patent, or some hybrid that may not read on the specific language of either claim? The degree of user intervention required to initiate transfer will be a central factual dispute.
- A second issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "automatic," which implies action without human intervention, be construed to cover a process that the complaint itself characterizes as requiring "minimal user intervention"? The construction of this term may determine the outcome for claims in the ’766 and ’121 patents.
- A final key question will be evidentiary: what technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the wireless pairing protocol used by the DJI products meets the "cryptographically authenticating" limitation present in the claims? This will require a detailed technical comparison of the respective security features.