Vortical Systems LLC v. Draganfly Innovations Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Vortical Systems LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Draganfly Innovations Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01156, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) products infringe a patent related to navigating a UAV by selecting a destination on a graphical map.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns simplified methods for remote operation of UAVs, a field with significant commercial and military applications, by automating navigation based on simple user inputs on a map interface.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, administrative proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,231,294 - Navigating a UAV

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,231,294, "Navigating a UAV," issued June 12, 2007.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional UAVs as being "typically manually controlled," requiring an operator to have specific knowledge of the vehicle's starting location, current position, and waypoint locations, with little aid from automation (’294 Patent, col. 1:18-29). This process is described as requiring improvement (’294 Patent, col. 1:28-31).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where an operator uses a remote control device to select a single pixel on a graphical user interface (GUI) map (’294 Patent, col. 1:32-37). The system then automatically maps that pixel's location to real-world Earth coordinates to define a waypoint, transmits those coordinates to the UAV, and the UAV’s onboard navigation computer pilots the vehicle from its starting position to the new waypoint using a navigation algorithm (’294 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). This allows for simplified mission command with as little as a single mouse-click (’294 Patent, col. 1:43-44).
• Technical Importance: The described solution aims to simplify UAV operation and mission planning, enabling "thin" remote control devices like laptops or PDAs to command complex missions without housing the primary navigation intelligence themselves (’294 Patent, col. 1:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • receiving in a remote control device a user's selection of a GUI map pixel that represents a waypoint for UAV navigation, the pixel having a location on the GUI;
  • mapping the pixel's location on the GUI to Earth coordinates of the waypoint;
  • transmitting the coordinates of the waypoint to the UAV;
  • reading a starting position from a GPS receiver on the UAV; and
  • piloting the UAV, under control of a navigation computer on the UAV, from the starting position to the waypoint in accordance with a navigation algorithm.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" which are identified in claim charts that are incorporated by reference but not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, 13-14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the functionality of the accused products beyond the allegation that they "practice the technology claimed by the '294 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). It alleges that Defendant has made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported these products in the district (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' specific functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products infringe by practicing the claimed technology, and it incorporates by reference claim charts from a separate "Exhibit 2" that was not provided with the filed pleading (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint’s narrative theory states that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '294 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '294 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system's ground control station or remote control software constitutes a "remote control device" as that term is used in the patent, which describes embodiments including "a browser in a laptop or personal computer or a microbrowser in a PDA" (’294 Patent, col. 1:47-50).
• Technical Questions: The patent discloses specific algorithms for "mapping" a pixel to Earth coordinates and for "piloting" the UAV (’294 Patent, col. 11:1-col. 12:52; col. 12:56-col. 15:24). A key technical question will be whether the accused products perform these functions in a manner consistent with the claim limitations, particularly whether the accused mapping and piloting algorithms are equivalent to those required by the claims. The complaint does not provide evidence on how the accused products perform these specific functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "mapping the pixel's location on the GUI to Earth coordinates of the waypoint" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's core functionality of translating a simple user input into a navigable destination. The dispute will likely focus on how this mapping must be performed to infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular mathematical formula, which may support a construction covering any process that converts a pixel location into geographic coordinates. The Summary of the Invention describes the step broadly as "mapping the pixel's location on the GUI to Earth coordinates of the waypoint" (’294 Patent, col. 2:16-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific, multi-step mathematical process for performing the mapping, including identifying ranges of latitude and longitude, multiplying by pixel row/column numbers, and adding results to an origin point (’294 Patent, col. 11:29-col. 12:52). This detailed embodiment could be cited to argue for a narrower construction limited to this or a similar method.

Term: "piloting the UAV... in accordance with a navigation algorithm" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the autonomous action taken by the UAV after receiving the waypoint. Whether the accused UAVs' flight control systems meet this limitation will be a critical infringement question.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad, not specifying any particular type of algorithm. This could support a construction that reads on any automated process that directs the UAV to the transmitted coordinates.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification dedicates significant space to describing several exemplary navigation algorithms, such as periodically calculating a new heading to the waypoint, or identifying and correcting for deviation from a "cross track" between the start and end points (’294 Patent, col. 12:56-col. 16:60; Figs. 6, 8, 10, 12, 14). A defendant may argue that "a navigation algorithm" should be construed to require features of these disclosed algorithms.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege facts to support either induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain factual allegations regarding pre- or post-suit knowledge to support willfulness. However, the prayer for relief requests that the case be "declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285," which is relief often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

1. A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given that the complaint's substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within an unattached exhibit, a key question is whether the pleading provides Defendant with sufficient notice of the specific products and infringement theories at issue.
2. The case may also turn on a question of technical scope: Will the term "mapping," as claimed, be construed broadly to cover any pixel-to-coordinate conversion, or will it be limited to the specific mathematical methods detailed in the patent’s specification? The answer will likely determine whether the accused products, which may use different proprietary mapping software, fall within the claim's scope.
3. A final key question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused UAV's onboard flight control system constitute a "navigation computer" that performs "piloting... in accordance with a navigation algorithm" as required by the claims, or does its operation differ in a way that places it outside the claimed invention? This will require a detailed comparison of the patent's disclosed algorithms and the accused system's actual flight logic.