Vortical Systems LLC v. Gao Tek Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Vortical Systems LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: GAO Tek Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01157, E.D. Tex., 11/25/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and has caused harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for navigating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
• Technical Context: The technology concerns simplified remote control of UAVs, enabling an operator to direct a vehicle to a specific geographic location by selecting a point on a graphical map interface.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review 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 (’294 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional UAV navigation as a manual process requiring an operator to have specific knowledge of the vehicle's starting position, current location, and waypoint details, with little aid from automation (’294 Patent, col. 1:19-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where an operator uses a remote control device to select a single pixel on a graphical user interface (GUI) map (’294 Patent, Abstract). This selection is automatically mapped to real-world Earth coordinates, which are then transmitted to the UAV as a waypoint. An on-board navigation computer then pilots the UAV from its current position to the new waypoint using a navigation algorithm, simplifying control to a point-and-click operation (’294 Patent, col. 2:11-21; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for simplified mission planning and enables the UAV to continue its mission autonomously even if communications with the remote control device are lost (’294 Patent, col. 2:4-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the method disclosed.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts included as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). This exhibit was not publicly available at the time of this report's preparation.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '294 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). Based on the asserted patent, this suggests the products are UAVs or UAV control systems that allow users to set navigation waypoints by interacting with a map on a remote device. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' specific functionality or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶13). In the absence of these charts, the infringement theory is based on the complaint's narrative assertions. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, or importing the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11) and also through internal testing of those products by its employees (Compl. ¶12). The core allegation is that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '294 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The central issue will be identifying the specific "Exemplary Defendant Products" and demonstrating, on an element-by-element basis, how they practice the steps of the asserted claims. The complaint's lack of specificity on this point raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will present to substantiate its allegations.
• Technical Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the degree of autonomy required by the claims. The claim language "piloting the UAV, under control of a navigation computer on the UAV" suggests that the navigation logic resides on the vehicle itself. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused systems perform navigation on-board or rely on continuous control signals from a remote device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "mapping the pixel's location on the GUI to Earth coordinates"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's core functionality of translating a user's screen input into a real-world destination. The definition of "mapping" will determine whether the claim covers any method of translation or is limited to a more specific process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular algorithm, which may support a construction covering any process that achieves the stated functional result of converting a pixel location to coordinates.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a detailed mathematical process for this mapping, involving identifying ranges of latitude and longitude for each pixel and using the pixel's row and column number to calculate a specific coordinate (’294 Patent, col. 11:22-12:52). A defendant may argue that the term "mapping" should be construed as being limited to this disclosed embodiment or equivalents thereof.

• The Term: "piloting the UAV, under control of a navigation computer on the UAV"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines where the navigational control resides. Its construction is critical for distinguishing between a truly autonomous flight to a waypoint and a remotely piloted flight where the vehicle simply executes commands sent from the ground.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This language could be interpreted to mean that the on-board computer simply executes flight commands, regardless of where the high-level pathing decisions are made.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that because waypoints and navigation algorithms are uploaded and stored on the UAV, "the remote control device may lose communications with the UAV...and the UAV will simply continue its mission" (’294 Patent, col. 2:4-9). This statement suggests that "under control of a navigation computer on the UAV" requires a level of on-board intelligence sufficient for autonomous operation without continuous remote input.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain allegations of induced or contributory infringement. The sole count is for "Direct Infringement" (Compl. ¶11).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which allows for the award of attorneys' fees (Compl. p.4, ¶E.i). The complaint does not plead any specific facts, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent, to support this request.

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to several fundamental questions:

• A primary issue will be one of "evidence": Which of Defendant's products are accused of infringement, and what technical evidence will Plaintiff provide to show that these products perform each element of the asserted claims, particularly the on-board "piloting" and coordinate "mapping" steps?
• A second core issue will be one of "definitional scope": Will the term "mapping", which is described with mathematical specificity in the patent's detailed description, be construed broadly enough to cover the particular methods used by Defendant’s accused products?
• A final key question will be one of "locus of control": Does the accused system's architecture satisfy the claim requirement for piloting to be "under control of a navigation computer on the UAV," or does it operate more like a traditional remote-control system that would fall outside the scope of the claims as construed in light of the patent's emphasis on autonomy?