Omnitek Partners LLC v. Raytheon Tech Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Omnitek Partners, LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Raytheon Technologies Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00143, E.D. Tex., 02/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the district, specifically at 2501 W. University Dr., McKinney, TX, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s missile interceptor and cruise missile systems infringe three patents related to deployable projectiles and remotely guided munitions.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of advanced military ordnance, specifically concerning methods to increase the effectiveness of projectile interception and to provide terminal guidance for munitions with a human operator in the loop.
• Key Procedural History: This complaint is the initial pleading in the litigation. The complaint notes that the Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-09-05	U.S. Patent No. 6,860,448 Priority Date
2005-03-01	U.S. Patent No. 6,860,448 Issue Date
2010-03-22	U.S. Patent No. 8,686,325 Priority Date
2010-03-22	U.S. Patent No. 9,448,040 Priority Date
2014-04-01	U.S. Patent No. 8,686,325 Issue Date
2016-09-20	U.S. Patent No. 9,448,040 Issue Date
2024-02-19	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,860,448 - “Deployable Projectiles,” Issued March 1, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a lack of effective countermeasures against close-range threats, such as shoulder-fired rockets, particularly for lightly armored vehicles in urban environments (’448 Patent, col. 2:32-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an intercepting projectile that, as it nears an incoming target, deploys one or more projections like "air blades" or "propellers." This deployment significantly increases the projectile's cross-sectional area, or "footprint," to raise the probability of it striking and either destroying or deflecting the incoming threat (’448 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-54). The deployment can be achieved through various means, including spring-loading or centrifugal force (’448 Patent, col. 5:17-36; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This design sought to provide a "last-ditch" active defense system that did not rely on heavy armor or complex, high-cost guidance systems to defeat close-in threats (’448 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 6, along with various dependent claims (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the elements of:
  • A method for protecting a second location against a first projectile fired from a first location.
  • Firing at least one second projectile toward the first projectile.
  • Deploying one or more projections from the second projectile to increase its footprint and increase the probability of destroying or changing the trajectory of the first projectile.
• Independent Claim 6 (Apparatus) claims an interceptor projectile comprising a shell, one or more deployable projections, and a means for deploying those projections to increase the projectile's footprint.

U.S. Patent No. 8,686,325 - “Remotely guided gun-fired and mortar rounds,” Issued April 1, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the shortcomings of prior art guided munitions, noting they are often complex, costly, and lack a human in the decision loop for terminal guidance, which limits their effectiveness against moving targets and increases the risk of collateral damage (’325 Patent, col. 1:18-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a gun-fired or mortar round equipped with a forward-facing camera that transmits image data to a remote control platform during its descent. An operator viewing the images sends guidance information back to the round, which then adjusts its flight path using control surfaces (like fins or canards) to home in on the intended target (’325 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-33).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows for a low-cost, precise terminal guidance system where a human operator makes the final targeting decision, which can improve accuracy and reduce collateral damage in complex combat scenarios (’325 Patent, col. 1:29-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 20, along with various dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).
• Independent Claim 20 (Apparatus) includes the elements of:
  • A gun-fired round or a mortared round.
  • A forward-facing image pick-up device for capturing image data.
  • A first transceiver.
  • Guidance means for varying the flight path of the round.
  • A first processor that transmits the image data and receives guidance information via the transceiver to control the guidance means.

U.S. Patent No. 9,448,040 - “Remotely guided gun-fired and mortar rounds,” Issued September 20, 2016

Technology Synopsis

This patent, which is a continuation-in-part of the application that led to the ’325 patent, describes a method for guiding a munition where an operator at a remote platform receives image data from the descending round. The operator manually identifies one or more features in the displayed image (which may or may not include the target), and the system then uses those identified features to computationally stabilize the image for the operator, making it easier to perform guidance tasks (’040 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:45-67).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7 are asserted (Compl. ¶29).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Raytheon’s Tomahawk Cruise Missile, specifically the Block IV and Block V models, of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Raytheon’s Missile Defense Interceptor, in particular the SM-3 Block IB Interceptor (accused of infringing the ’448 patent) (Compl. ¶14).
• Raytheon’s Tomahawk Cruise Missile, in particular the Block IV and Block V Cruise Missiles (accused of infringing the ’325 and ’040 patents) (Compl. ¶¶22, 30).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the SM-3 Block IB Interceptor "protects a second location against a first projectile fired from a first location" (Compl. ¶14).
• The complaint alleges that the Tomahawk Cruise Missiles "guid[e] a gun fired or mortared round towards an intended target" (Compl. ¶¶22, 30).
• The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the operation of either accused instrumentality, nor does it provide allegations regarding their specific commercial importance beyond general statements that Defendant commercializes them in the district (Compl. ¶6).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits B, D, and F) as support for its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶15, 23, 31). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. As such, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

'448 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges that Raytheon's SM-3 Block IB Interceptor infringes claims of the ’448 patent because it is a device for "protecting a second location against a first projectile" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not, however, provide factual allegations explaining how the SM-3 Interceptor meets key claim limitations, such as the requirement of "deploying one or more projections from the second projectile to increase its footprint."

'325 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges that Raytheon's Tomahawk Block IV and Block V Cruise Missiles infringe claims of the ’325 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The core allegation is that these missiles are devices for "guiding a gun-fired or mortared round towards an intended target" (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not articulate a factual basis for how a cruise missile, which is itself a self-guided munition, meets the claim elements of a system for guiding a separate "gun-fired or mortared round" by receiving image data from it and transmitting guidance commands to it.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute for the '448 patent will be whether the operational mechanism of the SM-3 interceptor, widely understood to be a kinetic "hit-to-kill" vehicle, can be construed as "deploying... projections to increase its footprint." For the '325 and '040 patents, a foundational question is whether a large, jet-propelled cruise missile like the Tomahawk can fall within the scope of the term "gun-fired or mortared round" as used in the patents.
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the SM-3 Interceptor's functionality matches the claimed deployment of projections? The complaint is silent on this point. Further, what evidence supports the allegation that the Tomahawk missile system operates by transmitting video from a separate round to a remote operator for terminal guidance, as required by the claims of the '325 and '040 patents? The complaint's characterization of the accused Tomahawk functionality appears to be a point of significant potential dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from '448 Patent, Claim 1: "deploying one or more projections... to increase its footprint"

• Context and Importance: This phrase captures the essence of the ’448 patent's inventive concept. The viability of the infringement allegation against the SM-3 Interceptor will depend on whether its kill vehicle can be shown to perform this specific function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal as increasing the "probability of hit" by enlarging the "cross-sectional area" of the interceptor (’448 Patent, col. 4:16-24). A party could argue that any mechanism on the interceptor that expands its effective area to facilitate an intercept meets the spirit of this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly illustrates this concept with specific mechanical embodiments, such as hinged "blades" that are spring-loaded or centrifugally deployed, and airfoil-shaped arms that act as a "windmill" (’448 Patent, Figs. 3, 4; col. 8:51-64; col. 9:8-23). A party could argue the term should be limited to these disclosed types of deployable physical structures.

Term from '325 Patent, Claim 20: "gun-fired or mortared round"

• Context and Importance: The complaint accuses the Tomahawk Cruise Missile of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the case may turn on whether a large, self-propelled, long-range cruise missile can be considered a "gun-fired or mortared round."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term is merely exemplary of a projectile launched toward a target and that the core of the invention is the remote guidance method, which could be applied to various types of munitions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently frames the invention in the context of low-cost munitions for "close combat operations" to "minimize collateral damage," distinguishing them from more complex and costly systems (’325 Patent, col. 1:29-34). A party will likely argue the term should be given its ordinary military meaning, which distinguishes projectiles fired from guns or mortars from self-propelled cruise missiles.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents-in-suit. The allegations are based on Defendant allegedly instructing its customers on how to use the accused products (e.g., Compl. ¶¶16, 24, 32).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the patents "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" and reserves the right to prove pre-suit knowledge in discovery (e.g., Compl. ¶¶16-17, fn. 1-2). Based on this alleged post-suit knowledge, the prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement and an award of treble damages (Compl. ¶VI.g).

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

This litigation appears to present fundamental questions of both claim scope and factual correspondence between the patents and the accused military systems. The resolution of the case may turn on the following key issues:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "gun-fired or mortared round", rooted in the patents’ context of simple, close-combat ordnance, be construed by the court to encompass a sophisticated, long-range, self-propelled system like the Tomahawk cruise missile?

2. A second central issue will be one of technical and factual correspondence: does the complaint’s theory that Raytheon’s SM-3 "hit-to-kill" interceptor practices the claimed method of "deploying... projections to increase its footprint" reflect the actual operation of the accused system, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technologies?

3. An underlying evidentiary question will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence—absent from the initial complaint—to support its characterization of how the accused SM-3 and Tomahawk systems operate, particularly given the apparent disconnect between their known functions and the specific requirements of the asserted patent claims.