Omnitek Partners LLC v. Lockheed Martin Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Omnitek Partners, LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Lockheed Martin Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00031, E.D. Tex., 03/01/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, transacts business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s THAAD and PAC-3 missile defense systems infringe a patent related to interceptor projectiles that deploy projections to increase their probability of hitting a target.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the field of missile defense, specifically concerning the physical design of interceptor projectiles intended to destroy or divert incoming threats.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies the plaintiff as a non-practicing entity. It does not allege that Defendant had knowledge of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing of the lawsuit but reserves the right to amend its pleadings should such evidence emerge in discovery.

Case Timeline

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 defensive measures against weapons like shoulder-fired RPGs, particularly those fired at very close range (e.g., a 50-meter radius) where conventional guidance systems may be inadequate ('448 Patent, col. 1:35-45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an interceptor projectile that, after being launched toward an incoming threat, deploys one or more "projections" such as blades or fins. This deployment increases the projectile's physical cross-section, or "footprint," thereby increasing the statistical probability of it striking and neutralizing the target without requiring highly sophisticated and expensive guidance systems ('448 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-45). The patent describes several mechanical means for deploying these projections, including using the projectile's own acceleration upon firing or spring-loaded mechanisms ('448 Patent, Figs. 3-4).
• Technical Importance: The described technology offers a mechanically simple, passive or semi-passive method to enhance the effectiveness of "last-ditch" defensive systems against close-in threats ('448 Patent, col. 2:6-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-13, which includes independent method claim 1 and independent apparatus claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • "firing at least one second projectile toward the first projectile; and"
  • "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):
  • "a shell;"
  • "one or more deployable projections movably support by the shell between closed and deployed positions;"
  • "deploying means for deploying the one or more projections to increase the footprint of the interceptor projectile...;"
  • "wherein the one or more projections comprises two or more air blades, wherein the means for deploying comprises means for deploying the two or more air blades to either hover the interceptor projectile or propel it towards the first projectiles."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Accused Instrumentalities are identified as Lockheed Martin's THAAD Missile Defense System, specifically the THAAD ER Interceptor, PAC-3 MSE, and PAC-3 CRI (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused products as systems that "protect a second location against a first projectile fired from a first location at the second location" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operational mechanisms of the THAAD or PAC-3 interceptors beyond this high-level functional description. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe claims 1-13 of the '448 Patent (Compl. ¶13). It states that support for these allegations is contained in a claim chart attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶15). As this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible. The complaint's narrative theory rests on the assertion that the accused missile defense systems perform the claimed methods and embody the claimed interceptor projectiles (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent specification frequently frames the invention in the context of defeating close-range threats like RPGs (e.g., '448 Patent, col. 1:36-38) and describes embodiments with mechanical "blades" or "propellers" ('448 Patent, col. 2:15-16, 48-50). The accused products are sophisticated, long-range ballistic missile defense systems. A primary legal dispute may concern whether the claim term "projections" can be construed to read on the specific technologies used by the THAAD and PAC-3 interceptors, which may involve kinetic kill vehicles, divert thrusters, or other mechanisms not explicitly pictured as "blades" in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A central factual dispute will likely be whether the accused interceptors possess any structures that meet the "deployable projections" limitation. The complaint does not provide evidence detailing what specific component of the THAAD or PAC-3 systems allegedly constitutes the claimed "projections," raising the question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation of the accused systems compared to the invention described in the '448 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "deploying one or more projections" (from claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of the asserted claims. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the mechanisms used in the accused interceptors to maneuver or enhance their kill probability fall within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "projections," and the stated purpose is functional: "to increase its footprint and increase the probability of destroying or changing the trajectory" ('448 Patent, col. 9:45-48). A party could argue this functional language supports a construction that is not limited to the specific embodiments shown.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed description and figures consistently depict physical, mechanical structures, referring to them as "deployable blades," "propeller-like," and "air blades" ('448 Patent, col. 1:19, col. 2:16, col. 2:48). Embodiments include hinged blades that pivot outward (Fig. 4) and flexible blades that slide out of slots (Fig. 3). This may support a narrower construction limited to such mechanical apparatus.

• The Term: "deploying means" (from claim 6)

  • Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not limitless but is confined to the specific structures disclosed in the specification that perform the "deploying" function, and their legal equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because its narrow, structurally-defined scope presents a significant hurdle for an infringement allegation against a technologically dissimilar product.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The '448 Patent discloses several corresponding structures for the function of "deploying":
    • A mechanism where projectile acceleration drives a slidable mass (106) that forces flexible blades (108) out of slots ('448 Patent, col. 8:52-64, Fig. 3).
    • A mechanism using pivot joints (203) and biasing springs (204) to rotate blades (202) outward after the projectile leaves a firing tube ('448 Patent, col. 9:15-20, Fig. 4).
    • The use of centrifugal force from a spinning projectile to deploy the blades ('448 Patent, col. 9:24-28).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting Defendant instructs customers on the use of the accused products (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The allegations for knowledge and intent are based on knowledge "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," which would only support claims for post-suit indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶16-17, fn. 1-2).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint requests a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages (Compl. p.7, ¶e). The factual basis for willfulness, like that for indirect infringement, is limited to alleged knowledge of the patent as of the complaint's filing date, which does not support a claim for pre-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "deployable projections", described in the patent's context of mechanically extending blades for close-range defense, be construed to cover the technical mechanisms used by modern, high-altitude ballistic missile interceptors such as the THAAD and PAC-3 systems?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: what specific structures in the accused THAAD ER and PAC-3 interceptors does the Plaintiff allege meet the "deployable projections" and "deploying means" limitations? The case may turn on whether there is any factual basis for infringement or if there is a fundamental mismatch in the operational principles of the accused products and the patented invention.
3. A third question relates to scienter: can the Plaintiff uncover evidence that Defendant had knowledge of the '448 Patent prior to the lawsuit? The complaint currently lacks such allegations, which may limit its claims for pre-suit indirect infringement and willful infringement to conduct occurring only after the suit was filed.