DCT
3:25-cv-00739
Airborne Aspect Inc v. NV5 Geospatial Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Airborne Aspect, Inc. (Texas)
- Defendant: NV5 Geospatial, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Scheef & Stone, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00739, N.D. Tex., 03/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Texas and having committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s modified aerial survey aircraft infringe patents related to an extended exhaust apparatus designed to prevent sensor contamination from engine exhaust.
- Technical Context: The technology involves modifying turboprop aircraft to divert hot engine exhaust away from sensitive aerial survey equipment, such as LiDAR sensors, to ensure the accuracy and reliability of collected data.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has marked its own products with the patent numbers, asserting that this provided Defendant with constructive notice of the patents-in-suit. The complaint also raises the possibility of willful infringement based on alleged visual observation and copying of Plaintiff’s patented design.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-08-14 | Earliest Priority Date for ’814 and ’822 Patents |
| 2018-09-11 | U.S. Patent No. 10,071,814 Issued |
| 2019-11-26 | U.S. Patent No. 10,486,822 Issued |
| 2021-03-04 | Alleged Start of Infringing Activity by Defendant |
| 2025-03-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,071,814 - "Exhaust Arrangement for Aircraft Having Sensor" (Issued Sep. 11, 2018)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: On small aircraft used for aerial surveys, standard factory exhaust systems can direct hot exhaust and contaminants toward sensitive, downward-facing sensor equipment, interfering with the equipment's function and resulting in inaccurate or misinterpreted data (Compl. ¶24; ’814 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an exhaust apparatus that attaches to the aircraft fuselage. It features an inlet with a mouth wider than the engine's exhaust pipe to capture the exhaust stream without creating performance-inhibiting backpressure. This captured exhaust is then channeled through a long tubular extension past the sensor location, and the entire apparatus is secured by a specific system of supports designed to manage flight stresses (’814 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-col. 3:5).
- Technical Importance: By preventing exhaust interference, the invention is designed to improve the accuracy and reliability of airborne detection, imaging, and scanning operations critical for emergency response, environmental monitoring, and homeland security missions (Compl. ¶22, ¶24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an exhaust apparatus comprising:
- An inlet with a mouth communicating with the engine exhaust, where the mouth's intake area is larger than the engine exhaust's outlet area.
- At least one tubular extension with first and second ends, mountable to the fuselage, with the second end extending beyond the sensor location.
- A first support at a first location, having first, second, and third arms pivotally connected between the fuselage and the tubular extension, providing support along a first axis, a second axis perpendicular to the first, and in one direction along a third axis perpendicular to the first two.
- A second support at a second location, with first, second, and third arms similarly connected, but with its third arm providing support in an opposite direction along the third axis.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 5 and 6 (Compl. ¶34).
U.S. Patent No. 10,486,822 - "Exhaust Arrangement for Aircraft Having Sensor" (Issued Nov. 26, 2019)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’822 Patent, a continuation of the application leading to the ’814 Patent, addresses the same technical problem of sensor interference from engine exhaust on survey aircraft (’822 Patent, col. 1:12-34).
- The Patented Solution: The ’822 Patent claims both the exhaust apparatus and an aircraft incorporating it. The core solution remains a wide-mouthed inlet and a tubular extension to divert exhaust. The claims refine the description of the multi-axis support structure, specifying support arms providing stabilization in a "third direction different from the first and second directions" and a "fourth direction opposing the third direction," language that differs slightly from the ’814 Patent (’822 Patent, claims 1, 14).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a robust, flight-worthy solution for protecting high-value sensor payloads from exhaust contamination, thereby enhancing data integrity for critical survey missions (Compl. ¶22, ¶24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 14 (aircraft) (Compl. ¶44).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an exhaust apparatus with elements including:
- An inlet with a mouth larger than the engine exhaust outlet.
- At least one tubular extension extending beyond the sensor.
- First and second supports, each with first, second, and third arms pivotally connected between the fuselage and the tubular extension.
- The arms are described as supporting in a "first direction," a "second direction different from the first," a "third direction different from the first and second," and a "fourth direction opposing the third direction."
- Independent Claim 14 recites an aircraft comprising:
- A fuselage, an engine exhaust at the nose, and a sensor opening.
- An exhaust apparatus as claimed, including the inlet, tubular extension, and the first and second supports with their multi-directionally oriented arms.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 5 and 6 (Compl. ¶44).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are multiple Cessna® C208 Caravan® and 208B Grand Caravan® single turboprop aircraft owned and operated by Defendant NV5, which have been modified to include an extended exhaust system (Compl. ¶9, ¶30). The complaint specifically identifies aircraft by their tail numbers, with a focus on N208NR (Compl. ¶14, ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused aircraft are used to conduct commercial aerial surveys, including the collection of LiDAR data for government contracts (Compl. ¶10). According to a document attributed to NV5 in the complaint, the engine exhaust on these aircraft is purposefully "routed out the right hand side of the engine cowling, which keeps the sensor and its port completely free of exhaust or engine heat" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint includes a table from an NV5 document listing several Cessna Caravan aircraft and describing their "Engine Exhaust Routing" as "Lower right side of fuselage" (Compl. ¶11). A photograph of aircraft N208NR shows a long pipe, consistent with an extended exhaust, running along the lower right side of the fuselage (Compl. p. 5). The complaint also provides flight path maps as evidence of the aircraft conducting survey operations within the judicial district (Compl. ¶17, p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’814 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an inlet having a mouth communicating with the engine exhaust, the mouth defining an intake area larger than the outlet area of the exhaust; | The accused aircraft are alleged to have an exhaust apparatus with an inlet that communicates with the engine exhaust and has a mouth with an intake area larger than the engine's exhaust outlet area. | ¶35 | col. 2:58-62 |
| at least one tubular extension having first and second ends and mountable at a plurality of support locations to the fuselage...the second end extending beyond the location of the sensor; | The accused apparatus allegedly includes a tubular extension mounted to the fuselage that receives exhaust from the inlet and extends beyond the aircraft's sensor location. | ¶35 | col. 2:62-67 |
| a first support disposed at a first of the support locations...having first, second, and third arms, the first arm pivotally connected...along a first axis, the second arm pivotally connected...along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis, the third arm pivotally connected...in one direction along a third axis perpendicular to the first and second axes; | The accused apparatus is alleged to have a first support with three pivotally connected arms providing support along three mutually perpendicular axes. | ¶35 | col. 6:47-col. 7:2 |
| a second support disposed at a second of the support locations...the third arm pivotally connected...in an opposite direction along the third axis. | The accused apparatus is alleged to have a second support with a third arm that provides support in a direction opposite to the third arm of the first support. | ¶35 | col. 7:2-8 |
’822 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An aircraft, comprising: a fuselage; an engine exhaust with an outlet area disposed at a nose of the aircraft; a sensor opening disposed at a location of the fuselage; | The accused NV5 aircraft itself, such as the Cessna 208B, is alleged to be the infringing instrumentality, which has a fuselage, a nose-disposed engine exhaust, and a sensor opening. | ¶28, ¶49 | col. 1:12-16 |
| an inlet having a mouth communicating with the engine exhaust, the mouth defining an intake area larger than the outlet area of the exhaust; | The exhaust system on the accused aircraft is alleged to have an inlet with a mouth larger than the engine's exhaust outlet. | ¶49 | col. 2:1-4 |
| at least one tubular having first and second ends...the second end extending beyond the location of the sensor; | The accused aircraft's exhaust system allegedly includes a tubular extension that carries exhaust past the sensor location. | ¶49 | col. 2:4-10 |
| first and second supports...each...having first, second, and third arms...each of the first arms pivotally connected...supporting the same in a first direction, each of the second arms...supporting the same in a second direction different from the first direction... | The accused aircraft's exhaust system is alleged to be mounted with first and second supports, each having arms that are pivotally connected and provide support in different first and second directions. | ¶49 | col. 2:11-20 |
| one of the third arms...supporting the same in a third direction different from the first and second directions, another of the third arms...supporting the same in a fourth direction opposing the third direction. | The supports on the accused aircraft allegedly have third arms that provide support in opposing third and fourth directions, distinct from the first two directions. | ¶49 | col. 2:20-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the specific geometric and functional language of the support limitations (e.g., "first axis," "second axis perpendicular to the first axis") reads on the physical structure of the supports used on the NV5 aircraft. The complaint asserts a literal match, but the defense may argue a mismatch in the number, orientation, or function of the support arms.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the support structures appear to be based on "visual inspection" (Compl. ¶31). A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer to demonstrate that the accused supports are "pivotally connected" and provide stabilization along the distinct, multi-axial vectors required by the claims, as opposed to being a more conventional rigid or semi-rigid mounting system.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "pivotally connected"
- Context and Importance: This term is recited for each of the claimed support arms in both patents. Its definition is critical because it dictates the required nature of the connection between the exhaust tube, the support arms, and the fuselage. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system's connections, likely bolts and brackets, meet this functional limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses using "clevises 103" to connect the support rods to lugs, which inherently allow for pivotal movement to "accommodate vibrations, turbulence, etc." (’814 Patent, col. 5:53-56, col. 6:50-53). A party could argue this supports a functional definition, where any connection allowing for such movement qualifies as "pivotal."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the consistent depiction of clevis-and-pin style joints in the figures (e.g., ’814 Patent, Figs. 4A, 9D) limits the term to a specific type of hinged or pinned joint, as opposed to a connection that merely allows for some flexure under load.
The Term: "supporting the same along a first axis" (and related directional/axial limitations)
- Context and Importance: This language, which defines the function of the support arms in a multi-axis framework, is central to the novel structure of the claimed invention. Proving infringement requires showing that the accused supports provide stabilization along these specific, and in some cases mutually perpendicular, vectors.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the rods "work together to provide vertical, lateral, and axial support" and "distribute load" (’814 Patent, col. 6:51-53). This could support a functional interpretation where the term does not require the physical arm to be perfectly aligned with an axis, but rather that it is positioned to primarily resist forces along that axis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites support "along a... an axis," which could be interpreted more rigidly as a structural limitation on the physical orientation of the support arm itself. A party might argue that unless the accused support rods are shown to be aligned with a specific Cartesian coordinate system relative to the aircraft, they do not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement based on NV5's "advertising and marketing efforts" and by directing contractors to outfit the aircraft with the allegedly infringing systems (Compl. ¶31, ¶37). It alleges contributory infringement by asserting that the custom exhaust systems are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing use, as they are designed specifically for these aircraft (Compl. ¶38, ¶48).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on two primary theories: (1) constructive notice via Plaintiff’s marking of its own products with the patent numbers since early 2019 and 2020 (Compl. ¶39, ¶53), and (2) alleged intentional copying, based on "striking similarities" and the belief that NV5 personnel "visually observed the exhaust arrangement on the AAI aircraft, and decided to copy it" (Compl. ¶39, ¶53).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural and functional correspondence: can the highly specific, multi-axis support structure recited in the claims—defined by terms like "pivotally connected" and arms providing support along distinct, perpendicular axes—be proven to read on the physical mounting brackets and rods used on NV5's aircraft? This determination will likely depend heavily on claim construction and competing expert testimony regarding the geometry and mechanics of the accused system.
- A key question for damages and potential enhancement will be one of intent: does the evidence support the allegation that NV5 copied Plaintiff’s design after being on notice of the patents, or can NV5 demonstrate independent development? The resolution of the willfulness claim will turn on evidence of notice, knowledge, and the degree of similarity between the parties' respective designs.