Bell Textron Canada Ltd v. SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bell Textron Canada Ltd. (Canada) and Bell Textron Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker Botts L.L.P.
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00720, N.D. Tex., 07/14/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is a foreign entity.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their products do not infringe two of Defendant’s patents related to unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flight route planning and data distribution.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for user-friendly flight planning for UAVs and secure, protocol-independent data sharing between a UAV and third-party devices or applications.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was filed one day after Defendant DJI sent a letter to Plaintiffs indicating its intent to file a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia, creating the "actual controversy" required for this action.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-10-22	Earliest Priority Date for ’387 Patent
2016-06-14	Earliest Priority Date for ’755 Patent
2020-06-23	’387 Patent Issued
2021-01-26	’755 Patent Issued
2023-07-13	Defendant DJI sends letter threatening infringement suit
2023-07-14	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,692,387 - “Method and Device for Setting a Flight Route,” Issued June 23, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional control of aerial vehicles as either manual, which is "time and effort consuming," or automatic via GPS coordinates, which is not intuitive and does not provide good feedback to the user about the planned flight task (’387 Patent, col. 1:21-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a user to define a flight path on a display. This involves acquiring route data (e.g., from a user drawing a figure on a map), automatically configuring the display's zoom level to show the entire route, and allowing the user to edit the route, with the system updating the route data accordingly (’387 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This process aims to make route planning more intuitive and efficient.
• Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift toward more user-friendly graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for controlling complex systems like UAVs, abstracting away the need for users to manually input raw GPS data points.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are at issue, but Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • acquiring route data of an aerial vehicle, the route data comprising waypoint coordinates, waypoint time values, and waypoint heights of waypoints on a route;
  • displaying the route of the aerial vehicle in a route display interface zoomed at a zoom ratio according to the waypoint coordinates; and
  • resetting the route displayed in the route display interface according to an edit operation to obtain updated route data of the aerial vehicle.
• The complaint makes a general allegation regarding all claims of the patent (’387 Patent, ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 10,904,755 - “Data Distribution From a Movable Object,” Issued January 26, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent notes that proprietary, "closed movable object" environments hinder adoption by third-party application developers. However, a vendor must retain some control to "prevent malicious attack to the movable object" (’755 Patent, col. 1:43-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for securely distributing data from a "movable object" (e.g., a UAV) to an "affiliated device" (e.g., a smartphone running a third-party app). The method involves receiving a data request, confirming that the requester has the "privilege" to access the data, confirming the data is available, and only then providing the data (’755 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 11). This creates a secure gateway for third-party software to interact with the movable object.
• Technical Importance: This patent addresses a key challenge in platform ecosystems: enabling third-party innovation while maintaining security and control over the core hardware.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are at issue, but Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • receiving a request for characteristic data of a movable object from a requester of an affiliated device;
  • confirming that the characteristic data is available on the movable object and that the requester has a privilege to access the characteristic data;
  • wherein confirming availability comprises matching a version of the characteristic data based on a cryptographic key match; and
  • providing the characteristic data to the affiliated device responsive to the confirmation, which includes steps for workload-based and time-sensitivity-based transmission delaying.
• The complaint makes a general allegation regarding all claims of the patent (’755 Patent, ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 15). It refers generally to "products offered for sale and sold by Plaintiffs" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and therefore does not contain infringement allegations, claim charts, or a theory of how Plaintiffs' products might infringe. Plaintiffs make only conclusory statements that "No claim of the ’387 Patent is infringed" and "No claim of the ’755 Patent is infringed" (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify any claim terms for construction. However, based on the technology and patent claims, certain terms may become central to the dispute.

For the ’387 Patent:

• The Term: "route display interface" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the medium through which the patented method is practiced. The scope of this term will be critical to determine if the user interface of Plaintiffs' products falls within the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether a simple map display meets the limitation or if a more specialized, interactive interface is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the interface can be on various devices like a "smart phone, a tablet, an intelligent wearable apparatus, a computer, or the like" (’387 Patent, col. 5:6-9), which could support a broad reading covering many types of displays.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a "three-dimensional route display interface" (’387 Patent, col. 6:36-38, col. 7:51-53), which may support an argument that the term is limited to interfaces with 3D capabilities, not just any 2D map.

For the ’755 Patent:

• The Term: "affiliated device" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term, along with "movable object," defines the two key entities in the patented system. The nature of the "affiliation" is central to infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine what level of technical integration or vendor relationship is required to meet the claim, versus a casual or arms-length connection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states an affiliated device can be a "wearable electronic device, a handheld electronic device, an onboard electronic device... or another movable object" (’755 Patent, col. 5:36-40). It also clarifies that the affiliated device vendor and movable object vendor "may be independent of each other" (col. 5:58-59), supporting a broad definition that does not require a pre-existing business relationship.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background discusses the problems of "proprietary solutions" and the need for independent developers to create applications (’755 Patent, col. 1:43-53). This context could support an argument that an "affiliated device" is one that runs third-party software within the patentee's specific development ecosystem, not just any device capable of communication.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint, being a DJ action, does not contain allegations of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willfulness.
• Exceptional Case: Plaintiffs request a judgment declaring the case "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and awarding attorneys' fees, though the complaint does not plead specific facts to support this request beyond noting the circumstances of its filing (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

Given the procedural posture and lack of technical detail in the complaint, the case presents several foundational questions that must be resolved before any substantive infringement analysis can occur.

• A primary question will be one of identification: What specific Bell Textron products are at issue, and what is the precise functionality of their flight control and data communication systems? The resolution of the case is impossible without this information, which will emerge during discovery.
• A second key question will be one of technical operation: Assuming the accused products are identified, does their user interface functionality meet the specific sequence of "acquiring," "displaying," and "resetting" a flight route as claimed in the ’387 Patent?
• Finally, a central issue for the ’755 Patent will be one of system architecture: Do any of Plaintiffs' systems practice a method of confirming a "privilege" via "cryptographic key match" before distributing data between a "movable object" and an "affiliated device," or is their security and data-sharing architecture fundamentally different from that claimed?