DCT

4:23-cv-01025

SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd v. Bell Textron Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:23-cv-01025, E.D. Va., 07/14/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' sales, business activities, and operation of an "Advanced Vertical Lift Center" within the Eastern District of Virginia.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ helicopters and associated avionics systems infringe four patents related to unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control systems, including assisted takeoff, attitude control, flight route setting, and data distribution.
  • Technical Context: The patents address automated flight control technologies originally developed for the UAV market, which is now being applied to conventional manned helicopters equipped with advanced avionics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants knew of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,126,693 and 9,958,874 since at least March 29, 2023, due to a prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Bell Textron Canada Ltd. It further alleges Defendants knew of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,692,387 and 10,904,755 since at least July 13, 2023, as a result of a letter from Plaintiff's counsel.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-03-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,126,693 Priority Date
2014-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,958,874 Priority Date
2014-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 10,692,387 Priority Date
2015-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,126,693 Issues
2016-06-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,904,755 Priority Date
2018-05-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,958,874 Issues
2020-06-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,692,387 Issues
2021-01-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,904,755 Issues
2023-03-29 Alleged date of knowledge of ’693 and ’874 Patents from prior lawsuit
2023-07-13 Alleged date of knowledge of ’387 and ’755 Patents from counsel's letter
2023-07-14 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,126,693 - Assisted Takeoff

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes instability issues when aerial vehicles take off, particularly from sloped surfaces, because traditional feedback control systems (like PID controllers) can interact negatively with ground forces due to the "memory effects of integration" (’693 Patent, col. 1:19-28, 1:36-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-stage takeoff method. The vehicle initially uses a "first control scheme" (e.g., one without integral control) to lift off the ground. Once the vehicle meets a "takeoff threshold" indicating it is airborne, it switches to a "second control scheme" (e.g., a standard PID controller) for normal flight (’693 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:47-59). This avoids the ground-force instability associated with integral control during the critical liftoff phase.
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to make UAV takeoffs smoother and more reliable, especially for inexperienced users, by automating the transition from a stable liftoff state to a normal flight control mode (’693 Patent, col. 1:22-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (’693 Patent, col. 26:11-30; Compl. ¶19).
  • Essential elements of claim 18 (a system claim) include:
    • An actuator of an aerial vehicle, where output to the actuator increases the vehicle's altitude.
    • One or more processors configured to:
      • Determine if the vehicle has met a takeoff threshold based on actuator output, measured output, velocity, or acceleration, without using external or reflected signals.
      • Generate a signal to control the actuator using a "first control scheme" before the threshold is met.
      • Generate a signal to control the actuator using a "second control scheme" after the threshold is met.
  • The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶20).

U.S. Patent No. 9,958,874 - Aircraft Attitude Control Methods

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that typical flight control methods for multi-rotor aircraft use "cascaded proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control," which is complex and lengthy to tune and can be slow to react to disturbances (’874 Patent, col. 1:11-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where the control system first calculates "aircraft configuration parameters" based on the aircraft's actual physical characteristics (e.g., physical dimensions, weight, moment of inertia) (’874 Patent, col. 1:40-43; Abstract). These physics-based parameters are then used in a feedback control scheme to generate command signals for the actuators, creating a more stable and responsive control system tailored to the specific aircraft.
  • Technical Importance: This method aims to move beyond generic, sequentially-tuned PID loops toward a more physics-informed control model that can be adapted to different aircraft configurations for more stable and optimal performance (’874 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’874 Patent, col. 35:9-35; Compl. ¶27).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 (a method claim) include:
    • Calculating one or more aircraft configuration parameters based on physical characteristics.
    • Receiving a signal for a target aircraft attitude.
    • Generating a command signal for an actuator based on the target attitude and the calculated configuration parameters, using a feedback control scheme that includes an angular acceleration loop.
    • Measuring the aircraft's resulting dynamics.
    • Feeding the measured dynamics back to the processor to adjust or confirm the command signal.
  • The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Patent No. 10,692,387 - Method and Device for Setting a Flight Route

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a method for setting a flight route for an aerial vehicle by acquiring route data, such as from a geometric figure drawn by a user on a map, displaying the resulting route in an interface, and allowing the user to edit the route (’387 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-18).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 (’387 Patent, col. 15:20-41; Compl. ¶35).

Accused Features

The accused features are the Bell 505, 407, 429, 412, and 525 helicopters when used with the Garmin Pilot app, specifically implicating the app's "Freehand" feature for route creation (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 10,904,755 - Data Distribution from a Movable Object

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses a system for distributing data from a "movable object" (e.g., a UAV) to an "affiliated device." The system involves the movable object receiving a data request, confirming that the requester has the appropriate "privilege" to access the data, confirming the data is available, and then providing the data to the affiliated device (’755 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-16).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 (’755 Patent, col. 35:46-67; Compl. ¶43).

Accused Features

The accused features are the Bell 505, 407GXi, 429, and 525 helicopters when used with the Garmin Flight Stream 510, a device that facilitates data transfer between avionics and mobile devices (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are various manned helicopters manufactured by Bell, including the Bell 505, Bell 407GXi, Bell 429, Bell 412, and Bell 525 (Compl. ¶¶18, 26, 34, 42). The allegations also target specific avionics systems and software used with these helicopters, namely the Garmin Pilot app with its "Freehand" feature and the Garmin Flight Stream 510 data gateway (Compl. ¶¶34, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these helicopters incorporate advanced flight control and data communication features. Specifically, the Garmin Pilot app is alleged to provide "full-featured enroute navigation" which allows for setting flight routes (Compl. ¶37). The Garmin Flight Stream 510 is a system that enables wireless data transfer between the helicopter's avionics and personal electronic devices like tablets running the Garmin Pilot app (Compl. ¶42, 46). The complaint frames Bell as a historic company that has "belatedly sought to add certain control features" pioneered by DJI in the UAV market to its manned aircraft (Compl. ¶10).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibits E, F, G, and H, but these exhibits were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶19, 27, 35, 43). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

  • ’693 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Bell 505 and 407GXi helicopters practice all elements of at least claim 18, which describes an assisted takeoff system (Compl. ¶¶18-19). The core of this allegation is that the helicopters' flight control systems utilize a first control scheme during liftoff and switch to a second, different scheme for normal flight after an internally determined takeoff threshold is met.
  • ’874 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that at least the Bell 505 helicopter practices all elements of at least claim 1, which describes a method of attitude control based on pre-calculated, physics-based parameters (Compl. ¶¶26-27). The allegation suggests the helicopter's avionics calculate or use parameters derived from the aircraft's physical characteristics (e.g., moment of inertia) to inform the feedback control system for attitude stability.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"movable object" (appears in ’693 and ’755 Patents)

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is central because the patents-in-suit were developed in the context of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), while the accused products are large, manned helicopters. The case may turn on whether the patent's scope can be construed to cover such different types of aircraft. Practitioners may focus on this term because the significant differences in scale, weight, and operation between a DJI drone and a Bell helicopter could be a basis for a non-infringement argument.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims of the ’693 patent use broad language, referring to an "aerial vehicle" or an "aircraft capable of vertically taking off and/or landing" (’693 Patent, col. 2:59-60; col. 3:45-46). This language is not explicitly limited to unmanned vehicles.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specifications of the patents repeatedly use UAVs and rotorcraft as the primary, and often only, examples of the invention (’693 Patent, col. 1:11-12; ’755 Patent, col. 1:30-32). The background sections describe problems particularly relevant to small, remotely-piloted aircraft, which could suggest a narrower intended scope.

"calculating one or more aircraft configuration parameters based on one or more physical characteristics of an aircraft" (’874 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core technical step of the ’874 patent's method. The infringement dispute will likely focus on whether the accused Bell avionics perform this specific type of physics-based calculation (e.g., determining moment of inertia from weight and dimensions) or if they use a more conventional, empirically-tuned control algorithm that does not rely on such calculations.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, referring to "one or more physical characteristics." This could arguably cover any control system that considers basic physical inputs, not just the specific examples in the specification.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of what these calculations entail, such as calculating the aerodynamic center, center of gravity, and moment of inertia (’874 Patent, col. 2:1-3, 10:65-11:10). A defendant may argue that the claim should be limited to control systems that perform these or very similar physics-based computations, as opposed to generic flight control systems.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendants providing functionality and instructions that encourage infringement by users, such as flight manuals for the ’693 patent, specifications advising the use of Garmin avionics for the ’874 patent, and touting the benefits of the Garmin Pilot app for the ’387 and ’755 patents (Compl. ¶¶21, 29, 37, 45).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The basis is alleged actual knowledge. For the ’693 and ’874 patents, knowledge is alleged from at least March 29, 2023, due to service of a complaint in a prior lawsuit. For the ’387 and ’755 patents, knowledge is alleged from at least July 13, 2023, based on receipt of a letter from DJI's counsel (Compl. ¶¶11, 21, 23, 29, 31, 37, 39, 45, 47).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "movable object" and "aerial vehicle," rooted in patents describing technology for small, unmanned drones, be construed to cover large, multi-ton, manned helicopters? The vast differences in scale, cost, and operational complexity between the patented art's context and the accused products will likely be a central point of contention.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what is the precise operational logic of the accused Bell and Garmin flight control systems? The case will likely require deep technical discovery to determine if the accused systems perform the specific functions claimed—such as the two-stage takeoff control (’693), the physics-based parameter calculation (’874), the "freehand" route generation (’387), and the privilege-based data access protocol (’755)—or if they achieve similar aviation outcomes through fundamentally different and non-infringing technical means.