DCT

6:20-cv-00073

Daedalus Blue LLC v. SZ DJI Techno

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00073, W.D. Tex., 06/29/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendants conduct substantial business in the district through direct online sales and a network of authorized physical and online resellers, including major retailers located in Austin, San Antonio, Waco, and El Paso.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) and associated flight control software infringe two patents related to automated navigation, obstacle avoidance, and telemetry communication.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns software and systems for improving the autonomy and safety of UAVs, a key area of development in the rapidly growing commercial and consumer drone market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. This knowledge is alleged to stem from Defendant citing the patents during the prosecution of its own patent applications and from alleged licensing discussions between Defendant and the original patent owner, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM).

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-10-23 ’913 Patent Priority Date
2005-01-24 ’232 Patent Priority Date
2007-06-05 ’232 Patent Issue Date
2007-10-23 ’913 Patent Issue Date
2014-06-19 Alleged date of Defendant’s knowledge of ’232 Patent
2016-01-12 Alleged date of Defendant’s knowledge of ’913 Patent
2017-10-16 Alleged latest date of licensing discussions with IBM
2020-06-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,228,232 - "Navigating a UAV with Obstacle Avoidance Algorithms"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,228,232, "Navigating a UAV with Obstacle Avoidance Algorithms," issued June 5, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to improve upon conventional UAV navigation, which required an operator to manually control the vehicle, often with little aid from automation, using camera images sent via downlink telemetry (’232 Patent, col. 1:18-31; Compl. ¶17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a UAV to autonomously navigate and avoid obstacles. The system uses a sequence of GPS data to anticipate a future flight path and position, identifies a potential obstacle in that path (such as a no-fly zone), selects an appropriate avoidance algorithm, and then automatically pilots the UAV in accordance with that algorithm to avoid the obstacle (’232 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:33-45).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from manual remote piloting to automated, predictive navigation that enhances UAV safety and operational capability (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts method claim 1, system claim 7, and computer program product claim 13, among others (Compl. ¶33).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • piloting the UAV, under control of a navigation computer, in accordance with a navigation algorithm;
    • while piloting the UAV: reading from a GPS receiver a sequence of GPS data;
    • anticipating a future position of the UAV in dependence upon the sequence of GPS data;
    • identifying an obstacle in dependence upon the future position;
    • selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm; and
    • piloting the UAV in accordance with the selected obstacle avoidance algorithm.

U.S. Patent No. 7,286,913 - "Navigating a UAV with Telemetry Through a Socket"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,286,913, "Navigating a UAV with Telemetry Through a Socket," issued October 23, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a more efficient and automated way to control a UAV's flight path beyond manual piloting, particularly for performing complex missions with multiple waypoints ('913 Patent, col. 1:20-28, 1:64-2:2; Compl. ¶19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a remote control device and a UAV communicate telemetry through a "socket," a standard endpoint for two-way network communication ('913 Patent, col. 2:34-37). A user selects a waypoint on a graphical map, and its coordinates are sent as "uplink telemetry" through the socket to the UAV. The UAV sends its GPS position and other data back as "downlink telemetry" through the same socket, enabling automated navigation to the user-selected point ('913 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:25-39).
  • Technical Importance: The use of a socket-based architecture streamlined UAV mission planning by directly linking a user-friendly graphical interface to the vehicle's navigation system using established networking principles (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts method claim 8, system claim 23, and computer program product claim 38, among others (Compl. ¶73).
  • Independent Claim 8 requires:
    • receiving in a remote control device a user's selection of a GUI map pixel that represents a waypoint for UAV navigation;
    • mapping the pixel's location on the GUI to Earth coordinates of the waypoint;
    • transmitting uplink telemetry, including the coordinates of the waypoint, to the UAV through a socket on the remote control device;
    • receiving downlink telemetry, including a starting position from a GPS receiver, from the UAV through the socket; and
    • piloting the UAV, under control of a navigation computer, from the starting position to the waypoint.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities include a wide range of DJI drones (such as the Phantom, Mavic, Matrice, and Inspire series) and associated DJI Flight Control Components, including the DJI GO, DJI GO 4, and DJI GS Pro applications (Compl. ¶¶33, 73).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused drones operate with an on-board GPS module and communicate with a remote control device running DJI software (Compl. ¶¶16, 18).
  • A central accused feature is DJI’s "Fly Safe" technology, which implements a geofencing system using "GEO Zones." This system is alleged to anticipate the drone's flight path and prevent it from entering restricted or unsafe areas, such as airports, by altering its flight, notifying the user, or preventing takeoff (Compl. ¶16).
  • The complaint further alleges that the communication link between the DJI applications (acting as a client) and the drone (acting as a server) is facilitated through a socket-based architecture to exchange uplink and downlink telemetry, including waypoint coordinates and GPS location data (Compl. ¶18).
  • The complaint includes a screenshot from DJI's website showing its "Official Online Stores" with major retailers such as Amazon and eBay, which are accessible within the judicial district (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7228232 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
piloting the UAV, under control of a navigation computer, in accordance with a navigation algorithm... DJI drones are piloted by an onboard computer that executes automated navigation features such as the "Fly Safe" technology. ¶16, ¶35 col. 8:5-10
reading from a GPS receiver a sequence of GPS data... The accused drones contain an onboard GPS module that tracks the UAV's location and provides GPS data. ¶16, ¶35 col. 5:31-34
anticipating a future position of the UAV in dependence upon the sequence of GPS data... The "Fly Safe" system anticipates the drone’s flight path to determine if it will enter a restricted GEO Zone. ¶16, ¶35 col. 2:38-39
identifying an obstacle in dependence upon the future position... The system identifies pre-defined two-dimensional GEO Zones as obstacles based on the drone's anticipated position. ¶16, ¶35 col. 2:39-41
selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm... The system selects a response based on proximity to a GEO Zone, such as issuing a warning, stopping the drone, or preventing takeoff. ¶16, ¶35 col. 2:41-43
piloting the UAV in accordance with the selected obstacle avoidance algorithm. The drone's flight is automatically altered (e.g., speed reduced, flight terminated) in accordance with the selected response. ¶16, ¶35 col. 2:43-45

7286913 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving in a remote control device a user's selection of a GUI map pixel that represents a waypoint... DJI applications running on remote control devices allow users to select waypoints for navigation by tapping on a map display. ¶19, ¶75 col. 1:33-35
mapping the pixel's location on the GUI to Earth coordinates of the waypoint... The applications convert the selected pixel on the map into corresponding Earth coordinates for the waypoint. ¶75 col. 10:41-45
transmitting uplink telemetry, including the coordinates of the waypoint, to the UAV through a socket on the remote control device... The application (client socket) sends the waypoint coordinates as uplink telemetry to the drone (server-side socket). ¶18, ¶75 col. 2:34-37
receiving downlink telemetry, include a starting position from a GPS receiver, from the UAV through the socket... The application receives downlink telemetry, such as the drone’s current GPS position, from the drone through the same socket. ¶18, ¶75 col. 2:34-37
piloting the UAV, under control of a navigation computer on the UAV... The drone's onboard navigation computer pilots the aircraft from its starting position to the received waypoint coordinates. ¶75 col. 1:53-57
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’232 patent will be whether a pre-defined, data-driven "GEO Zone" constitutes an "obstacle" as contemplated by the patent. Similarly, for the ’913 patent, a dispute may arise over whether Defendant's proprietary communication protocol constitutes a "socket" in the technical sense required by the claims.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’232 patent, a factual question may be whether DJI's system of issuing warnings or halting flight performs the claimed step of "selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm." For both patents, the plaintiff's theory of direct infringement, which attributes the actions of end-users to DJI based on its alleged control over the products' functionality, suggests a likely dispute over the legal doctrine of divided infringement (Compl. ¶¶36-42, 76-79).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "obstacle" (’232 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff’s infringement theory relies on construing Defendant’s geofenced "GEO Zones" as "obstacles." The viability of this theory depends on whether a pre-defined, two-dimensional geographic area falls within the claim term's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides explicit support, stating that obstacles "may be physical three dimensional objects such as buildings... [or] two dimensional geographic areas such as no-fly zones" (’232 Patent, col. 17:5-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent’s primary inventive concept relates to avoiding unexpected or dynamic physical objects, and that a system for adhering to a static database of restricted zones is a distinct, non-infringing technology.

Term: "socket" (’913 Patent, Claim 8)

  • Context and Importance: The claim requires telemetry to be transmitted "through a socket." The infringement analysis will turn on whether the specific communication link between DJI's drones and its applications meets this technical requirement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide a special definition for "socket," which may suggest the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art of computer networking: an endpoint in a two-way communication link. The complaint’s characterization of the system as a client-server architecture supports this functional interpretation (Compl. ¶18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification references socket classes in a Java programming context, specifically the java.net package ('913 Patent, col. 9:46-51). This could support an argument that the term is limited to specific, standardized TCP/IP socket implementations and does not read on a proprietary communication protocol.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement on the basis that Defendant provides instructional materials and software that encourage and direct end-users to use the accused geofencing and waypoint navigation features (Compl. ¶¶48-49, 88-89). Contributory infringement is alleged on the grounds that the accused products are especially made to practice the invention and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶51, 91).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of both patents. For the ’232 patent, knowledge is alleged as of June 19, 2014, and for the ’913 patent, as of January 12, 2016. The basis for this alleged knowledge is Defendant's citation of the patents during the prosecution of its own patent applications, as well as alleged licensing discussions with the original assignee (Compl. ¶¶29, 31, 56, 69, 71, 96).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "obstacle" in the ’232 patent, which is described in the context of dynamic navigation, be construed to cover a pre-defined, database-driven "GEO Zone" in the accused geofencing system?
  • A key technical question will be one of implementation: does the communication protocol between DJI's applications and its drones meet the specific claim requirement of a "socket" as used in the ’913 patent, or is it a fundamentally different proprietary technology?
  • A central legal question will be one of attribution: can DJI be held directly liable for patent infringement for methods whose steps are performed, in part, by end-users, under the plaintiff’s theory that DJI's system design and terms of service grant it dispositive control over the entire infringing process?