DCT

6:21-cv-00740

Textron Innovations Inc v. SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00740, W.D. Tex., 06/17/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants sell products in the district through their own online store and via resellers and authorized dealers, including Amazon, eBay, and local retailers in Austin and San Antonio.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, infringe five patents related to flight control systems, including features for following a moving target, circling a point of interest, automatic hover, and collision avoidance.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on foundational autonomous and semi-autonomous flight control technologies that are critical for the operation of modern consumer and enterprise drones.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant DJI had pre-suit knowledge of U.S. Patent No. 8,014,909 at least as of January 8, 2018, due to citing it in an Information Disclosure Statement during the prosecution of its own patent application. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, several of the asserted patents have been subject to post-grant proceedings: claims 1-7 and 9-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,078,395 and claims 1-7, 10, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,162,752 were cancelled in inter partes review proceedings. Additionally, all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,243,647 were disclaimed by the patent owner. These post-filing events may significantly narrow the scope of the ongoing litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-03-25 Priority Date for ’909 and ’085 Patents
2005-11-15 Priority Date for ’395 Patent
2011-07-15 Priority Date for ’752 Patent
2011-09-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,014,909 Issued
2011-12-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,078,395 Issued
2012-01-31 U.S. Patent No. 8,108,085 Issued
2015-10-20 U.S. Patent No. 9,162,752 Issued
2017-05-30 Priority Date for ’647 Patent
2018-01-08 Date of alleged knowledge of ’909 Patent by Defendant
2019-03-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,243,647 Issued
2020-06-01 Date of alleged knowledge of ’395 Patent by Defendant
2022-06-17 Amended Complaint Filed
2022-11-16 Assignee files disclaimer for claims of the ’647 Patent
2023-08-22 IPR Certificate issues cancelling claims of the ’752 Patent
2023-10-25 IPR Certificate issues cancelling claims of the ’395 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,014,909 - "Control System for Vehicles," Issued September 6, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of remotely controlling an aircraft relative to a moving object, such as a ship. Conventional control required an operator to mentally account for the aircraft's orientation, the moving object's velocity, and the aircraft's own velocity, creating a complex and difficult control task (Compl. ¶17; ’909 Patent, col. 1:13-25, 1:41-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a control system that simplifies this task by allowing an operator to command the aircraft's velocity relative to a reference vehicle. The system uses sensors on the aircraft to determine its own position and movement, and a receiver to get data on the reference vehicle's position and movement. It then calculates the relative velocity and position, and commands the aircraft's flight controls to attain and maintain a selected relative velocity, regardless of the aircraft's heading (’909 Patent, col. 8:13-28). The system is described as being useful for combinations of land, air, or sea vehicles (’909 Patent, col. 3:37-41).
  • Technical Importance: This approach decouples the operator's control inputs from the aircraft's own frame of reference, making it more intuitive to pilot an aircraft in relation to a moving target, a key capability for applications like shipboard drone operations (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶55).
  • Essential elements of Claim 7 include:
    • Sensors on the aircraft to determine its position and inertial movement relative to the earth.
    • A receiver on the aircraft to receive transmitted data on the position and movement of a "reference vehicle" relative to the earth.
    • A control system that calculates the aircraft's position and movement relative to the reference vehicle using data from both the sensors and the receiver.
    • The control system commands flight-control devices to maneuver the aircraft to attain and maintain a selected position or velocity relative to the reference vehicle.
    • The selected relative position and velocity is input into the control system prior to flight.

U.S. Patent No. 8,108,085 - "Control System for Vehicles," Issued January 31, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’909 Patent, the ’085 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the complexity of remotely controlling a vehicle relative to another moving vehicle, which requires an operator to track multiple frames of reference simultaneously (Compl. ¶24; ’085 Patent, col. 1:29-41, 1:57-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a control system where an aircraft's flight is controlled based on its velocity relative to a reference vehicle. The system calculates this relative velocity by comparing the aircraft's own position and movement data with received data about the reference vehicle's position and movement. This allows an operator to command the aircraft to, for example, match the reference vehicle's velocity (achieving a relative velocity of zero) simply by releasing the joysticks on a controller (’085 Patent, col. 5:43-49). Figure 1 illustrates an unmanned aircraft following a ship (’085 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides an intuitive control scheme for operators of unmanned vehicles, reducing cognitive load and enabling more precise relative maneuvering, which was a significant step for autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle operation (Compl. ¶25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 6 is asserted (Compl. ¶68).
  • Essential elements of Claim 6 include:
    • Sensors on the aircraft to determine its position and inertial movement relative to the earth.
    • A receiver on the aircraft to receive transmitted data on the position and movement of a "reference vehicle" relative to the earth.
    • A control system that calculates the aircraft's position and movement relative to the reference vehicle using sensor data, commanded data input prior to flight, and received data.
    • The control system commands flight-control devices to maneuver the aircraft to attain and maintain a selected position or velocity relative to the reference vehicle.

U.S. Patent No. 8,078,395 - "Control System for Automatic Circle Flight," Issued December 13, 2011

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the pilot workload associated with manually flying an aircraft in a circular path around a point of interest, particularly in windy conditions (Compl. ¶31-32). The invention provides a flight control system that automates this process, requiring only a single geospatial point and a radius to define the circle, allowing the aircraft to automatically intercept a tangent point on the circle and maintain the circular groundtrack (Compl. ¶34-35).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶79).

Accused Features

The "Point of Interest Mode" in various DJI drones, which allows the drone to automatically circle a selected subject (Compl. ¶78).

U.S. Patent No. 9,162,752 - "Flight Control Laws for Automatic Hover Hold," Issued October 20, 2015

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes flight control laws designed to improve safety in reduced-visibility situations like brownouts (Compl. ¶40-41). The invention defines distinct flight envelopes based on groundspeed thresholds. It allows an aircraft to automatically engage an "automatic hover hold" when it enters a first, low-speed envelope, and an "automatic position hold" when it enters a second, even lower-speed envelope, with the engagement triggered by the pilot's controller being in a detent (centered) position (Compl. ¶44).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶91-92).

Accused Features

The automatic hover hold functionality in various DJI drones and controllers (Compl. ¶90).

U.S. Patent No. 10,243,647 - "Aircraft Visual Sensor System," Issued March 26, 2019

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses hazards that may be difficult for a pilot to see, such as objects near a rotorcraft's rotors or dangerous landing surfaces (Compl. ¶48). The solution is a system that uses sensors to detect an object, obtains a camera feed showing the object relative to the aircraft, generates a display output for the pilot, determines a physical characteristic of the object, and can automatically adjust the rotorcraft's operation to improve safety (Compl. ¶49-50).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶103).

Accused Features

The collision avoidance functionality in various DJI drones (Compl. ¶102).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are various models of DJI-branded unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), including the Phantom, Inspire, Mavic, Matrice, and other series, along with their associated controllers (Compl. ¶54, 67, 78, 90, 102).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies several specific functionalities within these drones as infringing:
    • "Follow Me Mode": This feature allegedly enables the drone to autonomously follow and film a subject, which is typically the user holding the controller. The complaint identifies this feature on a DJI user interface screenshot. This screenshot shows an icon labeled "Follow Me Mode" which the user can select (Compl. ¶54, p. 31).
    • "Point of Interest Mode": This feature allows a user to select a subject or geospatial point, and the drone will automatically fly in a circle around it (Compl. ¶78).
    • Automatic Hover Hold: This functionality allegedly causes the drone to automatically hold its position and altitude when the user releases the control sticks (Compl. ¶90).
    • Collision Avoidance: This functionality uses sensors to detect obstacles and can automatically adjust the drone's flight path to avoid them (Compl. ¶102).
  • The complaint alleges that DJI is a "major player[] in the U.S. consumer UAV market" and that its products constituted more than 75% of registered unmanned aircraft in the U.S. in 2019, leveraging the patented technology to achieve this market position (Compl. ¶8-9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits F-1 through F-5) that are not included in the provided document. Therefore, in accordance with analysis protocols, the infringement allegations for the lead patents are summarized in prose.

’909 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that DJI products with "Follow Me Mode" infringe at least Claim 7 of the ’909 Patent (Compl. ¶55). The infringement theory suggests that the DJI drone is the claimed "aircraft" and the user with the controller is the "reference vehicle." The drone's onboard sensors (e.g., GPS, inertial measurement units) allegedly determine its own position and movement. The system allegedly receives data communicating the position and movement of the user's controller. A control system on the drone then calculates the drone's position relative to the user and commands its motors and propellers to maintain a selected velocity or position relative to the user, thereby "following" them (Compl. ¶55-56). The complaint includes a screenshot from a DJI user interface showing the "Follow Me Mode" option, indicating its availability to users (Compl. p. 31).

’085 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that the same "Follow Me Mode" functionality infringes at least Claim 6 of the ’085 Patent (Compl. ¶68). The narrative theory is substantially similar to that for the ’909 Patent. It posits that the drone's sensors and a receiver work in concert with a control system to calculate the drone's movement relative to the "reference vehicle" (the user/controller). The control system then commands the flight-control devices to maneuver the drone in a way that maintains a selected relative position or velocity, achieving the "follow" behavior (Compl. ¶68-69). A screenshot of the user interface highlights the "Follow Me Mode" icon, which is central to this allegation (Compl. p. 36).

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’909 and ’085 patents may be whether the user holding a controller constitutes a "reference vehicle" as that term is used in the claims. While the specifications contemplate a wide range of "moving objects," the construction of the specific term "vehicle" will be a key issue for the court (’909 Patent, col. 3:37-41).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the drone's receiver obtains data "communicating the position and movement of a reference vehicle." A key technical question will be how the accused DJI system actually functions. Does the controller transmit its own GPS coordinates and movement data to the drone, as the claim language suggests, or does the drone use other means, such as visual tracking of the user or simply tracking the GPS location of the controller as a target point, to achieve the "follow" behavior? The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to analyze this potential mismatch in technical operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "reference vehicle" (from Claim 7 of the ’909 Patent and Claim 6 of the ’085 Patent)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the infringement theory for the "Follow Me" feature depends on the user holding the controller being construed as a "reference vehicle." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents' primary embodiment is a ship, and the applicability to a person on the ground holding a device is a potential point of legal and factual dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description states, "Though the system of the invention is described in use with an aircraft/ship combination, the system may be used for any combination and number of land, air, or sea vehicles or other moving objects where it is useful to control the position and velocity of a vehicle relative to a movable point or vehicle" (’909 Patent, col. 3:37-41). Parties arguing for a broad construction may cite this language to suggest "vehicle" should not be limited to a conventional craft like a car or boat.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves use the specific word "vehicle," not the broader term "moving object" from the specification. Embodiments consistently depict conventional vehicles, such as an aircraft and a ship (’909 Patent, Fig. 1). Parties arguing for a narrow construction may contend that the claim term should be limited to such conventional interpretations and that "moving objects" represents a broader, unclaimed concept.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. For the ’909 Patent, it alleges DJI encourages infringement by providing customers with user manuals, videos, and other supporting materials that instruct them on how to use the accused "Follow Me Mode" (Compl. ¶57). Similar allegations are made for the other patents and their respective accused features (Compl. ¶70, 81, 94, 105).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’909 Patent based on pre-suit knowledge. It specifically alleges that DJI knew of the ’909 Patent at least as of January 8, 2018, because DJI cited the patent in an Information Disclosure Statement during the prosecution of its own U.S. Patent Application No. 15/465,457 (Compl. ¶58). For the other asserted patents, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge "at least as of the filing date of this suit" (Compl. ¶73, 85, 97, 108).

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

Given the complaint's allegations and the subsequent procedural history, the case appears to center on the following questions for the court:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "reference vehicle," which is exemplified in the patents as a ship, be construed to cover a human operator holding a controller on the ground, as required by the plaintiff's infringement theory for the "Follow Me" feature?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused "Follow Me" functionality operate by receiving transmitted data from the controller describing the controller's own position and movement, as required by the claims of the ’909 and ’085 patents, or does it use an alternative method such as visual tracking that may not align with the claimed system?
  3. A significant procedural question will be the impact of post-filing events: how will the cancellation of asserted claims of the ’395 and ’752 patents in inter partes reviews and the disclaimer of asserted claims of the ’647 patent affect the scope and viability of the plaintiff's case going forward?