DCT
6:23-cv-00446
Wildcat Licensing LLC v. Autel Intelligent Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wildcat Licensing LLC (Illinois)
- Defendant: Autel Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (China) and Autel Robotics USA, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DINOVO PRICE LLP
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00446, W.D. Tex., 06/13/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas based on Defendants' sales within the district, operation of online stores accessible in the district, a strategic partnership with Austin-based DroneSense, the storage of all U.S. customer data on servers located in Texas, and targeted advertising campaigns within the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Autel EVO II drone products infringe four patents related to unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) navigation, waypoint selection, obstacle avoidance, and camera-based geographic surveying.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated flight control and mission planning for UAVs, a rapidly growing field with significant applications in public safety, commercial surveying, and consumer markets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 7,228,232, the USPTO found the claimed steps of anticipating a future position and selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm to be novel. Similarly, during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,294, the USPTO recognized the invention as a "significant improvement" in the UAV field. The patents-in-suit were also the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings initiated in 2020, which resulted in the confirmation of all claims of the ’232 patent as patentable and the cancellation of several non-asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,286,913, while the asserted claims of the '913 patent appear to have survived.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-10-23 | Earliest Priority Date: ’294 and ’913 Patents |
| 2005-01-24 | Earliest Priority Date: ’232 and ’320 Patents |
| 2006-08-25 | ’232 Patent prosecution: Office Action noted novelty of claimed steps |
| 2007-02-07 | ’294 Patent prosecution: Notice of Allowance issued |
| 2007-06-05 | Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,228,232 |
| 2007-06-12 | Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,231,294 |
| 2007-10-23 | Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,286,913 |
| 2008-08-26 | Issue Date: U.S. Patent No. 7,418,320 |
| 2020-11-10 | Defendant Autel announces strategic partnership with DroneSense |
| 2023-06-13 | 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"
- Issued: June 5, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to improve upon conventional UAV navigation, which typically required an operator to manually control the UAV's flight while viewing images from the vehicle's onboard cameras via downlink telemetry ('232 Patent, col. 1:18-29). This manual process required significant operator skill and offered little automation.
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for automated UAV navigation where the vehicle is piloted according to a navigation algorithm. While in flight, the system reads GPS data to anticipate the UAV's future position, identifies a potential obstacle (such as a building or a no-fly zone) based on that anticipated position, selects an appropriate obstacle avoidance algorithm from a plurality of such algorithms, and then pilots the UAV using the selected algorithm to avoid the obstacle ('232 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:33-43).
- Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from reactive, manual piloting to automated, predictive flight control that can proactively identify and circumvent obstacles without constant human intervention (Compl. ¶30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('232 Patent, col. 21:7-22; Compl. ¶54).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Piloting a UAV according to a navigation algorithm.
- While piloting, performing the steps of:
- Reading a sequence of GPS data from a GPS receiver.
- Anticipating a future position of the UAV based on the GPS data.
- Identifying an obstacle based on the anticipated future position.
- Selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm.
- Piloting the UAV according to the selected obstacle avoidance algorithm.
- The complaint’s phrasing suggests it may reserve the right to assert additional claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,231,294 - "Navigating a UAV"
- Issued: June 12, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem of cumbersome manual UAV control that required an operator to rely on downlink telemetry and have specific knowledge of the UAV's location and intended waypoints ('294 Patent, col. 1:17-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where an operator uses a remote control device displaying a graphical user interface (GUI) map. The operator selects a pixel on the map, which the device translates into real-world Earth coordinates for a waypoint. These coordinates are then transmitted to the UAV, which uses its onboard GPS and a navigation algorithm to automatically fly from its current position to the designated waypoint ('294 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-21). This process simplifies the creation of complex, multi-waypoint missions (Compl. ¶32).
- Technical Importance: This approach streamlined UAV mission planning by enabling intuitive, map-based "point-and-click" waypoint selection, a significant advancement over purely manual flight control (Compl. ¶32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('294 Patent, col. 17:4-18; Compl. ¶62).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Receiving, in a remote control device, a user's selection of a GUI map pixel representing a waypoint.
- Mapping the pixel's location on the GUI to the Earth coordinates of the waypoint.
- Transmitting the waypoint coordinates to the UAV.
- Reading a starting position from a GPS receiver on the UAV.
- Piloting the UAV from the starting position to the waypoint using a navigation algorithm.
- The complaint’s phrasing suggests it may reserve the right to assert additional claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,286,913 - "Navigating a UAV with Telemetry Through a Socket"
- Issued: October 23, 2007 (Compl. ¶23)
Technology Synopsis
The patent describes a system for improving UAV navigation by establishing a two-way communication link, or "socket," between the UAV and a remote-control device. This socket facilitates the exchange of downlink telemetry (e.g., UAV position) and uplink telemetry (e.g., flight control instructions) over a network, enabling the user to operate the UAV (Compl. ¶33). The invention sought to automate aspects of the UAV mission that previously required manual control (Compl. ¶34).
Asserted Claims
At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Autel EVO II drones feature an onboard receiver/transmitter that functions as a server-side socket, which communicates with a remote-control device application that serves as the client socket to transmit telemetry and flight control instructions (Compl. ¶33).
U.S. Patent No. 7,418,320 - "Navigating a UAV Having an On-Board Digital Camera to Capture Desired Geographic Area"
- Issued: August 26, 2008 (Compl. ¶24)
Technology Synopsis
The patent claims UAV navigation technologies that utilize an onboard digital camera. The system can calculate a heading and identify flight control instructions based on a starting position and waypoint coordinates (Compl. ¶36). Certain embodiments also identify geographic areas not captured by the camera during a flight and modify the flight pattern to survey those areas (Compl. ¶39).
Asserted Claims
At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶76).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses the Autel EVO II drones, which house an onboard digital camera used for navigation (Compl. ¶37). The complaint specifically points to features for flying missions to collect orthophoto data and perform real-time 2D image stitching as infringing functionality (Compl. ¶77).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Autel EVO II drones" as exemplary accused products, along with all substantially similar products and associated hardware and software (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 42, 54).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused drones are alleged to incorporate a GPS receiver and a sophisticated obstacle avoidance system (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43, 45). One accused feature, "Dynamic Tracking," allegedly uses "deep learning algorithms" to detect and track objects in real time, allowing the aircraft to automatically "avoid obstacles in its flight path" (Compl. p. 14). The complaint references a screenshot from a user manual that describes this "Dynamic Tracking" capability (Compl. p. 14). Another feature, "360° Obstacle Avoidance," is alleged to use 19 sensor groups to build three-dimensional maps and enable "path planning in real time" (Compl. p. 14, ¶46).
- The complaint positions the products as being marketed and sold in the United States for various purposes, including public safety, as evidenced by a partnership with Austin-based software platform DroneSense (Compl. ¶14). A screenshot from Autel's website shows the company promoting a "Partner to Enable Advanced Public Safety UAS Operations" with DroneSense (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 7,228,232 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| piloting the UAV...in accordance with a navigation algorithm | The drones determine a flight plan and navigate toward a destination point. | ¶45 | col. 1:35-37 |
| reading from a GPS receiver a sequence of GPS data | The drones include a GPS receiver and use it to determine a flight plan. | ¶43, ¶45 | col. 1:37-38 |
| anticipating a future position of the UAV... | The drones "identify anticipated obstacles along the determined flight route." | ¶44 | col. 1:38-39 |
| identifying an obstacle in dependence upon the future position | The "Dynamic Tracking" feature allows the aircraft to avoid obstacles in its flight path, and the "360° Obstacle Avoidance" feature enables "path planning in real time." | p. 14, ¶46 | col. 1:39-40 |
| selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm | The drone systems allegedly use "deep learning algorithms" to perform obstacle avoidance, corresponding to the claimed selection of an algorithm. | p. 14 | col. 1:40-41 |
| piloting the UAV in accordance with the selected obstacle avoidance algorithm | The drones are alleged to "correct a trajectory to avoid obstacles." | ¶46 | col. 1:41-43 |
U.S. Patent No. 7,231,294 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving in a remote control device a user's selection of a GUI map pixel... | The complaint alleges infringement by "implementing selection of waypoints using the GUI," which maps a UAV's position on a GUI map on a remote-control device. | ¶31, ¶65 | col. 1:57-61 |
| mapping the pixel's location on the GUI to Earth coordinates of the waypoint | The complaint alleges infringement by "mapping the pixels location to earth coordinates." | ¶65 | col. 1:61-63 |
| transmitting the coordinates of the waypoint to the UAV | The system allegedly "transmits UAV location and flight control instructions back and forth from the UAV user's remote-control device." | ¶29 | col. 1:63-65 |
| reading a starting position from a GPS receiver on the UAV | The drones house an on-board GPS module. | ¶29 | col. 1:65-66 |
| piloting the UAV...from the starting position to the waypoint in accordance with a navigation algorithm | The accused drones allegedly "map the UAVs' position from the start of a mission, through mission waypoints, and to the end of a mission." | ¶31 | col. 1:66-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: For the ’232 patent, a potential dispute is whether the accused drone's use of "deep learning algorithms" for obstacle avoidance constitutes "selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm" as claimed. The defense may argue its system uses a single, integrated process rather than selecting from a plurality of distinct algorithms.
- Technical Questions: A key question for the ’232 patent is what evidence the complaint provides that the accused system performs the specific, sequential step of "anticipating a future position" and then "identifying an obstacle" based on that prediction. The marketing materials cited suggest real-time path planning, but the precise operational sequence relative to the claim language may be a point of contention. For the ’294 patent, the complaint provides limited specific factual allegations or visual evidence showing that the accused remote controller performs the claimed steps of receiving a "GUI map pixel" selection and "mapping" it to Earth coordinates. The case may turn on whether discovery reveals this specific functionality.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "anticipating a future position" (from ’232 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term is central to the novelty of the claimed obstacle avoidance method. Its construction will determine whether the claim requires a specific, forward-looking predictive calculation or if it can cover more generalized, near-instantaneous path planning. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality is described as "real-time," raising the question of whether this meets the "anticipating" requirement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the step as "applying a formula to the current position of the UAV to anticipate one or more coordinates on an anticipated course to the destination waypoint" ('232 Patent, col. 18:27-30). This general language could support a broad reading.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses anticipating a position that "may be as close to the current UAV position as a few inches or feet ahead of the UAV, or may be miles ahead of the UAV" ('232 Patent, col. 18:35-38). This language suggests a concrete, forward-looking prediction rather than just a component of an instantaneous reactive system.
The Term: "GUI map pixel" (from ’294 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
The definition of this term is critical for determining what user action on the remote controller constitutes infringement. The dispute may center on whether a tap on a modern high-resolution touchscreen, which may cover many physical pixels, meets the limitation of selecting "a... pixel."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the user selection as "normal GUI operations to take a pixel location... driven by a user input device such as a joystick or a mouse" ('294 Patent, col. 8:44-48). This could suggest the focus is on the user's act of selecting a location on a map, not the literal selection of a single hardware pixel.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly recites "a... pixel," and the detailed description explains a technical process of "mapping pixel boundaries of the GUI map to corresponding Earth coordinates" ('294 Patent, col. 8:55-57). A defendant could argue this ties the claim scope to the specific technical implementation of mapping a discrete pixel area to a geographic region.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement of all asserted patents. This allegation is based on Defendants providing customers with "Owner's Guides," instructions, and specifications that allegedly instruct and encourage them to operate the accused drones in an infringing manner, such as by using the obstacle avoidance and waypoint selection features (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 56, 64).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of operational evidence: Does the accused Autel EVO II drone's obstacle avoidance system, described in high-level product materials, in fact perform the discrete, sequential steps of "anticipating a future position," "identifying an obstacle" based on that future position, and "selecting" an avoidance algorithm as required by the '232 patent?
- A second key question will be one of claim scope and factual support: Can the term "selection of a GUI map pixel" in the '294 patent be construed to cover a user's tap on a modern touchscreen map, and can the Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused software performs the specific pixel-to-coordinate mapping recited in the patent's specification?
- Finally, a central procedural question will be the impact of prior patent challenges: How will the court and the parties leverage the history of the IPR proceedings, where the asserted claims of the '232 patent survived a validity challenge, while numerous non-asserted claims of the '913 patent were invalidated? This history may frame future validity, infringement, and claim construction disputes.