Wildcat Licensing LLC v. Parrot Drones SAS

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wildcat Licensing LLC (Illinois)
  • Defendant: Parrot Drones SAS and Parrot S.A. (France)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DINOVO PRICE LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00449, W.D. Tex., 06/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign entities not incorporated in the United States that have committed acts of infringement within the district. The complaint further alleges that Defendants transact substantial business in the district and have targeted customers there, including strategic partners such as the Austin Fire Department.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of ANAFI Ai drones infringes three U.S. patents related to unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) navigation, obstacle avoidance, and remote control telemetry.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves automated flight control systems for UAVs, which are critical for enabling autonomous missions, improving safety by avoiding collisions, and simplifying operator control in the growing commercial and public safety drone markets.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit were originally assigned to International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and were subsequently assigned to Plaintiff Wildcat Licensing LLC in 2020. The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of at least one of the patents ('294 patent) as early as 2015 through its own patent prosecution activities. The complaint also cites to the prosecution history of the '232 and '294 patents to assert that the inventions were recognized by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as non-obvious improvements over the prior art.

Case Timeline

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 for improvement in UAV navigation, noting that conventional UAVs were typically manually controlled by an operator viewing images from downlink telemetry, a process that required significant operator knowledge and lacked automation (’232 Patent, col. 1:18-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a UAV to autonomously avoid obstacles. The system uses GPS data to anticipate the UAV's future position, identifies a potential obstacle (such as a physical object or a no-fly zone) along that future path, selects an appropriate avoidance algorithm, and pilots the UAV according to that algorithm to prevent a collision (’232 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:5-8).
• Technical Importance: The technology automates the critical safety function of obstacle avoidance, which the complaint alleges was a non-conventional concept at the time of the invention (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
• Essential elements of 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 that 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 reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 7,231,294: Navigating a UAV (Issued June 12, 2007)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the '232 patent, the '294 patent notes that prior art UAVs generally required manual control with little aid from automation, making navigation to waypoints a complex task for the operator (’294 Patent, col. 1:17-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention simplifies waypoint navigation by allowing a user to select a single pixel on a Graphical User Interface (GUI) map displayed on a remote control device. The system then maps that pixel's screen location to real-world Earth coordinates, transmits those coordinates to the UAV, and the UAV’s onboard navigation computer pilots the aircraft to that destination (’294 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-62).
• Technical Importance: This "point-and-click" method of navigation was described during prosecution as a "significant improvement" over prior art systems that lacked this automated waypoint selection capability (Compl. ¶29).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57).
• Essential elements of 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 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 reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶57).

Multi-Patent Capsule

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,286,913, "Navigating a UAV with Telemetry Through a Socket," Issued October 23, 2007 (Compl. ¶21).
• Technology Synopsis: This invention discloses a system for UAV navigation using a "socket" to create a two-way communication link between a remote control device and the UAV. This socket-based communication facilitates the downlink of telemetry from the UAV and the uplink of flight control instructions to the UAV, enabling more complex, automated missions than were possible with purely manual control (’913 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶30).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
• Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that the Parrot ANAFI Ai drones, in conjunction with a remote-control device application, create an infringing system where the drone's onboard transmitter acts as a "server-side socket" and the remote application acts as a "client socket" to exchange telemetry and flight commands (Compl. ¶30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint names the "Parrot ANAFI Ai drones" and related products, software, and hardware as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶26, ¶49).
• Functionality and Market Context: The Parrot ANAFI Ai is a drone equipped with autonomous guidance modes, a GPS receiver, and an obstacle avoidance (OA) system that relies on stereo cameras (Compl. ¶¶35-36). The complaint alleges these drones are marketed to public safety organizations and other professional users in the United States (Compl. ¶¶13-14). According to documentation cited in the complaint, the drone's OA system operates by predicting a "nominal trajectory" and using a "replanning algorithm" to compute corrections that make the flight path "collision free" (Compl. ¶40). A diagram from a Parrot whitepaper shows a drone's planned trajectory in red and its corrected, obstacle-avoiding trajectory in blue (Compl. ¶40).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,228,232 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: Does the accused product's "replanning algorithm" meet the claim limitation of "selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm"? A court may need to determine whether "selecting" requires a choice between multiple, distinct algorithms, or if it can be read to cover the application or activation of a single, integrated algorithm.
  • Technical Question: The complaint alleges the drone "predicts" a future trajectory. The key technical question is whether this predictive functionality is coextensive with "anticipating a future position" as required by the claim, and what level of proof Plaintiff can offer to demonstrate this technical operation.

7,231,294 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint provides limited detail on how waypoints are created in the accused system. A key point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the "FlightPlan" functionality operates via the selection of a "GUI map pixel," as strictly required by the claim, versus other input methods like drawing a path or entering coordinates.
  • Technical Question: Does the accused product’s ability to use a "list of waypoints" that can be "modified dynamically" (Compl. ¶35) align with the claimed method, which appears to describe a more discrete sequence of selecting a single pixel, mapping it, and transmitting it for navigation?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1 ('232 Patent, Claim 1): "selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm"

• Context and Importance: The defendant may argue its product uses a single, integrated obstacle avoidance system, not a "selection" from a plurality of algorithms. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether "selecting" is construed to mean choosing from a set of options or can more broadly mean activating a single available function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim preamble refers to "an" algorithm, and the body of the claim requires "selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm," which could be interpreted as selecting the one available algorithm (’232 Patent, col. 21:13, 21:17). The specification's summary does not mandate a choice between multiple distinct algorithms, referring simply to "selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm" as a step in the process (’232 Patent, col. 1:42-43).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "select" implies a choice. Furthermore, the specification describes and depicts multiple different navigation algorithms for handling different flight conditions (e.g., crosswind), which could suggest by analogy that a choice between different avoidance algorithms was also contemplated for different types of obstacles or scenarios (’232 Patent, Figs. 8, 10, 12, 14).

Term 2 ('294 Patent, Claim 1): "GUI map pixel"

• Context and Importance: This term is highly specific. If the accused product allows users to define waypoints by other graphical means (e.g., tapping a point on a map without reference to a specific pixel grid, drawing a path, or selecting a pre-defined location), it may fall outside the literal scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that "GUI map pixel" should be understood in the context of the invention's purpose: to enable simple graphical waypoint selection. In this view, any user interaction that graphically designates a point on the map to create a waypoint would embody the spirit of the invention, even if not tied to a literal pixel.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is explicit. The specification provides a detailed, mathematical explanation of how to map the boundaries and row/column location of a specific pixel to a precise range of latitude and longitude on the Earth's surface, reinforcing a narrow, technical definition of the term (’294 Patent, col. 11:1-67, col. 12:1-51).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. The inducement claims are based on allegations that Defendant provides user guides, technical manuals, and other instructions that encourage customers to use the drones in an infringing manner (e.g., by using the automated obstacle avoidance and waypoint navigation features) (Compl. ¶¶41, 51, 59). The contributory infringement claims assert that Defendant's drones contain software and hardware that are material to practicing the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶¶52, 60, 67).
• Willful Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint lays the groundwork for willfulness by alleging that Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the patents. Specifically, it alleges knowledge of the '294 patent "at least as early as 2015 through their own prosecution activities," and knowledge of all patents from at least the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶46).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm" ('232 patent) be construed to cover the accused product's application of a single, integrated "replanning algorithm," or does the claim require a demonstrable choice between multiple, distinct routines?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Can Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence that the accused drone's waypoint navigation system operates by a user selecting a "GUI map pixel" ('294 patent) and that its telemetry system uses a "socket" ('913 patent) as those terms are defined in the patents, or will discovery reveal a fundamental mismatch in technical implementation?
• The case may also turn on the question of intent: Given the allegation that Defendant cited the '294 patent in its own prosecution years before the suit, a central question for damages will be whether this act establishes pre-suit knowledge sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement.