LightSure LLC v. Applied Aeronautics LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: LightSure LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Applied Aeronautics, LLC (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00260, W.D. Tex., 09/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems infringe a patent related to UAV communication and traffic management using ground-based lighting infrastructure.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for safe, reliable, and localized traffic management for low-altitude UAVs operating in populated areas, a key challenge for the expansion of commercial drone services.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint states that an Original Complaint was filed on June 4, 2025, which may be relevant to the timeline for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-07-14	U.S. Patent No. 9,087,451 Priority Date
2015-07-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,087,451 Issues
2025-06-04	Original Complaint Filed
2025-09-16	First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,087,451, “Unmanned aerial vehicle communication, monitoring, and traffic management,” issued July 21, 2015 (’451 Patent).

U.S. Patent No. 9,087,451 - “Unmanned aerial vehicle communication, monitoring, and traffic management”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art UAV systems were inadequate for safe civilian operations in populated areas because they relied on centralized air traffic control systems designed for traditional aircraft and on GPS navigation, which can be unreliable in urban environments due to signal blockage, jamming, or spoofing (’451 Patent, col. 1:34-45; col. 5:35-42; Compl. ¶¶11-12). These limitations created safety risks, hindered localized traffic management, and raised public concerns over privacy and property damage (Compl. ¶11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a distributed communication network for UAVs that leverages existing roadway infrastructure, such as streetlights (’451 Patent, Abstract). These "lighting assemblies" are equipped with communications transmitters and receivers to create a localized, ground-based network. This network can transmit messages to UAVs, including location-specific altitude assignments, to manage traffic flow, prevent collisions, and provide a redundant communication channel when primary systems like GPS are unavailable (’451 Patent, col. 30:50-58; Compl. ¶¶13-15).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach sought to provide a robust and scalable infrastructure for managing high-density, low-altitude UAV traffic, thereby enabling widespread commercial applications like package delivery in urban and suburban areas (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses its allegations on Claim 1 of the ’451 Patent (Compl. ¶¶14, 19-21).
• The essential elements of independent method Claim 1 include:
  • transmitting a first message via a communications transmitter of a lighting assembly for receipt by a UAV, where the first message includes an identifier for the lighting assembly and the assembly is located near a roadway;
  • receiving a second message from the UAV, which includes an identifier for the UAV; and
  • transmitting a third message to the UAV, which includes an indication of an altitude at which the UAV should fly.
• The complaint generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in an "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶25, 30). This exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific accused product functionality. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products, and that Defendant's employees internally test and use these products (Compl. ¶¶25-26). The complaint further alleges that Defendant distributes product literature and website materials that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim charts in an Exhibit 2 that allegedly compare the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶¶30-31). In the absence of these charts, the infringement theory must be summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant's systems practice the method of Claim 1 of the ’451 Patent. The complaint alleges that Defendant’s technology utilizes a distributed communication system integrated with existing infrastructure to manage UAVs (Compl. ¶19). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the accused systems perform the key steps of Claim 1 by:

1. Transmitting messages from a lighting assembly: The complaint asserts that this limitation represents a "specific technological improvement over conventional systems by leveraging existing infrastructure" (Compl. ¶19).
2. Locating the assembly near a roadway: This element is alleged to provide strategic positioning for managing UAV traffic in populated areas, departing from "conventional centralized approaches" (Compl. ¶20).
3. Transmitting an altitude assignment: The complaint alleges this claimed step provides a dynamic altitude management system that addresses "fundamental safety and collision avoidance deficiencies of prior art systems" (Compl. ¶21).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products, which are not described, actually utilize "lighting assemblies" as claimed. The dispute could turn on whether the defendant’s ground stations are structurally or functionally equivalent to the assemblies described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant’s system transmits a "third message" that "includes an indication of an altitude at which the unmanned aerial vehicle should fly"? The analysis will depend on whether the accused system provides specific, directive altitude commands originating from ground-based infrastructure, as opposed to the UAV making autonomous altitude decisions based on general environmental data.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "lighting assembly"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central structural element of the claimed invention. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to literal streetlights or can be read more broadly to cover other ground-based infrastructure equipped with communications technology. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of Defendant's ground infrastructure is unknown but critical to infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses that communications stations can be located on "traffic lights, utility poles, communications station poles, towers... road signs or display monitors, buildings, trees, billboards, bridges, or other structures within a proximity of a roadway" (’451 Patent, col. 23:10-14). This language could support an argument that "lighting assembly" is merely an exemplary, not a limiting, embodiment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Independent apparatus Claim 28 explicitly recites "a light pole" and "a luminaire attached to the light pole" (’451 Patent, col. 37:1-6). A defendant may argue that the term "lighting assembly" in method Claim 1 should be construed consistently with this more specific disclosure, requiring a structure that has a lighting function. The patent's abstract also refers specifically to a "lighting assembly."

• The Term: "located within a proximity of a roadway"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the required geographic relationship between the "lighting assembly" and a "roadway". Its construction will dictate how close an accused ground station must be to a road to infringe. This is critical as it defines the physical scope of the claimed method.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific distance for "proximity." A plaintiff might argue for a functional definition, meaning close enough for the assembly to communicate effectively with UAVs operating in airspace associated with the roadway's right-of-way, as described in the specification (’451 Patent, col. 18:12-17).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the figures and primary embodiments, which consistently show assemblies immediately adjacent to roads (e.g., ’451 Patent, Fig. 1), imply that "proximity" means abutting or very near the roadway.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that since at least the service of the complaint, Defendant has knowingly and intentionally sold its products to customers for infringing uses (Compl. ¶29). It further alleges that Defendant's "product literature and website materials" instruct end users to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’451 Patent (Compl. ¶28).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement despite having "actual knowledge" of the ’451 Patent from the service of the Original Complaint on June 4, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶27-28).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "lighting assembly", which is exemplified in the patent as a streetlight, be construed to cover the specific type of ground-based communication infrastructure used by the Defendant, the details of which are not yet public?
• A second key question will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's reliance on an unfiled exhibit, discovery will be critical to determine whether Defendant’s products actually perform the specific, sequential method steps of Claim 1, particularly the transmission of a discrete altitude command from a ground station to a UAV.
• A threshold procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s failure to identify any specific accused product by name, instead referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" in an unattached exhibit, meet the plausibility standards required for patent infringement complaints?