DCT
2:23-cv-00430
XiDrone Systems v. Fortem Technologies
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: XiDrone Systems, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Fortem Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Tomchak Skolout; Kent & Risley LLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00430, D. Utah, 07/06/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the District of Utah and being registered to transact business in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s counter-drone systems, including its SkyDome Manager software and DroneHunter interceptor drone, infringe two patents related to multi-sensor systems for detecting, tracking, and interdicting unmanned aerial vehicles.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the counter-unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS) market, which addresses the growing security threat posed by small, commercially available drones to critical infrastructure, public venues, and government facilities.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of its patent portfolio on June 9, 2021, followed by notice of infringement with claim charts for the patents-in-suit on April 3, 2023. The complaint also asserts that three unnamed companies have licensed the patent portfolio.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-12-19 | Priority Date for ’976 and ’651 Patents |
| 2017-06-27 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,689,976 |
| 2021-06-09 | Plaintiff provides notice of patent portfolio to Defendant |
| 2022-07-05 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,378,651 |
| 2023-04-03 | Plaintiff provides notice of infringement with claim charts to Defendant |
| 2023-07-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,689,976, “Deterrent For Unmanned Vehicle” (Issued June 27, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent and complaint describe the significant challenge of detecting and deterring low, slow, and small (LSS) unmanned aerial systems (UAS), particularly in cluttered environments where traditional military air defense systems are ineffective and risk unacceptable collateral damage (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18; ’976 Patent, col. 3:4-20). The complaint cites a 2015 Sandia Report stating that LSS UAS detection is a "challenging problem that cannot be achieved with a single detection modality" (Compl. ¶ 36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-sensor system that integrates radar, radio frequency (RF) receivers, and electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors to provide a comprehensive solution for detecting, tracking, and classifying drone threats (’976 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). A central "location processor" fuses data from these disparate sensors to determine a drone's location and identify it, and then directs a countermeasure—either a targeted RF jamming signal or a "kinetic effect"—to interdict the threat (’976 Patent, col. 9:35-49).
- Technical Importance: The technology claims to provide a novel, integrated solution that addresses the specific technical signatures of small commercial drones, which the prior art allegedly could not do effectively or without significant collateral damage risk (Compl. ¶ 45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 4 (Compl. ¶ 95).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A radar for detecting the 3D position of an unmanned aerial vehicle in flight.
- A radio frequency receiver for identifying the vehicle based on at least one radio transmission.
- A location processor that determines the vehicle's location based on both radar position and RF identification.
- A countermeasure, comprising at least one of a radio frequency transmitter and a kinetic effect, that is controlled by the location processor to interdict the vehicle.
U.S. Patent No. 11,378,651, “Deterrent For Unmanned Aerial Systems” (Issued July 5, 2022)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the ’651 Patent addresses the problem of reliably interdicting small drones in civilian or commercial environments where precision is critical (’651 Patent, col. 3:45-56). The complaint emphasizes that prior art systems lacked a method for dispatching a dedicated counter-drone using autonomous navigation data from an integrated sensor system (Compl. ¶ 65-66).
- The Patented Solution: This invention refines the countermeasure aspect of the technology by specifically claiming a "system-operated counter unmanned aerial vehicle" (i.e., a counter-drone) that is dispatched to intercept a detected target (’651 Patent, Claim 1). The system provides "autonomous navigation data" to the counter-drone, which is then "guided by an RF control signal to aerially navigate" and intercept the threat (’651 Patent, col. 19:51-57).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific, tangible method of interdiction that goes beyond simple RF jamming, employing a separate, system-guided vehicle to actively engage the target drone (Compl. ¶ 71).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20 (Compl. ¶ 113).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- At least one range sensor and at least one directional or omnidirectional sensor.
- A sensor fusion processor that detects a target and determines its direction and range.
- A "system-operated counter unmanned aerial vehicle" that can be dispatched by the system.
- The counter vehicle is configured to be guided by an RF control signal to navigate to and intercept the target based on "autonomous navigation data supplied by the system."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies Defendant's "SkyDome Manager" software platform, "DroneHunter" autonomous interceptor drone, "TrueView" series radars (R20, R30), and "TrueView C30 Camera System" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶ 75).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the SkyDome Manager acts as an "Airspace Awareness And Security Platform" that integrates radar and RF sensors to detect and track drones (Compl. ¶¶ 75, 77-78). Upon detecting a threat, the SkyDome Manager can dispatch the DroneHunter, an "Autonomous Drone Interceptor," to engage and mitigate the target drone (Compl. ¶¶ 75, 85). These products are marketed for protecting sensitive sites such as airports, prisons, and energy infrastructure (Compl. ¶ 87). A visual from a presentation included in the complaint depicts a summary of a NATO report concluding that "Urgent action is necessary" and requires "innovative tactics and technologies to effectively counter these threats" (Compl. p. 7). This slide is used to frame the market need that both Plaintiff's invention and Defendant's products allegedly address.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’976 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a radar for detecting the 3D position of an unmanned aerial vehicle in flight; | Fortem's technology includes its "TrueView R20 Radar" and "TrueView R30 Radar" for detecting the 3D position of a UAV. | ¶77 | col. 9:1-2 |
| a radio frequency receiver for identifying the unmanned aerial vehicle in flight based on at least one radio transmission from the unmanned aerial vehicle; | Fortem's "SkyDome Manager" includes a radio frequency receiver for identifying a UAV based on its radio transmissions. | ¶78 | col. 9:3-7 |
| a location processor operatively coupled to the radar and the radio frequency receiver, the location processor determining the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle in flight based on the radar position detection and the RF receiver identification; | Fortem's technology includes a location processor that is coupled to the radar and RF receiver and determines the UAV's location based on both inputs. | ¶79 | col. 9:35-40 |
| the countermeasure operatively coupled to the location processor and comprising at least one of a radio frequency transmitter and a kinetic effect, the location processor being further structured to selectively...control interdiction...or control deployment of the kinetic effect. | Fortem's system includes a countermeasure (RF jamming or the "DroneHunter" providing a kinetic effect) controlled by the location processor to interdict a UAV. | ¶80 | col. 9:41-49 |
’651 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least one range sensor, | Fortem's technology includes at least one range sensor, such as its "TrueView R20 Radar" or "TrueView R30 Radar." | ¶81 | col. 23:13-14 |
| at least one directional or omnidirectional sensor, | Fortem's "SkyDome Manager" technology includes at least one directional or omnidirectional sensor. | ¶82 | col. 23:15-16 |
| a sensor fusion processor operatively coupled to the at least one range sensor and the at least one directional or omnidirectional sensor, the sensor fusion processor configured to detect a target and determine direction and range of the target...; | Fortem's "SkyDome Manager" includes a sensor fusion processor coupled to its sensors, which detects a target and determines its direction and range. | ¶¶83-84 | col. 23:17-21 |
| a system-operated counter unmanned aerial vehicle dispatchable by the system to intercept the detected target, | Fortem's "DroneHunter F700" is a system-operated counter UAV that is dispatched by the system to intercept a target. | ¶85 | col. 19:51-57 |
| the system-operated counter unmanned aerial vehicle configured to be guided by an RF control signal to aerially navigate to intercept the detected target based on autonomous navigation data supplied by the system. | Fortem's DroneHunter is allegedly configured to be guided by an RF control signal and navigate based on autonomous data supplied by the system to intercept a target. | ¶86 | col. 23:24-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: For the ’976 patent, a central question may be whether the "DroneHunter," an autonomous interceptor vehicle, falls within the scope of the term "kinetic effect," or if that term implies a simpler mechanism. For the ’651 patent, the dispute may focus on whether the accused "sensor fusion processor" functions in the specific manner claimed.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question for the ’651 patent will be the nature and flow of the "autonomous navigation data." The analysis will question what evidence shows that the DroneHunter is navigated by data "supplied by the system" for its full intercept, as opposed to receiving initial vectoring data and then using its own onboard AI and sensors for terminal guidance.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "kinetic effect" (’976 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term's definition is critical to whether the accused DroneHunter product infringes the ’976 patent. The complaint alleges the DroneHunter provides this "kinetic effect" (Compl. ¶ 80). The defense may argue the term should be limited to simpler, non-autonomous interactions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited. Dependent claims 2 and 3 separately add limitations for "non-destructive" and "destructive" devices, suggesting the parent term "kinetic effect" is intended to be a broad category encompassing both (’976 Patent, Claims 2, 3).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of kinetic effects, such as "flying into it, dropping a net on the threat, covering it with spray foam or liquid or capturing the opposing sUAS" (’976 Patent, col. 8:57-60). A party could argue these examples define the intended scope, which may not include a separate, autonomously guided interceptor drone.
Term: "autonomous navigation data supplied by the system" (’651 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the infringement theory for the ’651 patent. The case will turn on whether the accused DroneHunter operates using data "supplied by" the SkyDome manager in the manner required by the claim (Compl. ¶ 86).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a counter-UAS being "dispatched with autonomous navigation data being supplied by the system...to locate and intentionally disable the opposing sUAS" (’651 Patent, col. 19:51-54). This could be interpreted to mean the system provides the necessary flight plan or targeting data, which the counter-drone then executes autonomously.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An opposing party could argue that "supplied by the system" requires a more direct and continuous form of control, where the base system's data is the primary source of navigation throughout the intercept. If the DroneHunter uses its own onboard sensors and processing for terminal guidance, it may raise the question of whether the navigation is still based on data "supplied by the system."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Fortem induces infringement by providing customers with products like the SkyDome Manager and DroneHunter along with instructions and manuals that encourage and direct their use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 105, 123). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused products are material components especially designed for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 106, 124).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Fortem had actual notice of the patents-in-suit as of at least April 3, 2023, and of the broader patent portfolio as of June 9, 2021, but continued its allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 88-90, 101, 119).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "kinetic effect" in the ’976 patent, which the specification illustrates with nets and spray foam, be construed to cover a sophisticated, AI-guided interceptor drone like the accused DroneHunter?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of data provenance and control: for the ’651 patent, what is the precise nature of the "autonomous navigation data" that flows between the SkyDome Manager and the DroneHunter? The case may turn on factual evidence demonstrating whether the interceptor drone is primarily navigated by data "supplied by the system" or by its own independent, onboard intelligence.
- A third central question will be one of functional operation: does the combination of Fortem's accused products—its radars, RF detectors, and software—perform the specific data fusion and processing steps recited in the "location processor" and "sensor fusion processor" limitations of the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation?