DCT
2:24-cv-00080
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
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00080, D. Utah, 01/30/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the District of Utah and is authorized to transact business in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s counter-drone systems infringe a patent related to multi-sensor systems for detecting, tracking, identifying, and mitigating unmanned aerial systems.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of detecting and countering small, low, and slow drones by integrating data from multiple sensors, such as radio frequency receivers and radar.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of its patent portfolio on June 9, 2021, and later provided a specific notice of infringement with a claim chart on January 2, 2024. The complaint also notes that three unnamed entities have non-exclusively licensed the patent portfolio.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-12-19 | '010 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-04-01 | Sandia Report on counter-UAS challenges issued |
| 2020-10-06 | U.S. Patent No. 10,795,010 Issued |
| 2021-06-09 | Plaintiff allegedly provides pre-suit notice to Defendant |
| 2024-01-02 | Plaintiff allegedly provides infringement claim chart to Defendant |
| 2024-01-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,795,010 - "Systems And Methods For Detecting, Tracking And Identifying Small Unmanned Systems Such As Drones," issued October 6, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need for a method to detect unmanned aerial systems (drones) that pose potential hazards to aviation and property, and which could be used for invading privacy or for criminal or terrorist activities (’010 Patent, col. 1:29-45). The complaint supplements this by citing a 2015 Sandia Report, which frames the detection of "low, slow, and small" (LSS) drones as a "challenging problem" that cannot be solved with a single detection modality due to background clutter (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an integrated system that combines different sensor technologies to detect, identify, track, and counter drones (’010 Patent, col. 1:55-61). The system uses a radio frequency (RF) receiver to detect communication signals, a radar to determine location, and a processor to fuse this data to confirm a target is a drone, after which countermeasures can be deployed (’010 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This combination of software and hardware provides a "diversified solution" to the drone threat (’010 Patent, col. 2:10-12).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that at the time of the invention, "urgent action" was needed because no single sensor type could provide a sufficient tracking and identification capability, necessitating a move toward "sensor data fusion" (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least representative claim 6, which depends on independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- at least one radio receiver configured to detect a radio frequency (RF) signature from a signal between an aerial target and its controller;
- at least one radar configured to detect the target; and
- at least one computer processor programmed to:
- identify the target based on the detected RF signature;
- locate the target based on the radar detection; and
- determine if the target is an unmanned aerial system (UAS) based on that identification and/or location.
- Dependent Claim 6 adds:
- an electronic countermeasure (ECM) signal generator configured to transmit an ECM signal to disrupt communications with the UAS.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities include Fortem’s "SkyDome Manager," "TrueView R20 Radar," "TrueView R30 Radar," "TrueView C30 Camera System," "Edge Fusion System," and "Counter-UAS Stations" (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 61).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are used to create a "layered" counter-drone system that "detects, tracks, and mitigates" class 1 and 2 drones (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 53, Ex. C). The system allegedly includes at least one radio receiver to detect RF signatures, radar to detect targets, and a computer processor that uses this data to identify a target as a UAS (Compl. ¶¶ 48-50). The system is also alleged to include an electronic countermeasure capability described as "electronic jamming" (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 53). The complaint alleges these systems are marketed to sectors including "Defense," "Airports," "Energy," and "Law Enforcement" (Compl. ¶ 52).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint incorporates visual evidence to support its technical arguments about the state of the art. For example, a slide from the Sandia Report titled "NATO Report Summary" is used to assert that "No sensor type provides a sufficient tracking and identification capability used by itself against the LSS threat," underscoring the need for the patented multi-sensor fusion approach (Compl. p. 7).
'010 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least one radio receiver configured to detect a radio frequency (RF) signature based on a radio signal communicated between an aerial target and a remote control device; | Fortem's technology allegedly includes at least one radio receiver configured to detect an RF signature from a signal between an aerial target and a remote control device. | ¶48 | col. 10:21-25 |
| at least one radar configured to detect the target; | Fortem's technology allegedly includes at least one radar, such as the TrueView R20 or R30 Radar, configured to detect the target. | ¶49 | col. 10:26-27 |
| at least one computer processor programmed to identify the target based on the detected RF signature and locate the target based on the radar detection, and based on at least one of target identification and/or target location, determine if the target is an unmanned aerial system (UAS). | Fortem's technology allegedly includes at least one computer processor programmed to identify the target based on the detected RF signature, locate the target based on radar detection, and determine if the target is a UAS. | ¶50 | col. 10:28-35 |
| [From Claim 6] an electronic countermeasure (ECM) signal generator configured to transmit an ECM signal to disrupt communications between the UAS and the remote control device. | Fortem's technology allegedly includes an ECM signal generator that provides "electronic jamming" to disrupt communications between the UAS and its controller. | ¶¶51, 53 | col. 10:47-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint dedicates significant space to arguing against patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, suggesting this may be a central defense (Compl. ¶¶ 24-42). This raises the question of whether the claimed combination was a patent-eligible technical improvement or an abstract idea of using multiple sensors.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused system performs the specific logic required by Claim 1: using RF data to "identify" the target and separately using radar data to "locate" it. The infringement analysis will likely focus on the evidence showing how, and in what sequence, the accused processor actually uses the data from the distinct RF and radar sensors.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "identify the target based on the detected RF signature"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "identify" is critical. It dictates the level of specificity required from the RF detection step. Whether this means a general classification (e.g., "is a drone") versus a more specific classification (e.g., "is a DJI Mavic drone") could determine infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's novelty appears to lie in its specific method of integrating sensor data, which could support a narrower definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the degree of identification required, which may support a construction where simply flagging a detected signal as characteristic of a drone is sufficient.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes using a "database library" and "modulation lookup table" to analyze RF signals and determine the "type of sUAS" (’010 Patent, col. 10:56-64). Further, it describes using an "ECM Modulation Type Select" algorithm to "narrow down the radio frequency identified" for a "specific unmanned aerial vehicle/system of interest" (’010 Patent, col. 4:26-34). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more detailed classification based on the RF signature.
The Term: "electronic countermeasure (ECM) signal generator"
- Context and Importance: This term from dependent claim 6 is central to the allegations of infringement for the complete system, including its mitigation features. The dispute may turn on whether the "electronic jamming" alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶ 53) meets the functional requirements of the claimed "ECM signal generator."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is broad. The patent states the purpose is to "disrupt communications," which could encompass a wide range of jamming or spoofing techniques (’010 Patent, col. 10:48-50).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific implementation where the ECM generator "employs waveform parameters of at least one of an uplink and a downlink radio signal" and uses a "Modulation Function Generation" algorithm to transmit a specific, tailored signal (’010 Patent, col. 10:51-54; col. 5:32-44). This may support a narrower construction requiring a more sophisticated, targeted signal generation rather than simple broadband noise jamming.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant instructs its customers to use the accused systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶ 71). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the accused products are a material part of the invention, are not staple items of commerce, and are especially designed for infringing use (Compl. ¶ 72).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff sent Defendant notice of its patent portfolio on June 9, 2021, and a specific infringement claim chart on January 2, 2024, but Defendant continued its allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 54-56). The complaint further alleges Defendant acted with "willful blindness" (Compl. ¶ 66).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of functional specificity: Does the accused system’s processor perform the precise, ordered logic of Claim 1—using RF data to "identify" the target and radar data to "locate" it—or does it fuse sensor data in a technically distinct, non-infringing manner? The case will likely require detailed evidence on the operational software and algorithms of the accused system.
The dispute may also turn on a question of claim construction: Can the term "identify," as used in the patent, be satisfied by a general classification, or does the specification's emphasis on database lookups and specific modulation types require a more detailed and specific technical outcome for a finding of infringement?
Finally, a central legal question will be one of patent eligibility: Given the complaint’s extensive pre-emptive defense of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the court will likely need to determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-eligible technical improvement in computer functionality or to an abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data from different sources.