2:24-cv-00905
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: 2:24-cv-00905, D. Utah, 02/14/2025
- 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 products and systems infringe a patent related to the integrated detection, tracking, and interdiction of unmanned aerial systems.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS), a technology field focused on defending airspace against threats from small, commercially available drones.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes two prior lawsuits between the parties involving different, but related, patents. The first suit resulted in a claim construction order for terms not present in the currently asserted patent, and the second was dismissed for "impermissible claim splitting," a motion to alter that judgment is pending. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of the patent-in-suit on October 1, 2024, and that three other companies have licensed its patent portfolio.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-12-19 | '756 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-06-09 | Plaintiff allegedly provides Defendant with notice of its patent portfolio |
| 2023-07-06 | First lawsuit between the parties filed |
| 2024-01-30 | Second lawsuit between the parties filed |
| 2024-09-17 | U.S. Patent No. 12,092,756 Issues |
| 2024-10-01 | Plaintiff allegedly provides Defendant with specific notice of '756 Patent infringement |
| 2024-10-09 | Second lawsuit dismissed |
| 2024-10-31 | Defendant announces partnership with SkySafe for an "integrated solution" |
| 2025-02-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,092,756 - "Deterrent For Unmanned Aerial Systems"
- Issued: September 17, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the security threat posed by small, commercially available unmanned aerial systems (sUAS), or drones, which are difficult to detect and counter with traditional military air defense systems that are not designed for slow, low-altitude targets in cluttered civilian environments (’756 Patent, col. 3:10-14, 53-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an integrated, multi-sensor system to detect, classify, and interdict a drone (’756 Patent, Abstract). It combines different sensor types, such as radar, omnidirectional and directional radio frequency (RF) receivers, and electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) cameras, to overcome the limitations of any single sensor (’756 Patent, col. 2:29-39). A sensor fusion processor analyzes the combined data to identify the drone and assess its threat level, which can trigger a countermeasure, such as dispatching a counter-drone or transmitting a targeted RF signal to disrupt the drone’s controls (’756 Patent, col. 2:40-54). The complaint references the patent's block diagram, Figure 1A, to describe how specialized software and database libraries are used to select a specific electronic countermeasure based on the target drone's identified characteristics (Compl. ¶45).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes a layered, multi-phenomenology approach that was needed to provide a more reliable solution for C-UAS defense in complex, non-military settings where single-sensor systems are often ineffective (’756 Patent, col. 4:53-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, 19, and 30.
- Independent Claim 1: A system comprising: at least one radar; one or more processors coupled to the radar to determine direction and range; and a counter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) dispatchable by the system, where its flight path is initiated by a transmitted RF signal from the processors.
- Independent Claim 11: A system comprising: at least one radar; one or more processors coupled to the radar to determine direction and range; and a counter UAV dispatched by a transmitted RF signal from the processors.
- Independent Claim 19: A system comprising: at least one omnidirectional RF sensor; at least one radar; at least one processor coupled to both sensors to detect a target and determine its direction and range; and a counter UAV dispatched by a transmitted RF signal from the processor.
- Independent Claim 30: A system comprising: at least one RF sensor; at least one radar; and one or more processors operatively connected to both, where the processors execute a computer program to process the sensor data, perform a threat assessment, and initiate a countermeasure based on that assessment.
- The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶92).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s counter-drone technologies, including the "SkyDome Manager" software, the "DroneHunter" interceptor drone, "TrueView" series radars, the "TrueView C30 Camera System," the "Edge Fusion System," and a "fully integrated solution" developed with partner SkySafe (Compl. ¶¶59, 92).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these products form a "powerful, multi-layered airspace security system" that combines "passive radio frequency (RF) detection technology with Fortem's radar-based tracking and mitigation tools" (Compl. ¶¶63, 64). The system is alleged to perform "real-time drone detection, identification, tracking, and mitigation," with automated options to "neutralize unauthorized drones" through "interception and safe landing protocols" (Compl. ¶64). The complaint alleges these systems are marketed to customers in the defense, airport, energy, law enforcement, and public venue sectors (Compl. ¶82).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint does not contain a claim chart exhibit but makes narrative allegations mapping the accused products to the claims. The following table summarizes the allegations for a representative independent claim.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least one omnidirectional RF sensor; | Fortem’s system allegedly includes at least one omnidirectional RF sensor and combines its radar with SkySafe’s passive RF detection technology. | ¶¶70, 77 | col. 10:11-23 |
| at least one radar; | Fortem's technology allegedly includes a radar (e.g., TrueView series) for detecting the 3D position of a drone. | ¶¶69, 77 | col. 9:48-51 |
| at least one processor coupled to the at least one omnidirectional RF sensor, and the at least one radar, the at least one processor configured to detect a target and determine direction and range of the target in response to the at least one omnidirectional RF sensor and the at least one radar; and | The integrated system allegedly uses one or more processors (e.g., in SkyDome Manager) coupled to the RF sensor and radar to determine the target's direction and range. | ¶¶77, 78 | col. 12:5-24 |
| a counter unmanned aerial vehicle dispatched by a transmitted RF signal from the at least one processor to the counter unmanned aerial vehicle. | The system allegedly includes the "DroneHunter" counter-UAV, which is dispatched by a transmitted RF signal from the system's processor to interdict a target. | ¶¶73, 77 | col. 11:1-13 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that a "new" system was created through a partnership with SkySafe (Compl. ¶65). This raises the question of whether the combined Fortem and SkySafe components function as a single, integrated "system" that meets the "coupled to" and "operatively connected" requirements of the asserted claims.
- Technical Questions: Does the "transmitted RF signal" that allegedly "dispatches" the DroneHunter perform the specific function of "initiating" the flight path (as required by Claim 1), or is it a more general command? The complaint makes broad allegations (Compl. ¶75), but the specific technical nature of this signal will be a key factual issue.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "threat assessment" (Claim 30)
Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed intelligence of the system's processor. The outcome of its construction could determine whether Defendant’s decision-making logic infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification provides a detailed, multi-factor definition that may be narrower than a generic interpretation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of the term could encompass any process that evaluates data to determine if a target is a threat. The patent states the system determines a "level of threat assessment" to deploy interdiction, which could support a more general functional definition (’756 Patent, col. 2:42-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process for generating a "threat value (ThV)" based on a weighted analysis of multiple criteria, including "Location, Target Classification, Bearing, Speed, Payload, Size, and Flight Profile" (’756 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 21:15-23). An argument could be made that a "threat assessment" must include this specific type of multi-factor, quantitative analysis.
The Term: "processors operatively connected to the at least one RF sensor and the at least one radar" (Claim 30)
Context and Importance: This term defines the required relationship between the system's core components. Infringement will depend on whether the alleged combination of Fortem and SkySafe technologies meets this standard of integration.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: "Operatively connected" could be construed broadly to mean that the components work together in the system to achieve the end result, even if the connection is indirect or data is passed sequentially. The specification describes a "sensor fusion processor" that analyzes the "outputs of these sensors," suggesting a functional, rather than a strictly physical, connection is required (’756 Patent, col. 2:40-42).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed system diagrams (e.g., Fig. 1A, Fig. 3) show specific data pathways between the sensors and the "Host Workstation CPU" (’756 Patent, Fig. 1A, 24). An argument could be made that "operatively connected" requires a direct, integrated data processing architecture, not merely separate systems that communicate or are marketed as a combined "solution."
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant provides instructions and encouragement for customers to use the accused systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶112). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the accused products are a material part of the invention, are specially designed for infringing use, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶113).
Willful Infringement
The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The complaint alleges that Defendant received written notice of the ’756 Patent, including a claim chart, on October 1, 2024, and had prior knowledge of Plaintiff’s patent portfolio from a notice sent on June 9, 2021 (Compl. ¶¶83, 84). The complaint characterizes the alleged infringement as "intentional, deliberate, malicious, willful, and in bad faith" (Compl. ¶89).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "threat assessment," as used in Claim 30, be construed to cover the decision-making logic in Defendant’s accused systems, or is it limited to the specific multi-factor, quantitative "Threat Value" (ThV) calculation detailed in the patent’s specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of system integration: does the evidence show that Defendant’s products, particularly the "integrated solution" with SkySafe technology, are "operatively connected" as a single system in the manner required by the claims, or do they operate as distinct components whose combination does not meet the claim limitations?
- A third central question will concern willfulness: given the detailed allegations of prior litigation and specific pre-suit notice, did Defendant’s continued sale and marketing of its C-UAS systems, especially after announcing a "new" integrated solution post-notice, constitute conduct egregious enough to warrant a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?