DCT

1:23-cv-00931

SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd v. Bell Textron Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: SZ DJI Technology Co. Ltd. v. Bell Textron Inc., 1:23-cv-00931, E.D. Va., 07/14/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Bell Textron operates an "Advanced Vertical Lift Center" within the Eastern District of Virginia and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s helicopters and associated avionics systems infringe four patents related to assisted takeoff, aircraft attitude control, flight route setting, and data distribution from a movable object.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves flight control systems, a critical field for both unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), where Plaintiff is a market leader, and modern manned rotorcraft, Defendant's primary market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant was aware of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,126,693 and 9,958,874 since at least March 29, 2023, due to a separate lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Bell Textron Canada. It further alleges Defendant was aware of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,692,387 and 10,904,755 since at least July 13, 2023, as a result of a letter from Plaintiff's counsel. These allegations of pre-suit knowledge form the basis for the willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-03-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,126,693 Priority Date
2014-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,958,874 Priority Date
2014-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 10,692,387 Priority Date
2015-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,126,693 Issued
2016-06-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,904,755 Priority Date
2018-05-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,958,874 Issued
2020-06-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,692,387 Issued
2021-01-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,904,755 Issued
2023-03-29 Plaintiff files lawsuit against Bell Textron Canada asserting the ’693 and ’874 Patents
2023-07-13 Plaintiff’s counsel sends letter to Bell regarding the ’387 and ’755 Patents
2023-07-14 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,126,693 - "Assisted Takeoff"

  • Issued: September 8, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Traditional Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers used in aerial vehicles can cause instability during takeoff. The "memory effects of integration" combined with ground forces can lead to incorrect control inputs, potentially causing the vehicle to crash or fail to take off vertically (ʼ693 Patent, col. 1:18-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-stage control method for takeoff. It uses a first control scheme (e.g., one that eliminates or defaults the integral control component) while the vehicle is lifting off the ground. Once the vehicle meets a defined "takeoff threshold"—determined by factors like motor output and/or vertical acceleration—the system seamlessly switches to a second, standard control scheme (e.g., full PID control) for normal flight (ʼ693 Patent, col. 1:38-45, Abstract). This avoids the instability caused by applying integral control while ground forces are still a factor.
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a more stable and reliable takeoff process for vertical-takeoff aircraft, which may make them safer and easier to operate, particularly for inexperienced users (ʼ693 Patent, col. 1:21-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 of the ’693 Patent (Compl. ¶19).
  • Essential elements of claim 18 include:
    • An actuator of an aerial vehicle, where output to the actuator increases the vehicle's altitude.
    • One or more processors configured to:
      • Determine whether the aerial vehicle has met a "takeoff threshold" based on actuator output, measured output, or vehicle velocity/acceleration, without using external signals.
      • Generate a signal to control the actuator using a "first control scheme" when the threshold is not met.
      • Generate a signal to control the actuator using a "second control scheme" when the threshold has been met.
  • The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶20).

U.S. Patent No. 9,958,874 - "Aircraft Attitude Control Methods"

  • Issued: May 1, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional flight control methods use cascaded PID controllers where attitude control depends on a separate angular velocity control loop. Tuning these systems is complex, and they react to disturbances only after the aircraft's angular velocity has already been affected, limiting their responsiveness (ʼ874 Patent, col. 1:11-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a control method where "aircraft configuration parameters" are first calculated based on the aircraft's physical characteristics (e.g., weight, dimensions, moment of inertia). These model-based parameters are then fed into a feedback control scheme, which can include an "angular acceleration loop" and "feedforward calculation," to generate control commands for the aircraft's actuators (ʼ874 Patent, col. 1:40-55, Abstract). By integrating the aircraft's physical model into the control logic, the system can more proactively counteract disturbances.
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for a more robust and stable attitude control system that can be more easily adapted to different aircraft models and can respond more quickly to disturbances compared to traditional reactive control methods (ʼ874 Patent, col. 7:47-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 of the ’874 Patent (Compl. ¶27).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Calculating one or more "aircraft configuration parameters" based on one or more "physical characteristics" of an aircraft.
    • Receiving a signal indicating a target attitude.
    • Generating a command signal for an actuator based on both the target attitude signal and the calculated aircraft configuration parameters, using a feedback control scheme that includes an angular acceleration loop.
    • Measuring the aircraft's dynamics using sensors.
    • Feeding the measured dynamics back to the processor to adjust or confirm the command signal.
  • The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Patent No. 10,692,387 - "Method and Device for Setting a Flight Route"

  • Issued: June 23, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses methods for setting and editing an aerial vehicle's flight route via a user interface. The disclosed technology involves acquiring route data, such as from a geometric figure drawn by a user on a map, and then displaying that route on an interface that automatically zooms to fit the waypoints. The user can then edit the displayed route to obtain updated flight data for the vehicle (ʼ387 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-18).

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).

  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Bell helicopter models 505, 407, 429, 412, and 525 when used with the Garmin Pilot app, specifically implicating the app's "Freehand" feature (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 10,904,755 - "Data Distribution from a Movable Object"

  • Issued: January 26, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for managing data distribution from a movable object (e.g., a UAV) to an external "affiliated device." The method involves receiving a request for "characteristic data" from the device, confirming that the data is available and that the requester has the necessary "privilege" to access it, and then providing the data. The invention is framed as supporting an open and secure environment for third-party applications to interact with and receive data from movable objects (ʼ755 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-16).

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).

  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Bell helicopter models 505, 407GXi, 429, and 525 when used with the Garmin Flight Stream 510, a device that facilitates data transfer between avionics and mobile devices (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are various commercial helicopter models manufactured by Defendant, including the Bell 505, Bell 407GXi, Bell 429, Bell 412, and Bell 525. The allegations also implicate third-party avionics systems used with these helicopters, namely the Garmin Pilot application (specifically its "Freehand" feature) and the Garmin Flight Stream 510 data gateway (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 26, 34, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these modern helicopters incorporate advanced flight control and data communication features. Specifically, it points to attitude control functions aided by Garmin avionics, flight route planning via the Garmin Pilot app, and data distribution capabilities enabled by the Garmin Flight Stream 510 (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 34, 42). Plaintiff frames Defendant as a legacy manufacturer in the manned aircraft space that has "belatedly sought to add certain control features to its manned aircraft and build UAVs like those pioneered by DJI" (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement theories within its body. Instead, it incorporates by reference external Exhibits E, F, G, and H, which are described as claim charts but were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 27, 35, 43). In the absence of this evidence, the infringement analysis is based on the narrative allegations.

Plaintiff alleges that the accused Bell 505 and 407GXi helicopters directly infringe the ’693 Patent by practicing the claimed method for assisted takeoff (Compl. ¶¶ 18-20). For the ’874 Patent, the complaint alleges the Bell 505 helicopter, which uses Garmin avionics for attitude control, directly infringes by practicing the claimed method of using physical characteristics to inform attitude control (Compl. ¶¶ 26-28).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "movable object" and its embodiments in the patents, which are described primarily in the context of UAVs, can be construed to read on large, manned commercial helicopters. The defense may argue that the technical problems and solutions described are specific to the unique physics and control challenges of small, unmanned aircraft.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’693 Patent will raise the evidentiary question of whether the accused helicopters employ a two-stage takeoff control system that switches schemes based on the claimed "takeoff threshold." For the ’874 Patent, a key technical question is what evidence the complaint provides that the accused Garmin avionics perform a real-time "calculation" of "aircraft configuration parameters" from physical characteristics, as opposed to using pre-programmed or conventionally tuned control laws.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’693 Patent

  • The Term: "takeoff threshold"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement determination hinges on the aircraft switching from a "first control scheme" to a "second control scheme" precisely when this "threshold" is met. The definition of this term is critical because it defines the trigger for the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if a general altitude or speed condition suffices, or if the specific criteria laid out in the specification are required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, referring generally to a threshold "based on the output to the actuator, the output measured from the actuator, or velocity or acceleration of the aerial vehicle" (ʼ693 Patent, cl. 18). This could support a construction covering any trigger related to these factors.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific, multi-part examples of what constitutes the threshold, such as when "the output to the actuator is greater than a first predetermined output value and acceleration...exceeds a predetermined acceleration value" (ʼ693 Patent, col. 2:38-44). This may support a narrower construction requiring a more complex, multi-conditional trigger.

For the ’874 Patent

  • The Term: "calculating one or more aircraft configuration parameters based on one or more physical characteristics of an aircraft"
  • Context and Importance: This term recites the core inventive concept. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused avionics system actually performs this specific type of calculation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from conventional control systems that use pre-set gains or parameters not explicitly derived from the aircraft's physical model in the manner claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: One could argue the term covers any control system that considers physical characteristics, even if the "calculation" is performed offline or is part of a factory calibration.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links "physical characteristics" (e.g., dimension, weight) directly to the "calculating" of "configuration parameters" (e.g., moment of inertia, aerodynamic center) which are then used in the control scheme (ʼ874 Patent, col. 1:41-48; col. 2:1-4). This supports a construction requiring the system to actively derive control parameters from a physical model of the specific aircraft.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

Plaintiff alleges induced infringement for all four patents, asserting that Defendant provides materials such as "flights manuals," "specifications," and marketing that "touted the benefits" of the accused features, thereby encouraging users to operate the helicopters in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 29, 37, 45). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement for all asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 30, 38, 46).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The claims are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a prior lawsuit filed March 29, 2023 (for the ’693 and ’874 Patents) and a notice letter sent July 13, 2023 (for the ’387 and ’755 Patents) (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 23, 31, 39, 47).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical applicability: can patent claims directed to solving stability and control problems in the context of lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) be construed to cover the sophisticated, certified avionics and flight control systems of large, manned commercial helicopters? The case may turn on whether the technical challenges and solutions are fundamentally analogous or distinct across these different classes of aircraft.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: absent the referenced claim charts, Plaintiff will need to produce specific evidence showing that the accused Bell helicopters and third-party Garmin systems perform the precise functions claimed. This includes demonstrating not just similar outcomes, but the practice of the specific multi-step processes, such as switching control schemes based on a defined "takeoff threshold" (’693 Patent) or actively "calculating" control parameters from the aircraft’s physical model (’874 Patent).