DCT
1:24-cv-01625
Airspace Systems Inc v. Dedrone Holdings Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Airspace Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Axon Enterprise, Inc. (Delaware) and Dedrone Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Office of Craig C. Reilly, Esq.; Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01625, E.D. Va., 10/30/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged in the Eastern District of Virginia based on Defendant Dedrone maintaining its headquarters and a regular and established place of business in Sterling, Virginia. It is further alleged that Defendant Axon, upon acquiring Dedrone, ratified this location as its own place of business and that both defendants commit acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ counter-drone systems infringe three patents related to aerial system identification, discrimination based on permissions, and autonomous flight control using computer vision.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the detection, identification, and mitigation of drone threats, a critical security capability for protecting sensitive airspaces such as airports, stadiums, and government facilities.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Dedrone was made aware of the patents-in-suit through multiple communications and licensing negotiations with Plaintiff between 2020 and 2024. It further alleges that Defendant Axon became aware of the patents during its due diligence process before acquiring Dedrone on October 1, 2024. These allegations form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-06-12 | ’959 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 2016-03-17 | ’199 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 2016-10-09 | ’711 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 2019-04-02 | ’199 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-12-24 | ’711 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-07-14 | ’959 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-12-06 | Meeting where Airspace allegedly identified Asserted Patents to Dedrone |
| 2024-10-01 | Axon acquires Dedrone |
| 2024-10-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,249,199 - “System and Method for Aerial System Discrimination and Action”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,249,199, “System and Method for Aerial System Discrimination and Action,” issued April 2, 2019. (Compl. ¶27).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and the difficulty of distinguishing between authorized and unauthorized drones in a given airspace, noting that conventional prevention systems are often "global and incapable of distinguishing between authorized and unauthorized UAVs." (Compl. ¶¶ 15-18; ’199 Patent, col. 1:29-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a discrimination system where a drone transmits a unique identifier signal. A ground-based system receives the signal, consults a "permissions module" to determine if the drone is authorized in that airspace, and can activate a "disruption system" to interdict the drone if it is not permitted. (’199 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-15). This creates an automated "friend-or-foe" identification and response capability.
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for so-called "remote ID" systems, which are critical for managing drone traffic and ensuring security in sensitive areas. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶39).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An identifier transmission system coupled to an aerial system, configured to broadcast a unique identifier signal.
- An identification receiver.
- A permission module configured to receive the identifier signal and determine that the associated aerial system is not permitted in an airspace.
- A disruption system configured to disrupt the aerial system's operation, which is "preemptively enabled based the received aerial system identifier signal."
U.S. Patent No. 10,713,959 - “Low Altitude Aircraft Identification System”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,713,959, “Low Altitude Aircraft Identification System,” issued July 14, 2020. (Compl. ¶28).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Prior to the invention, there was no workable device "to automatically and remotely identify and track increasing volumes of low-altitude aircraft," particularly in scenarios involving swarms of drones. (Compl. ¶¶ 65-66).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a device coupled to a low-altitude aircraft that contains a radio communication module and antenna. This module is configured for two-way communication; it transmits a secure identifier and can receive and store information. It communicates with a "remote portable detection system" which provides a user interface to display information about multiple detected aircraft. (Compl. ¶64; ’959 Patent, col. 2:9-14).
- Technical Importance: This invention provides the on-board hardware component for a comprehensive remote ID and drone traffic management system, enabling both broadcast and two-way communication for enhanced tracking and control. (Compl. ¶65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 21. (Compl. ¶68).
- Essential elements of Claim 21 include:
- A device configured to communicate identification information, comprising a radio frequency (RF) communication antenna and a radio communication module.
- The RF antenna is coupled to the low-altitude aircraft.
- The radio communication module is configured to transmit a secure identifier, receive a radio signal and store information, and engage in two-way communication with a remote portable detection system.
- The remote portable detection system includes a user interface to provide information to a user about a plurality of detected aircraft.
U.S. Patent No. 10,514,711 - “Flight Control Using Computer Vision”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,514,711, “Flight Control Using Computer Vision,” issued December 24, 2019. (Compl. ¶29).
Technology Synopsis
The patent addresses the technical challenge of enabling drones to operate autonomously beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS) despite limited on-board computing power, which can cause unacceptable latency in flight control systems. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 111). The solution involves a computer program product on the drone that uses machine learning to receive and analyze images from a sensor, detect a target, determine the target’s three-dimensional relative location, and perform a flight control operation based on that location, including determining a "speed adjustment factor." (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 112).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least independent claim 20. (Compl. ¶116).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses Defendants’ DedroneBeyond and Axon DFR solutions, which may incorporate technology from partner Skydio, of infringement. These systems are alleged to use AI and machine learning for BVLOS flight, enabling drones to detect and avoid obstacles and maneuver relative to targets using computer vision. (Compl. ¶¶ 117, 126-128).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The primary accused instrumentalities are the DedroneTactical, DedroneBeyond, Axon Air, and Axon Drone as First Responder (DFR) solutions. (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 68, 116).
Functionality and Market Context
- DedroneTactical is described as an "expeditionary kit" for counter-UAS threat profiling and location. It includes RF sensors for detection, DedroneTracker.AI software for "autonomous system performance," and "RF-based defeat capability." (Compl. ¶40). A promotional image for DedroneTactical shows a "Base Kit" that enables RF detection and defeat on one mast. (Compl. p. 17).
- DedroneBeyond is a solution designed to "Safely Enable Drones to Fly Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS)." (Compl. p. 66). It is marketed for first responder operations in partnership with Axon and uses "computer-vision-enabled, sensor-fusion AI" for situational awareness. (Compl. ¶¶ 69, 72; Compl. p. 68). The complaint presents a diagram illustrating the DedroneBeyond system, which shows a ground operator, a drone, and a user interface displaying multiple aircraft. (Compl. p. 66).
- The complaint alleges these products are part of an integrated counter-drone and drone-as-a-first-responder ecosystem, particularly following Axon's acquisition of Dedrone, aimed at public safety and security markets. (Compl. ¶¶ 117, 140).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,249,199 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an identifier transmission system coupled to an aerial system, wherein the identifier transmission system is configured to broadcast an aerial system identifier signal unique to the aerial system; | FAA-compliant aerial systems, which the accused products are designed to detect, are required to have a "Remote ID" subsystem that broadcasts a unique identifier. This subsystem is alleged to be the claimed "identifier transmission system." | ¶41-43 | col. 7:47-51 |
| an identification receiver; | The DedroneTactical system includes RF sensors and DedroneTracker.AI software that receive and process information from aerial systems, including their remote identifiers. This combination is alleged to be the "identification receiver." | ¶45 | col. 4:56-64 |
| a permission module... configured to determine that the aerial system... is not permitted to be in an airspace; | The DedroneTracker.AI software allegedly receives the identifier signal and classifies the aerial system as friendly (permitted) or unauthorized (not permitted), thereby functioning as the "permission module." A graphic in the complaint depicts this friend/foe classification. (Compl. p. 20). | ¶46-47 | col. 4:6-15 |
| a disruption system... preemptively enabled based the received aerial system identifier signal. | DedroneTactical includes "defeat" systems (e.g., BlueHalo Titan jammers). Upon classification of a drone as unauthorized based on its identifier, these disruption mechanisms are allegedly "preemptively enabled" for use. | ¶48-49 | col. 2:15-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system's reliance on FAA-mandated Remote ID signals for classification meets the claim limitation of a "permission module... configured to determine that the aerial system... is not permitted." The dispute could turn on whether a simple friend/foe determination based on a received identifier is coextensive with determining permission for a specific "airspace."
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the disruption system to be "preemptively enabled based the received aerial system identifier signal." The analysis will likely focus on the precise timing and causal chain of events: does receiving the signal and classifying it as "unauthorized" directly and automatically enable a specific disruption action, or does it merely present an option for a human operator to take further steps?
10,713,959 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A device configured to communicate identification information associated with a low-altitude aircraft, the device comprising: a radio frequency communication antenna; and a radio communication module... | The complaint alleges this device is present on the low-altitude aircraft (e.g., Axon Air drones) used with the DedroneBeyond system. The infringement theory appears to be based on Defendants' use of, and inducement of customers to use, FAA-compliant drones that contain such on-board communication hardware. | ¶69-71, 75, 78 | col. 4:21-26 |
| wherein the radio communication module is configured to receive a received radio signal and store the information in a storage, | The on-board radio module allegedly receives navigation signals to control its flight (e.g., hover over a target) and stores identification information to comply with FAA regulations. | ¶82-83 | col. 7:1-3 |
| the radio communication module is configured to utilize a secure identifier, | The communication modules allegedly transmit a secure ID in compliance with FAA regulations, and the DedroneTracker.AI software can decode encrypted transmissions from certain drones. | ¶89-90 | col. 8:16-19 |
| the radio communication module is configured for two-way communication with a remote portable detection system; | The on-board module transmits its ID and receives navigation signals from the DedroneBeyond system, which is alleged to be the "remote portable detection system," thus establishing two-way communication. | ¶91-92 | col. 7:5-10 |
| the remote portable detection system includes a user interface configured to provide to a user, information associated with a plurality of different low-altitude aircrafts... | The DedroneBeyond system allegedly includes a user interface on a handheld device or other display that reports information about multiple tracked aircraft. | ¶94 | col. 8:39-43 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: This is a device claim directed to components on an aircraft. The complaint accuses Defendants, who primarily provide ground-based systems, of infringement. The case may turn on whether Defendants' use of drones containing the claimed device during testing and demonstrations constitutes direct infringement, and whether their marketing and sales of the ground system constitute inducement for their customers to use drones in an infringing manner.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused system's functionality constitute the claimed "two-way communication"? The complaint alleges the drone transmits its ID and receives navigation signals. The analysis will examine whether these uplink and downlink communications meet the specific requirements of the claim as interpreted in light of the patent's specification.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’199 Patent
The Term: "permission module"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because infringement hinges on whether the accused DedroneTracker.AI software, which classifies drones as "friendly or unauthorized," performs the function of a "permission module" that determines if a drone is "not permitted to be in an airspace." (Compl. ¶46). Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a simple binary classification or a more complex, airspace-specific rules engine.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires the module to "determine that the aerial system... is not permitted," which could be read broadly to cover any system that makes a binary authorization decision. (Compl. ¶39, element 1.c).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example of a permissions table that links specific "Airspace ID"s to specific "aerial system ID"s and permitted "Functions" (e.g., streaming, flying). (’199 Patent, FIG. 3, element 307). This may support an argument that the module must consider not just the drone's identity but also the specific airspace and the drone's intended action.
The Term: "preemptively enabled"
Context and Importance: The timing and automaticity of the disruption system's activation are central. The complaint alleges that upon classifying a drone as unauthorized, countermeasures are "preemptively enabled." (Compl. ¶49). The dispute will likely center on whether "enabled" means fully armed and automated or merely made available for subsequent human action.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the disruption system can be "automatically activated (e.g., unlocked) in response to determination that the UAV is unauthorized," suggesting an immediate, automated consequence of the permission check. (’199 Patent, col. 2:17-21).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes a flow chart where "Enable disruption system" is a distinct step that precedes the separate, optional step of "Disrupt aerial system operation." (’199 Patent, FIG. 2, elements 204, 205). This could suggest that "enabling" is a preparatory step, not the disruptive act itself.
For the ’959 Patent
- The Term: "A device configured to communicate..."
- Context and Importance: Claim 21 is a device claim. The core of the dispute will be whether Defendants, who sell ground-based control systems (DedroneBeyond) and integrated solutions (Axon DFR), can be held liable for infringing a claim directed to the hardware aboard the drone itself, which may be manufactured by a third party. Practitioners may focus on this term to frame arguments around direct vs. indirect infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The preamble is broad, covering any "device" with the recited capabilities. The complaint alleges Defendants "use" FAA-compliant drones with this device during testing and induce customers to use them, potentially bringing their actions within the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 271. (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 76).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed claim elements recite specific components like an "antenna" and "module" coupled to the aircraft. This may support an argument that liability attaches primarily to the manufacturer, seller, or direct operator of the physical drone hardware, not necessarily the provider of a ground system that communicates with it. (’959 Patent, Claim 21).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint heavily alleges inducement of infringement for all three patents. For the ’199 and ’959 patents, the theory is that Defendants instruct and encourage customers to use their ground-based systems with third-party, FAA-compliant drones that contain the allegedly infringing transmitter (’199) or on-board device (’959). (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55, 99-100). For the ’711 patent, inducement is alleged based on Defendants supplying software solutions that instruct customers' drones to perform the patented BVLOS flight control methods. (Compl. ¶¶ 139-140).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint bases this on Defendants’ alleged knowledge of the patents stemming from licensing negotiations between Airspace and Dedrone from 2020-2024, including a specific meeting in December 2023, and Axon’s alleged awareness from its acquisition due diligence. (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 60-61, 105-106, 145-146).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of liability for system-level infringement: The infringement theories often depend on combining Defendants' ground-based products with third-party drones. The case will likely turn on whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendants direct or control their customers' use of these combined systems to a degree sufficient to establish direct infringement, or alternatively, whether it can prove the specific intent required for induced infringement.
- A key question will be one of claim scope and technical operation: For the ’199 patent, the court will need to determine if classifying a drone as "unauthorized" based on its Remote ID is legally equivalent to the claimed "permission module" that determines it is "not permitted to be in an airspace," and whether the subsequent arming of countermeasures satisfies the "preemptively enabled" limitation.
- An essential evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: For the ’711 patent on computer vision flight control, the analysis will require a detailed technical comparison of the accused AI/ML software's internal operations against the specific multi-step method of Claim 20, particularly the claimed step of "determining a speed adjustment factor based on a magnitude of deviation of a direction."