SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd v. Autel Robotics USA LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00343
• Patent #: 9,260,184
• Filed: November 16, 2018
• Petitioner(s): SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Autel Robotics USA LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-2, 5-9, 11

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Rotary Wing Aircraft
• Brief Description: The ’184 patent discloses a rotary wing aircraft, such as a quadcopter drone, featuring a specific keyed lock mechanism for attaching rotor blades. The mechanism is designed to prevent clockwise-rotating blades from being attached to counterclockwise-rotating driveshafts, and vice versa, by using distinct physical configurations for each.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-2 under §102 over Microdrones

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Microdrones (User Manual for md4-200, Version 2.2).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Microdrones manual discloses every element of claims 1 and 2. The manual describes the md4-200, a rotary wing aircraft with a body, arms, and rotor assemblies. Critically, it discloses a lock mechanism for releasably attaching rotor blades that uses projecting knobs ("lugs") on the blade's center bar that engage corresponding holds ("notches") on a rotor mounting plate attached to the driveshaft. For claim 2, Petitioner asserted that Microdrones teaches a keyed system where the spacing between the lugs/notches is different for clockwise versus counterclockwise blades to prevent "accidental misplacement," thereby meeting the limitation that the lug configuration for the counterclockwise blade is different from that of the clockwise blade.
  • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that the very feature added during prosecution to secure allowance of the claims—the keyed lug and notch system—was explicitly disclosed in a single prior art reference.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 5-6 under §103 over Microdrones in view of Wang

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Microdrones, and Wang (Application # 2014/0263823).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that while Microdrones provides the base aircraft as recited in claim 1, it lacks the specific landing leg configuration of claims 5 and 6. Wang was asserted to remedy this deficiency by disclosing a UAV with landing legs that extend downward from the bottom of the rotor assemblies (claim 5) and slope downward and away from the body (claim 6).
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve the stability of the Microdrones aircraft. Attaching legs to the rotor assemblies, as taught by Wang, creates a wider and more secure landing base compared to the narrower, centrally-located legs of Microdrones. This modification was presented as a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve a predictable and improved result.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would be simple, requiring only altering the design and attachment point of the legs, which is a routine modification in the field of mechanical design with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 8 under §103 over Microdrones in view of LotusRC and Slanker

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Microdrones, LotusRC (archived Alibaba.com webpage), and Slanker (Application # 2015/0203192).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of Microdrones and LotusRC, which together were argued to teach the pivotally attached, retractable landing gear of claim 7. To meet the limitations of claim 8, Petitioner introduced Slanker. Slanker was asserted to teach conventional components of retractable landing gear: a "bias element" (a spring system) that urges the leg toward the stored position and a "latch" (a locking mechanism) that secures the leg in the deployed, operating position.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having decided to implement the retractable legs of LotusRC onto the Microdrones aircraft, would naturally look to conventional aircraft landing gear art, like Slanker, to implement the biasing and locking functions. These features were argued to be well-known solutions to common problems in retractable mechanisms, such as preventing accidental deployment or collapse. The motivation was to add standard, known components to the retractable leg design to ensure its proper and safe functioning.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementing a scaled version of Slanker's spring and latch mechanism into the combined Microdrones-LotusRC design was presented as a straightforward application of known engineering principles with a high expectation of success.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including: claims 1-2 are obvious over Microdrones (§103); claims 5 and 7 are obvious over Microdrones in view of LotusRC (§103); claim 9 is obvious over Microdrones in view of LotusRC and Wang (§103); and claim 11 is obvious over Microdrones in view of Olm (Patent 8,052,081) (§103).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "lugs" & "notches" (Claims 1-2): Petitioner proposed that "lugs" should be construed as "projections" and "notches" as "indentations." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification and dictionary definitions and is important for mapping these features to the "knobs" and "holds" described in the Microdrones reference.
• "lock mechanism" (Claims 1-2): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "one or more components that enable a rotor blade to be releasably attached." This construction relies on the open-ended term "comprises" in the claims, arguing the mechanism is not limited to only the recited shaft and blade lock portions. This allows the O-rings used in Microdrones to be considered part of its "lock mechanism."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the primary reference, Microdrones, was not cited or considered during prosecution. Petitioner contended that Microdrones is materially different from the art before the Examiner because it anticipates the very "lugs" and "notches" limitation that the Applicant added to the claims to overcome prior art rejections. The petition asserted this presents new evidence and arguments that warrant reconsideration by the Office.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 5-9, and 11 of the ’184 patent as unpatentable.