PTAB

IPR2019-00716

SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd v. Dareltech LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Handheld Device for Holding and Operating a Mobile Phone
  • Brief Description: The ’128 patent discloses a handheld device for holding a mobile phone to take photographs and videos. The device integrates a handle, a coupler for the phone, and remote-control components, such as buttons and a wireless interface module (e.g., Bluetooth or Wi-Fi), to operate the phone’s camera remotely.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-29 are obvious over Fromm, Fenton, and Bolton.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fromm (Patent 7,684,694), Fenton (WO 2012/018405), and Bolton (Application # 2011/0058052).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of the three references taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Fromm disclosed the fundamental handheld apparatus for supporting a camera, including a handgrip, an extensible support, and an integrated remote control powered by batteries. However, Fromm’s device was designed for traditional cameras and only suggested that a “special adaptor” would be required for use with a picture phone, without providing specifics. Fenton disclosed precisely such a “special adaptor”: a universal, spring-loaded holder designed to securely clamp mobile phones of various sizes and attach to another apparatus, thereby teaching the claimed “coupler.” Fromm’s remote control was not designed for modern smartphones; Bolton remedied this deficiency by disclosing a wireless remote-control accessory using Bluetooth to connect with and operate the camera functions (e.g., photo, video, zoom) of a smartphone. The combination of Fromm's handle, Fenton's coupler, and Bolton's wireless control system rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a clear motivation to combine the references to create a commercially viable product. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), starting with Fromm’s handheld camera support, would have been motivated to adapt it for the ubiquitous smartphone market. Fromm itself prompted this by stating a “special adaptor” would be needed for a picture phone. A POSITA would have looked to a known solution like Fenton’s universal smartphone holder to serve as this adaptor. Furthermore, because Fromm’s remote control was incompatible with smartphones, a POSITA would have been motivated to replace it with a known smartphone-compatible wireless remote, such as the one taught by Bolton, to make the final product functional.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involved attaching Fenton's well-understood mechanical holder to Fromm’s handle via a standard connector (like a tripod mount) and substituting one self-contained remote-control system (Fromm’s) with another (Bolton’s). These were all known components used for their intended purposes, presenting no technical hurdles and making success predictable.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner’s argument centered on the idea that the ’128 patent merely combined three existing, off-the-shelf concepts to create a modern "selfie stick," a predictable product evolution. The argument systematically addressed each claimed module—the handle (Fromm), the coupler (Fenton), and the wireless remote-control system (Bolton)—to show that no inventive step was involved. Petitioner also mapped how the combination met limitations in dependent claims, such as a “handle pillar” (the combined handle and support from Fromm), a “spring-loaded chuck” (Fenton’s holder), and a Bluetooth interface (Bolton).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-29 of the ’128 patent as unpatentable.