PTAB

IPR2020-01472

DJI Europe BV v. Daedlus Blue LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods, Systems, and Products for Navigating a UAV
  • Brief Description: The ’913 patent discloses methods and systems for navigating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The system involves a remote control device with a graphical user interface (GUI) displaying a map, where an operator can select a pixel to define a waypoint, which is then transmitted to the UAV for autonomous navigation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Shim and Tso - Claims 8, 23, and 38 are obvious over Shim in view of Tso.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shim (“Multi-Functional Autopilot Design and Experiments for Rotorcraft-based Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” 2001) and Tso (“A Multi-Agent Operator Interface for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” 1999).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shim disclosed a hierarchical guidance and control system for UAVs that used waypoint navigation. Shim’s system included a “human-to-console interface” with a GUI, and its UAV had an onboard navigation computer and sensors for autonomous operation. However, Shim lacked specific details on the GUI implementation. Tso was argued to supply these missing details, disclosing a multi-agent operator interface for UAVs that allowed an operator to visualize a mission area and enter waypoints directly on a terrain image (a map), where each pixel corresponded to an actual location.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Shim’s system would be motivated to look for references detailing a ground station GUI. This search would lead to Tso, which was directed to the same field of UAV control. A POSITA would combine Tso’s intuitive GUI with Shim's system to provide a simplified, user-friendly interface, reducing the training level required for operators—a recognized issue in the field at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because both Shim and Tso employed flexible, agent-based architectures, making the integration of Tso’s GUI agents into Shim’s system straightforward.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Shim, Tso, and TCP/IP Sockets - Claims 10, 25, and 40 are obvious over Shim and Tso in view of TCP/IP Sockets.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shim (2001 article), Tso (1999 article), and TCP/IP Sockets (“TCP/IP Sockets in Java: Practical Guide for Programmers,” 2002).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Shim and Tso to address dependent claims reciting specific communication functionalities. Petitioner argued that while Shim suggested communication between the ground station and UAV using the TCP/IP protocol, it did not provide implementation details for sockets. TCP/IP Sockets, a programming guide, was alleged to disclose these well-known details, including how an application can "listen on a socket for downlink data," store the received data in memory, and expose the data to a navigation application "through an API," directly mapping to the limitations of claims 10, 25, and 40.
    • Motivation to Combine: Because Shim’s teachings on sockets were not detailed, a POSITA would be motivated to consult a standard reference like TCP/IP Sockets for implementation guidance. The use of sockets for TCP/IP communication was common knowledge, as acknowledged by the ’913 patent itself, making this combination a predictable design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because implementing socket communication was a well-understood and routine task for a POSITA at the time.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Sato and Lin - Claims 8, 23, and 38 are obvious over Sato in view of Lin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sato (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP2001-301695) and Lin (Patent 7,143,130).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to the Shim/Tso combination. Petitioner argued Sato disclosed a flight control system where an operator inputs a flight point by clicking on a map screen at a ground station. The flight data, including coordinates, was converted into a program and transmitted to the UAV for autonomous flight. Sato, however, did not specify the communication protocol. Lin was argued to disclose a system for multi-positioning and tracking that explicitly used TCP/IP sockets to exchange position data between separate devices.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Sato’s system would have needed to select a communication protocol. Given that TCP/IP and sockets were the standard and well-established method for network communication between devices by 2003, it would have been obvious to integrate the socket-based communication taught by Lin into Sato’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would be reasonably expected because using TCP/IP sockets was a common and well-understood implementation for communication between devices like a ground station and a UAV.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on adding Dittrich (for retrieving data structures and UAV instructions from the vehicle), Lohrenz (for specific techniques of mapping GUI pixel locations to Earth coordinates), and NASA (for using a telemetry API to expose data to navigation applications) to the core Shim/Tso and Sato/Lin combinations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that several limitations in system claims 23, 25-27, and 29, as well as computer program product claims 38, 40-42, and 44, were means-plus-function terms under §112.
  • “means for receiving” [Claim 23]:
    • Function: receiving in a remote control device a user’s selection of a GUI map pixel.
    • Structure: The I/O interface of the remote control, including hardware (e.g., input/output interface adapters) and associated software drivers for user input devices.
  • “mapping” means [Claim 23]:
    • Function: mapping the pixel’s location on the GUI to Earth coordinates of the waypoint.
    • Structure: A remote control processor executing an application that performs the mapping functions.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv. It contended that because the co-pending district court litigation had not yet set a trial date, a full analysis of the Fintiv factors was not possible. Petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue any ground raised in the IPR in the district court if the trial is instituted, thereby eliminating the possibility of overlapping issues.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 8, 10-12, 14, 23, 25-27, 29, 38, and 40-44 of the ’913 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.