DJI Europe BV v. Daedlus Blue LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-01474
• Patent #: 7,228,232
• Filed: August 14, 2020
• Petitioner(s): DJI Europe B.V.
• Patent Owner(s): Daedalus Blue LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-6, 13-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Navigating an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle with Obstacle Avoidance
• Brief Description: The ’232 patent discloses methods, systems, and computer program products for navigating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The technology involves using a sequence of GPS data to anticipate a future position of the UAV, identifying a potential obstacle based on that future position, and executing an avoidance maneuver.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Sanders - Claims 1, 6, 13, and 18 are obvious over Sanders.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sanders (“Real-time Collision Avoidance for Autonomous Air Vehicles,” a 1998 MIT Master of Science Thesis).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sanders’ implemented Draper Small Autonomous Air Vehicle (DSAAV) system taught every limitation of the challenged independent claims. Sanders’ system navigated an autonomous air vehicle (AAV), which is a type of UAV. Its guidance, navigation, and control system read a sequence of GPS data from a DGPS receiver to determine the vehicle’s position. The collision avoidance system (CAS) anticipated a future position by predicting the future trajectory of the AAV and nearby aircraft. An obstacle was identified when the system predicted that another vehicle’s “protected zone” would be violated. The system then selected an avoidance algorithm (either a “bang-bang” or a “continuous” maneuver) and piloted the AAV in accordance with the selected algorithm to prevent a collision. For dependent claims 6 and 18, Petitioner asserted that Sanders’ vertical avoidance maneuvers inherently or obviously determined an altitude greater than the obstacle to ensure separation.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground did not rely on a combination of references.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): This ground did not rely on a combination of references.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sanders and Pilley - Claims 2 and 14 are obvious over the combination of Sanders and Pilley.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sanders (a 1998 MIT thesis) and Pilley (Patent 5,867,804).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that while Sanders taught the core system of claim 1, the combination with Pilley rendered the additional limitations of claims 2 and 14 obvious. These claims required “retrieving obstacle data from a database in dependence upon the future position.” Petitioner argued that Pilley explicitly disclosed a collision prediction system that used a “zone database” storing coordinates for known obstacles (e.g., buildings, terrain) and a “vehicle database” storing data for moving obstacles. Pilley’s system retrieved data from these databases for obstacles near the aircraft's present and predicted future positions, directly teaching the claimed limitation.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Pilley’s database system with Sanders’ CAS to simplify Sanders’ collision detection process and reduce the amount of data requiring real-time transmission from a ground station. Using a local database would improve the system's scalability and robustness, particularly if the communication link was lost.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in integrating a known database retrieval method into an existing collision avoidance framework to improve its efficiency and reliability.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Duggan and Pilley - Claims 1-3, 6, 13-15, and 18 are obvious over the combination of Duggan and Pilley.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Duggan (Patent 7,343,232) and Pilley (’804 patent).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this combination as an alternative to the Sanders-based grounds. Duggan’s Variable Autonomy Control System (VACS) was argued to disclose a method for navigating a UAV under the control of a navigation computer (guidance component) and algorithm (guidance laws). While Duggan described both ground and air collision avoidance components, it lacked specifics on the detection process. Pilley supplied this missing element with its detailed GPS-based collision detection that projected vehicle positions forward in time to identify potential conflicts, thereby teaching the “anticipating” and “identifying” steps. Duggan’s system selected the appropriate algorithm (e.g., its Ground Collision Avoidance System, or GCAS) based on the obstacle type and piloted the UAV accordingly.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Duggan explicitly described its VACS architecture as modular and designed for integrating commercially available functions in a “plug-n-play” format. A POSITA, recognizing the lack of detail in Duggan’s air collision detection, would have been motivated to look for and integrate a well-defined system like Pilley’s to provide an enhanced, GPS-based collision avoidance capability.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The express teaching of a modular, extensible architecture in Duggan provided a strong reason for a POSITA to expect success in integrating the teachings of Pilley.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 3 and 15 over Sanders and Suiter (Patent 6,690,299) for teaching a 3D graphical display; claims 4-5 and 16-17 over Sanders and Pappas (a 1996 conference proceeding) for teaching horizontal avoidance maneuvers; and claims 4-5 and 16-17 over Duggan, Pilley, and Sainthuile (Patent 6,546,338) to add specific horizontal avoidance maneuvers to the Duggan/Pilley system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that no terms required explicit construction but addressed the means-plus-function limitations of computer program product claims 13-18.
• For each means-plus-function limitation (e.g., “means...for reading,” “means...for anticipating”), Petitioner contended that the function was identical to a method step in claim 1.
• Petitioner argued the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’232 patent for performing these functions was software (e.g., an application program) executing on a processor and stored on a recording medium.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued the Board should reach the merits of the petition and not issue a discretionary denial under Fintiv.
• The key reason provided was that the co-pending district court litigation had not yet set a trial date, making a full analysis of the Fintiv factors premature.
• Petitioner further stipulated that if an IPR were instituted, it would not pursue any of the instituted grounds in the district court litigation, thereby eliminating concerns of duplicative efforts and inconsistent results.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review of claims 1-6 and 13-18 of Patent 7,228,232 and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.