DJI Europe BV v. Daedlus Blue LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-01475
• Patent #: 7,228,232
• Filed: August 14, 2020
• Petitioner(s): DJI Europe B.V.
• Patent Owner(s): Daedalus Blue LLC
• Challenged Claims: 7-12

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Obstacle Avoidance for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
• Brief Description: The ’232 patent relates to methods, systems, and products for navigating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with obstacle avoidance algorithms. The technology uses GPS data to anticipate a UAV's future flight path, identify potential obstacles, select an appropriate avoidance algorithm, and pilot the UAV around the obstacle.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Sanders - Claims 7 and 12 are obvious over Sanders.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sanders (“Real-time Collision Avoidance for Autonomous Air Vehicles,” MIT Thesis, 1998).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sanders, a master's thesis describing a collision avoidance system (CAS) for autonomous air vehicles (AAVs), discloses every element of independent claim 7. Sanders' system pilots a UAV using a guidance algorithm, reads GPS data from an onboard DGPS receiver, anticipates future positions by predicting trajectories, and identifies obstacles by detecting when protected zones will be violated. Upon detecting a conflict, Sanders’ CAS selects a vertical avoidance maneuver (either a "bang-bang" or "continuous" algorithm) and pilots the AAV accordingly. For dependent claim 12, Petitioner asserted that Sanders teaches determining a new altitude greater than the obstacle's height by requiring a minimum separation distance during the vertical avoidance maneuver.
  • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that a single prior art reference, which predates the patent by several years, contains all the core features of the challenged claims, rendering them obvious extensions of well-known autonomous vehicle research.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sanders and Pappas - Claims 10-11 are obvious over the combination of Sanders and Pappas.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Sanders (MIT Thesis, 1998) and Pappas (“Conflict Resolution for Multi-Agent Hybrid Systems,” 1996 conference proceeding).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that while Sanders teaches vertical avoidance maneuvers, it lacks the specific horizontal avoidance maneuvers recited in claims 10 and 11. Pappas was argued to supply these missing elements by disclosing a triangular horizontal avoidance path for multi-agent systems. This path involves identifying an intermediate waypoint to divert the aircraft, flying past it, and then identifying a second waypoint to rejoin the original course, which directly maps to the limitations of claims 10 and 11.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Pappas with Sanders because Sanders explicitly suggests that an autonomous CAS might want to incorporate horizontal maneuvers to complement existing systems. Petitioner argued that enhancing Sanders’ vertical-only system with Pappas’s known and predictable horizontal maneuver would be a logical step to create a more robust and versatile collision avoidance system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in integrating a known horizontal maneuver into Sanders’s framework, as it represented a straightforward enhancement of system capabilities rather than a novel invention.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Duggan and Pilley - Claims 7-9 and 12 are obvious over the combination of Duggan and Pilley.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Duggan (Patent 7,343,232) and Pilley (Patent 5,867,804).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Duggan discloses a high-level, modular Variable Autonomy Control System (VACS) for UAVs that includes the basic framework for the challenged claims, such as a navigation computer, guidance laws, and components for ground and air collision avoidance. However, Duggan lacks specific details on its GPS-based collision detection process. Pilley was argued to provide these details, teaching a specific method for predicting future vehicle positions based on a sequence of GPS data and identifying obstacles when projected safe zones intersect. The combination allegedly meets claim 7 (core navigation/avoidance), claim 8 (retrieving obstacle data from a database), claim 9 (depicting the flight path with 3D graphics), and claim 12 (vertical avoidance).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Duggan describes its VACS architecture as "plug-n-play," expressly designed to integrate additional modules. Given Duggan's lack of detail on air collision detection, a POSITA would be motivated to integrate a well-defined, GPS-based system like Pilley’s to implement and enhance the functionality of Duggan's air collision avoidance component.
  • Expectation of Success: The modular nature of Duggan’s system and the complementary nature of Pilley’s detailed detection algorithms would provide a POSITA with a clear path and high expectation of success for the integration.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claim 8 is obvious over Sanders and Pilley (adding a database to Sanders), claim 9 is obvious over Sanders and Suiter (adding 3D display capability to Sanders), and claims 10-11 are obvious over Duggan, Pilley, and Sainthuile (adding specific horizontal maneuver logic to the Duggan/Pilley system).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that multiple claim terms are means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and proposed constructions that were central to its invalidity arguments.
• “Means for piloting” (Limitations [7A] and [7F]):
  • Function: Petitioner identified the functions as (1) piloting the UAV under control of a navigation computer in accordance with a navigation algorithm, and (2) piloting the UAV in accordance with a selected obstacle avoidance algorithm.
  • Structure: Petitioner identified the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’232 patent as a UAV processor or a remote control processor executing an application that controls the UAV servos. This construction allowed Petitioner to map the prior art's processor-based control systems directly to the claimed structure.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv factors.
• The primary argument was that the co-pending district court litigation had not yet set a trial date, making a complete Fintiv analysis premature and speculative.
• Petitioner further stipulated that it would not pursue any ground raised in the IPR in the district court if trial is instituted, thereby eliminating concerns of duplicative efforts and inconsistent rulings.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 7-12 of Patent 7,228,232 as unpatentable.