Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v. Airspace Systems, Inc.

Petition

Petition summary

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00530](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530)
- Patent #: [10,249,199](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10249199)
- Filed: February 10, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [Axon Enterprise, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/axon-enterprises-inc) and [Dedrone Holdings, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/dedrone-holdings-inc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Airspace Systems, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/airspace-systems-inc)
- Challenged Claims: 1-9

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: System and Method for Aerial System Discrimination and Action
- Brief Description: The [’199](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1001) patent discloses a discrimination system to determine whether an aerial system, such as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), is authorized to be in a particular airspace. The system receives a unique identifier signal from the UAV, checks it against a permissions module, and activates a disruption system to interdict the UAV if it is determined to be unauthorized.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability
#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Whitmarsh - Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are obvious over Whitmarsh.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005) (Application # 2019/0003807).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005), which discloses a UAV defense system, teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005)’s system identifies unauthorized drones by receiving a unique identifier (e.g., a MAC address), which corresponds to the claimed "identifier transmission system" and "identification receiver." The system then determines authorization by checking the identifier against a registry, which Petitioner contended is a "permission module." Upon detecting an unauthorized drone, [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005) activates a "countermeasures system" that can be enabled from up to five miles away, allegedly teaching the claimed "preemptively enabled" "disruption system."
    - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** This ground is based on a single reference. Petitioner asserted that all claim elements are taught by [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005), or would have been obvious modifications. For example, implementing the system's functions on known computing components like processors would have been obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
    - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing the claimed system, as [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005) describes a complete, functional UAV defense system performing the same functions.
    - **Key Aspects:** Petitioner contended that [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005)'s disclosure of activating countermeasures based on a MAC address check at a distance renders the key limitation of a "preemptively enabled" disruption system obvious.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Whitmarsh and Goodrich - Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are obvious over Whitmarsh in view of Goodrich.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005) (Application # 2019/0003807), [Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008) (Application # 2016/0023760).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner asserted that [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005) provides the base system for identifying unauthorized UAVs, as detailed in Ground 1. [Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008) was cited to provide specific teachings for the "disruption system." [Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008) discloses a counter-UAV system that deploys an "interceptor UAV" with a disabling system, such as a "net gun," to disable a target UAV. This combination allegedly teaches the physical interdiction elements of claims 5, 6, and 7 more explicitly than [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005) alone.
    - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA implementing [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005)'s system would have been motivated to look to a reference like [Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008) for specific, proven methods of implementing an intercept countermeasure. [Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008)'s reusable interceptor drone offered a more cost-effective and detailed solution than the general "collision" countermeasure mentioned in [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005).
    - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** The combination involved applying a known disabling technique ([Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008)) to a known detection and authorization system ([Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005)), leading to a predictable result with a high expectation of success.

#### Ground 3: Obviousness over Viggiano and Goodrich - Claims 1, 3, and 5-9 are obvious over Viggiano in view of Goodrich.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Viggiano](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1007) (Application # 2007/0239986), [Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008) (Application # 2016/0023760).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued [Viggiano](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1007) teaches the core discrimination system. [Viggiano](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1007) discloses an "authentication apparatus" for ADS-B equipped aircraft that uses a challenge-response protocol to authenticate an aircraft's identity, thereby discriminating between authorized and unauthorized aircraft. This system was argued to teach the claimed identifier system, receiver, and permission module. [Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008) was again relied upon to teach the "disruption system," which [Viggiano](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1007) lacks.
    - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** [Viggiano](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1007) expressly stated a goal of preventing unauthorized aircraft from entering an airspace but only provided a method for identification, not interdiction. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine [Viggiano](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1007)’s authentication system with [Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008)’s counter-UAV system to create a complete solution that both identifies and removes unauthorized aircraft.
    - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** Combining an authentication system with a disabling system was a predictable and logical step to improve airspace security, and a POSITA would have reasonably expected success.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations with [Falk](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1011) (Patent 9,805,238) to teach the reassignable identifier transmission system of claim 4. These grounds included [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005) and [Falk](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1011); [Whitmarsh](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1005), [Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008), and [Falk](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1011); and [Viggiano](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1007), [Goodrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1008), and [Falk](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1011).

## 4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- Petitioner argued that the term "permission module" should be construed under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) as a means-plus-function term.
- **Proposed Function:** "determining that the aerial system associated with the aerial system identifier signal is not permitted to be in an airspace."
- **Proposed Structure:** A "computer system, processor, or similar component" programmed to perform the specific algorithm of comparing an aerial system parameter (e.g., an identifier) with the permissions for the airspace. This construction was central to Petitioner's arguments that prior art references disclosing processors that perform such comparisons meet the claim limitation.

## 5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under *Fintiv* would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with no trial date or significant deadlines set, and the petition was filed diligently before the exchange of infringement contentions.
- Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under §325(d). Although the [Viggiano](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1007) reference was cited during prosecution of the [’199](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1001) patent, it was never substantively applied by the examiner in any rejection. Therefore, the Board would be considering the reference in a new light.

## 6. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested institution of an *inter partes* review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the [’199](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00530/doc/1001) patent as unpatentable.

Axon targets drone discrimination patent: claims 1-9 are obvious over Whitmarsh & Goodrich prior art teaching UAV identification & net gun interdiction.

IPR2025-00530

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Airspace Systems, Inc.