DJI Eur. B.V. v. Daedalus Blue LLC
| Docket Number | IPR2020-01472,Patent 7,286,913 B2 |
| Decision Date | 14 February 2022 |
| Parties | DJI EUROPE B.V., Petitioner, v. DAEDALUS BLUE LLC, Patent Owner. |
| Court | Patent Trial and Appeal Board |
Before BARRY L. GROSSMAN, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSSMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C.§318(a)
Petitioner, DJI Europe B. V., filed a Petition (Paper 2, "Pet.") requesting an inter partes review of claims 8, 10-12, 14, 23, 25-27, 29, 38, 40-42, and 44 (the "challenged claims") of U.S. Patent No. 7, 286, 913 B2 (Ex. 1001, "the '913 patent"). Patent Owner, Daedalus Blue LLC, timely filed a Preliminary Response ). With our permission, Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 7). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 8).
We concluded that Petitioner satisfied the burden, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), to show that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, on behalf of the Director (37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)), and in accordance with SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1353 (2018), we instituted an inter partes review of all the challenged claims, on all the asserted grounds. Paper 12 ("Dec. Inst.").
Patent Owner filed a Response. Paper 19 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 21 (“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply. Paper 24 (“Sur-reply”).
Petitioner submitted 58 exhibits. See Exs. 1001-1058. Petitioner relies, in part, on the Declaration testimony of R. John Hansman, Jr., Ph.D. See Exs. 1003, 1061.
Patent Owner submitted 18 exhibits. See Exs. 2001-2004, 2006-2018, 2020. Patent Owner relies, in part, on the Declaration testimony of Daniel S. Kaputa, Ph.D. See Ex. 2011.
A hearing was held November 16, 2021. Paper 30 (“Tr.”). This was a joint hearing that also included related cases IPR2020-01474 and IPR2020-01475.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We enter this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. §42.73.
Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
Based on the findings and conclusions below, we determine that Petitioner has proven that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable.
Petitioner and Patent Owner each identify as a related matter Daedalus Blue LLC v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. & DJI Europe B.V., Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00073 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2020), in which the '913 patent is at issue. Pet. 96; Paper 4, 2.
Petitioner and Patent Owner each identify as a related matter Daedalus Blue LLC v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. & DJI Europe B. V., Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00073 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2020), in which the '913 patent is at issue. Pet. 96; Paper 4, 2.
We also note that the same Petitioner and Patent Owner are involved in IPR2020-01474 and IPR2020-01475, in which Petitioner is challenging U.S. Patent No. 7, 228, 232 (the'"232 patent"). The '232 patent and the '913 patent have the same named inventors, use many of the same figures, and relate to similar technology. The '232 patent also is at issue in the related litigation cited above. See, e.g., Ex. 2009 ().
We make the following findings concerning the '913 patent.
The '913 patent discloses methods, systems, and computer program products for navigating an unmanned aerial vehicle ("UAV"). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:52-67, 26:12-28, 28:48-67. These methods, systems, and products enable UAV navigation by an operator selecting a GUI pixel from a displayed GUI map of the surface of the Earth. Id. at 1:33-37. As defined in the '913 patent, '"GUI' means graphical user interface, a display means for a computer screen." Id. at 5:48-49.
The selected pixel maps to one or more destinations or “waypoints” for the UAV. Id. at 1:37-38, 1:54-2:8, 5:60-63. The waypoint coordinates are uploaded through “uplink telemetry” to a UAV which “calculates a heading and flies, according to a navigation algorithm, a course to the waypoint.” Id. at 1:38-41. Alternatively, a remote control device can calculate a heading and “uplink” flight control instructions to a UAV. Id. at 1:41-43. According to the '913 patent, “[a]ll this occurs with a single keystroke or mouseclick from the operator.” Id. at 1:45-46.
The disclosed methods, systems, and products also provide for "receiving downlink telemetry," including a starting position from the UAV "through a socket" on the remote control device. Id. at 2:25-28. "A socket is one end-point of a two-way communication link between two application programs running on a network." Id. at 10:46-48.
According to the '913 patent, operators of prior known UAVs would "manually control the UAV from a starting position to a waypoint with little aid from automation." Ex. 1001, 1:25-28. As described by Patent Owner, using the technology disclosed in the '913 patent:
[a] user can designate waypoints for UAV navigation through selection of graphical user interface ("GUI") map pixels displayed at a remote control, uplink coordinates of those waypoints to the UAV through a socket, and have the UAV pilot itself under the control of an on-board navigation computer according to the selected waypoints.
Among the challenged claims, claims 8, 23, and 38 are independent claims. Independent claim 8 is directed to a "method for navigating" a UAV. Ex. 1001, 23:52-67. Independent claim 23 is directed to a "system for navigating" a UAV. Id. at 26:12-28. Independent claim 38 is directed to a "computer program product" for navigating a UAV. Id. at 28:48-67.
Claims 8 and 23 are reproduced below.
As is evident from comparing claims 8 and 23, system claim 23 rephrases each of the method steps in claim 8 in "means plus function" format, in accordance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, by merely adding the words "means for" in front of each method step recited in claim 8. Computer product program claim 38 is substantially similar to system claim 23 except for the preamble in claim 38 that states it is a "computer program product" for navigating a UAV, with the computer program product "disposed on a computer readable medium and executable on a computer system."
Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the following eight distinct grounds:
Claim(s) Challenged
Reference(s)/Basis
8, 23, 38
103[1]
Shim[2], Tso[3]
10-12, 25-27, 40-42
103
Shim, Tso, TCP/IP Sockets[4]
11, 12, 26, 27, 41, 42
103
Shim, Tso, TCP/IP Sockets, Dittrich[5]
8, 14, 23, 29, 38, 44
103
Shim, Tso, Lohrenz[6]
8, 23, 38
103
Sato[7], Lin[8]
10-12, 25-27, 40-42
103
Sato, Lin, NASA[9]
11, 12, 26, 27, 41, 42
103
Sato, Lin, NASA, Dittrich
8, 14, 23, 29, 38, 44
103
The eight asserted Grounds present two sets of challenges: Grounds 1-4 based on Shim and Tso, plus additional references; and Grounds 5-8, that include the identical claim grouping as Grounds 1-4, respectively, but rely on Sato and Lin, plus additional references.[10] Pet. 5-6.
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." KSR Int'l Co. v Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when available, evidence such as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, and failure...
To continue reading
Request your trial