| |
| Direct Infringement Comparing Claims With Accused Product/Service/Process | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that respondents did not infringe complainant's autonomous vehicle speed regulation patent. "Claim 1 also requires that the speed planner 'calculate a desired speed based, at least in part, on the data obtained from the one or more sensors.' However, at best, [complainant's expert] provides inconsistent and confusing testimony about what exactly 'is the claimed sensor data. . . . [Complainant] has failed to prove that the Accused Products have a 'speed planner' that calculates desired speed 'based, at least in part, on the data obtained from the one or more sensors.'" (page 31) |
| |
| ITC-Substantive Issues (Patent Infringement) ITC Domestic Industry | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that complainant failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for one of its unmanned aerial vehicle patents. "[W]hile [redacted] obtain data from the [product's] sensors, [complainant's expert's] testimony also suggests that those [redacted] would be part of the 'one or more sensors configured to obtain data regarding conditions which affect movement of the autonomous vehicle.'. . . [T]he undersigned finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the [redacted] together with the front camera and forward vision system to be sensing the environment and at best, would be identified together as the claimed 'sensors.'. . . Consequently, the undersigned is not persuaded by [complainant's] efforts to include [redacted] part of the claimed 'speed planner.'" (page 37) |
| |
| Obviousness (35 USC § 103) Combining/Modifying Prior Art Elements | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that certain claims of two of complainant's unmanned aerial vehicle patents were invalid as obvious. "[T]he question is not whether [a prior art patent] discloses a desired speed, but rather, whether one of ordinary skill in the art would modify [a prior art publication], which calculates a desired speed, with [the prior art patent] to output 'information reflecting the reason for the desired speed.'. . . The undersigned finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify [the prior art publication] with the teachings in [the prior art patent] to include a signal about an object/obstacle that would reflect the reason for the desired speed. In addition, the undersigned finds that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine [the prior art publication] with [the prior art patent] because they are in the same field of endeavor and are both directed to controlling autonomous vehicles and safe operation." (page 55) |
| |
| Anticipation (35 USC § 102) Claim(s) Anticipated | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that certain claims of complainant's autonomous vehicle speed regulation patent were invalid as anticipated. "As to claims 14 and 17, [complainant] argues that '[a]s explained . .. with regard to claim 8, [a prior art publication] does not disclose or teach assigning priorities to constraints or avoiding violating constraints' or calculating 'desired speed by allowing violation of a lower priority constraint in order to avoid violation of a higher priority constraint.'. . . [T]he undersigned found that [the prior art publication] disclosed the additional limitations of claim 8. (page 63) |
| |
| Patent Ineligible Subject Matter Abstract Idea Unpatentable Subject Matter (35 USC § 101)Inventive Concept | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that certain claims of complainant's autonomous vehicle speed regulation patent were invalid for encompassing unpatentable subject matter. "[C]laims 14 and 17 are directed to the abstract idea of controlling the speed of an autonomous vehicle using sensor data and prioritized constraints. . . . [O]ther than stating that it is based on sensor data and prioritized constraints, claims 14 and 17 do not recite how the speed is calculated nor how the constraints are prioritized. . . . [N]othing in the [patent] claims or describes as innovative any specific feature of the processor. . . . [T]he claims amount to nothing more than applying an abstract idea using a generic computer." (page 67) |
| |
| Direct Infringement Comparing Claims With Accused Product/Service/Process | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that respondents directly infringed certain claims of two of complainant's unmanned aerial vehicle patents. "The evidence shows that a motor and a propeller (i.e., rotor) are installed at the end of each arm of [an accused product]. . . . Each of the motor and propeller pairs comprises a rotor assembly. . . . The evidence shows that the [accused product's] clockwise propellers generate lift when rotated clockwise and are attached to the corresponding motors via a lock mechanism comprised of lugs and notches that engage with one another to secure the propellers to the motors and driveshafts, thereby preventing them from coming loose during flight." (page 78) |
| |
| Narrowing Claims Equivalents Available After Narrowing Amendment | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that respondent did not infringe complainant's unmanned rotary aircraft patent under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel. "[P]rosecution history estoppel applies here because amended claim 1 was rewritten from dependent to independent form. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that the presumption of prosecution history estoppel attaches in this scenario because the patentee is narrowing the scope of their claim for patentability. . . . [Complainant's] amendment gives rise to prosecution history estoppel because it narrowed the original independent claim with the limitation 'the shaft lock portion defining notches configured to engage corresponding lugs on the blade lock portion." (page 100) |
| |
| Anticipation (35 USC § 102) Claim(s) Not Anticipated Prior ArtPrinted Publication | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that complainant's unmanned rotary aircraft patent was not invalid as anticipated and found that a manual did not qualify as a printed publication. "While the [manual] bears certain indicia (e.g., copyright notices, contact information), said indicia, by itself, is not conclusive of public accessibility. . . . [B]eyond the testimony of a single purchaser, on has presented no other evidence that the [manual] was marketed, disseminated, or made available to the public. . . . [T]he fact that a 'client portal' exists does not prove that reasonably interested persons could access the portal or if they did have access, how they would find the [manual] on the portal." (page 110) |
| |
| Obviousness (35 USC § 103) Comparing Claims & Prior Art (Obviousness) | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that complainant's unmanned rotary aircraft patent was not invalid as obvious. "The evidence also does not show that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify [a prior art application] to use directionally specific lock mechanisms to prevent the installation of a blade on the wrong drive. [The application] does not mention a need, motivation, or desire to utilize lock mechanisms for the blade and driveshaft that depend on the rotational direction of the blade. . . . [Respondent's expert] only provided a conclusory opinion as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine [the application] with [another prior art application]." (page 114) |
| |
| Comparing Claims & Prior Art (Obviousness) Secondary Considerations | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that certain claims of complainant's unmanned aerial vehicle battery patent was invalid and found that complainant presented insufficient evidence of long-felt need and failure of others as secondary considerations of nonobviousness. "[Complainant] does not demonstrate that battery latch mechanisms were an 'articulated identified problem' in the UAV industry. . . . The evidence does not support a finding that others tried to solve the problem but failed to do so. . . . [T]he evidence shows that [a nonparty] reissued the product within three months of the recall. This, too, weighs against a finding of 'failure of others' as it indicates that the problem was easily fixed within a short amount of time." (page 150) |
| |
| ITC-Substantive Issues (Patent Infringement) ITC Domestic Industry | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ found that complainant satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for its unmanned rotary aircraft patent. "The evidence demonstrates that [complainant's] investments in employment of labor or capital are significant. . . . While [complainant] trimmed its EVO R&D workforce because of a reduced need for product development once the EVO was released, the undersigned is persuaded that this change in [complainant's] employment of labor is reasonable and consistent with product development in this industry." (page 155) |
| |
| ITC Exclusion Orders ITC Limited Exclusion Order | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ recommended that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, without any certification provision, for respondents' violation as to complainant's unmanned rotary aircraft patent. "[T]he undersigned recommends the issuance of a limited exclusion order. However, the undersigned does not recommend that the limited exclusion order include certain exemptions and provisions, as on requests. Beyond attorney argument, [respondents] did not cite to any evidence or provide any information to support its request." (page 162) |
| |
| ITC Remedies & Relief ITC Cease & Desist Order | Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ recommended that the Commission issue a cease and desist order for respondents'violation as to complainant's unmanned rotary aircraft patent. "[Complainant's] evidence signals that [respondent] presently maintains a 'commercially significant' inventory of Accused Products in the United States." (page 163) |
