Textron Innovations Inc. v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION TEXTRON INNOVATIONS INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-740-ADA vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., DJI EUROPE B.V, AND DJI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendants. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER Before the Court are the Parties’ claim construction briefs: Plaintiff Textron Innovations Inc.’s responsive and reply briefs (ECF Nos. 67 and 69, respectively) and Defendants DJI Europe B.V., DJI Technology, Inc., SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.’s opening and reply briefs (ECF No. 66 and 68, respectively). The Court held the Markman hearing on April 20, 2022. During that hearing, the Court informed the Parties of the constructions it intended to provide for all terms. This Order does not alter any of those constructions. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Generally, courts construe claim terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Federal Circuit applies a “heavy presumption” in favor of construing terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning, that is, the “meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (vacated on other grounds); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning are when the patentee acts as his own lexicographer or disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. at 1365. To disavow the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the specification or prosecution history must represent “a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Id. at 1366. Accordingly, when “an applicant’s statements are amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013). While the specification “may aid the court” in analyzing disputed language in a claim, “particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). Absent a “clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be…limited,” courts do not read limitations found in the specification into the claims. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). II. DISCUSSION The Court’s constructions are as follows: Claim Term Plaintiff’s Defendant’s Court’s Final Proposed Proposed Construction Construction Construction 1 “selected” velocity Plain and ordinary “a velocity and/or Plain and ordinary and/or position meaning position chosen by meaning the operate of the (U.S. PATENT NO. aircraft” 8,014,909, Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9; U.S. PATENT NO. 8,108,085 Claims 1, 6, 11) (Proposed by Defendants) 2 “The flight control The preamble is not Indefinite Not indefinite. “The system according to limiting. method according claim 12, further Alternatively, “The to claim 12, further comprising” method according to comprising” (U.S. PATENT NO. claim 12, further 8,078,395 Claim 13) comprising” (Proposed by Defendants) 3 “flight envelope Plain and ordinary “set of one or more Plain and ordinary having a . . . meaning constraints, meaning groundspeed including a threshold” (U.S. groundspeed range PATENT NO. bounded by a 9,162,752 Claim 1) threshold” (Proposed by Defendants) 4 “forward speed hold Plain and ordinary “loop for Plain and ordinary loop . . . wherein the meaning maintaining the meaning forward speed hold aircraft’s forward loop automatically speed that engages when the automatically longitudinal engages to maintain controller is returned the current forward to a detent position speed when the and the aircraft longitudinal groundspeed is controller is outside a first returned to a detent groundspeed position and the threshold” (U.S. aircraft’s PATENT NO. groundspeed 9,162,752 Claim 13) exceeds the first (Proposed by groundspeed Defendants) threshold” 5 “wherein the lateral Plain and ordinary Indefinite Not indefinite. Plain speed hold loop meaning and ordinary automatically meaning engages when the lateral controller is returned to a detent position and the aircraft groundspeed is outside the first groundspeed threshold; and wherein lateral maneuverability of the rotary aircraft is controlled by . . . the lateral speed hold loop . . . when the lateral controller is out of the detent position” (U.S. PATENT NO. 9,162,752 Claim 13) (Proposed by Defendants) 6 “flight in the first Plain and ordinary Indefinite Not indefinite. Plain groundspeed meaning and ordinary threshold” (U.S. meaning PATENT NO. 9,162,752 Claim 13) (Proposed by Defendants) 7 “camera feed Plain and ordinary “camera feed Plain and ordinary comprises a camera meaning comprises a camera meaning view of at least a view that shows a portion of the portion of the rotorcraft” rotorcraft” (U.S. PATENT NO. 10,243,647 Claims 1, 16, 24, 25) (Proposed by Defendants) 8 “generat[e/ing] a Plain and ordinary “generat[e/ing] a Plain and ordinary display output based meaning display output meaning on the camera feed based on the camera and the sensor data, feed and sensor data wherein the display to display the portion of the output comprises a rotorcraft and visual perspective of provide a visual the object relative to perspective of the the rotorcraft” detected object relative to the rotorcraft” (U.S. PATENT NO. 10,243,647 Claims 1, 16, 24, 25) (Proposed by Defendants) SIGNED this 12th day of May, 2022.