Breaking news: Win for DJI in patent dispute with Autel Robotics

Breaking news: DJI just scored a big win in the patent dispute with Autel Robotics. In a news update on the website from Finnegan, the law firm that represents DJI in this matter, it was announced that:

The Commission is unlikely to enforce any exclusion order or cease-and-desist order based on the three invalid patents. DJI’s sales in the U.S., therefore, will not be affected by Autel’s claims.

This must be very welcome news for DJI as it first seemed that the drone maker had lost the case versus Autel on at least US Patent No. 9, 260,184, which seems to have affected the propeller mount design of the DJI Mavic 2 Air.

Breaking news: Win for DJI in patent dispute with Autel Robotics

From the Finnegan website:

On August 30, 2018, Autel Robotics USA (“Autel”) requested the ITC to commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337, against SZ DJI Technology Co. Ltd. and several related entities (collectively, “DJI”).

The ITC instituted the investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-1133, on October 2, 2018, based on Autel’s assertion of three patents:

• U.S. Patent Nos. 7,979,174 (“the ’174 patent”),
• 9,260,184 (“the ’184 patent”), and 1
• 0,044,013 (“the ’013 patent”).

With these three patents, Autel has attempted to stop DJI from selling drones with intelligent operations such as obstacle avoidance (’174 patent), with rotor blades (’184 patent), or with batteries that clamp onto the drones (’013 patent).

During the investigation, DJI identified many issues with Autel’s case.

On March 2, 2020, Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) Bullock issued a favorable initial determination (ID) for DJI. In the ID, the CALJ found that the ’174 patent claims were not infringed, were not practiced by any domestic industry product, were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, and were directed to an abstract idea and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. He found many of the accused DJI products did not infringe the ’184 patent claims. He further found the ’013 patent claims invalid on multiple grounds.

At the same time, DJI’s efforts with the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) have met with unqualified success. DJI filed inter partes review petitions challenging the asserted claims from all three patents involved in the ITC proceeding.

On May 13, 2020, the PTAB declared all the claims of the ’174 patent unpatentable. On May 14, 2020, the PTAB found the asserted ’013 patent claims unpatentable. Then, on May 21, 2020, the PTAB found all challenged claims of the ’184 patent unpatentable, delivering DJI yet another win.

The Commission is currently deciding whether to review the CALJ’s ID. Ultimately the Commission may decide that Autel deserves no remedy at all, but at a minimum, the Commission is unlikely to enforce any exclusion order or cease-and-desist order based on the three invalid patents. DJI’s sales in the U.S., therefore, will not be affected by Autel’s claims.

Finnegan attorneys Qingyu Yin, Smith Brittingham, Cecilia Sanabria, Mike Kudravetz, Kelly Lu, Yi Yu, and Simon Lu represented DJI in the ITC investigation.

Finnegan attorneys Qingyu Yin, Josh Goldberg, and Kelly Lu represented DJI in the IPRs on the ’174 patent.

King & Spalding attorney Lori Gordon represented DJI in the IPRs on the ’184 and ’013 patents.

This is quite the turn-around. What do you think about the patent fight between DJI and Autel Robotics? Let us know in the comments below.

Stay in touch! If you’d like to stay up to date with all the latest drone news, scoops, rumors, and reviews, then follow us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Submit tips If you have information or tips that you would like to share with us, feel free to submit them here. Support DroneXL.co: You can support DroneXL.co by using these links when you make your next drone purchase: Adorama, Amazon, B&H, BestBuy, eBay, DJI, Parrot, and Yuneec. We make a small commission when you do so at no additional expense to you. Thank you for helping DroneXL grow! FTC: DroneXL.co uses affiliate links that generate income.

Photo: Moment