Drone Labs, LLC v. Dedrone Holdings, Inc.

Background

Drone Labs, LLC sued Dedrone Holdings, Inc. for allegedly infringing the ’018 patent, titled “System for identifying drones.” The patent’s only independent claim, claim 1, describes a system that collects information about a drone, stores it in a database, calculates and updates a threat level using information such as the drone’s position and compass direction, and communicates the threat level to a user.

The court had previously granted Dedrone’s motion to dismiss Drone’s first amended complaint but allowed Drone to amend. Drone then filed a second amended complaint. Drone alleged that Dedrone’s products scanned for drones, stored and processed information, compared the information with a database, evaluated threats, and alerted users.

Arguments and analysis

Dedrone moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. Dedrone argued that Drone failed to plead that the accused products satisfied all limitations of the patent claims. Dedrone also argued that the ’018 patent was invalid because it covered patent-ineligible subject matter, including an abstract idea involving the collection of information about a flying object and the determination of whether it posed a threat.

The court said there were serious questions about the patent’s eligibility and whether it contained an “inventive concept,” but it did not resolve those issues. Instead, the court relied on the pleading defect concerning claim 1, the patent’s only independent claim.

Claim 1 requires the system to receive identifying information from a transponder signal from the drone. The court found that the second amended complaint did not allege that the accused products received information from a transponder signal. The paragraphs Drone cited alleged only that the products received information from a scanning system or from radio-frequency sensors. Because Drone failed to adequately plead this claim limitation, the court concluded that dismissal was warranted.

Ruling

The court granted Dedrone’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. It found that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because Drone had already been given an opportunity to amend after failing to plead all claim limitations adequately. The court ordered the clerk to enter final judgment and close the file. The court also stated that Drone was not precluded from filing a new patent-infringement case based on a continuation patent application that had recently been granted. Judge Edward Chen signed the order, which disposed of Docket No. 45.