Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc.

Background

Wisk sued Archer for patent infringement and trade-secret misappropriation. This order addressed five Wisk patents: the ’036 patent concerning a multicopter with boom-mounted rotors; the related ’033 and ’328 patents concerning battery charging systems; and the related ’099 and ’441 patents concerning flight-control systems.

The order resolved two matters. First, Archer moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that claims in the ’099 and ’441 patents covered subject matter that is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Second, the parties asked the court to construe, meaning define for purposes of the patent case, three disputed claim terms.

Patent Eligibility

The court applied the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. At the first step, it asks whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. At the second step, it asks whether the claim elements, individually or in combination, add an inventive concept that makes the claim more than the abstract idea.

For the ’099 patent, claim 1 described receiving requested aircraft forces and moments and computing an “optimal mix” of actuators by minimizing weighted costs, including costs associated with errors. The court found that the claimed advance was a mathematical technique for modeling and minimizing those costs. It concluded that the technique could be performed mentally or was equivalent to human mental work, making the claims directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims did not change that conclusion, and the computer-readable-medium claims merely instructed a generic computer to perform the same abstract technique.

For the ’441 patent, claim 1 described an aircraft flight controller that receives flight-control inputs, detects reduced lift capacity caused by a lift-fan failure, generates a “solution space,” and selects a combination of actuators and parameters within that space. The court found that generating and optimizing within a solution space was also an abstract mathematical technique. The aircraft and flight controller were generic components used to perform the calculation and were not the claimed advance over the prior art.

At the second step, the court found no inventive concept. The mathematical techniques were performed by generic components carrying out conventional functions. The court also considered twelve facts Wisk said it could plead if given leave to amend, but concluded that none would save the claims. The court therefore granted Archer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and held the challenged claims invalid.

Claim Construction

“Lift rotors”

The ’036 patent uses “lift rotors,” and the parties also treated that term and “lift fans” in the ’441 patent together. Wisk proposed “rotors configured to provide lift.” Archer proposed “rotor installed only for vertical thrust.” The court adopted Wisk’s construction.

The court held that the rotors must provide lift but need not be limited to that function. The patent described lift rotors as providing lift, stability, and control, and discussed angled rotors that could generate nonvertical as well as vertical forces and help control yaw. The court therefore rejected Archer’s proposed limitation requiring the rotors to be installed only for vertical thrust.

“Battery sub-module”

The ’033 and ’328 patents use “battery sub-module.” Wisk proposed a component of a battery system that includes a battery management system and a switch. Archer proposed a container of two or more cells that is a sub-part of a module, which may be combined with other modules to form a battery pack.

The court construed the term as “a component of a battery system that includes one or more cells, a battery management system, and a switch.” It rejected Archer’s proposed hierarchy requiring the sub-module to be part of a larger module and battery pack because the claims and specifications referred to a broader battery system and did not contemplate that hierarchy.

The court held that a sub-module must include at least one cell, but the evidence did not require more than one. It also concluded that the sub-module includes a battery management system and a switch because the claims require functions—monitoring battery metrics and connecting or disconnecting sub-modules from a common power bus—that those components perform.

“Discharge-related fault”

The ’328 patent uses “discharge-related fault.” The court adopted the term’s plain and ordinary meaning. It explained that the term means a fault connected or associated with a battery discharge. It does not exclude a fault that is also related to temperature or voltage.

The court clarified, however, that a fault is not discharge-related merely because it is detected while the battery is discharging. The fault must be connected or associated with the discharge itself.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states: “Archer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.” The court also construed the disputed claim terms as discussed above. The opinion does not state a separate disposition for Wisk’s trade-secret claims.