`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARROT S.A. and PARROT, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. _______________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Drone Technologies, Inc. (“Drone Technologies”), through its undersigned
`
`
`
`
`
`counsel, alleges the following as its Complaint against Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Complaint alleges patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction for patent claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`3.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, because Defendants have
`
`established minimum contacts with the forum by purposely availing themselves of the laws and
`
`benefits of the forum, and the exercise of jurisdiction over the Defendants would not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. On information and belief, Defendants
`
`have voluntarily conducted business in this judicial district.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and/or
`
`1400, because Defendants are each subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district.
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 1 Filed 01/24/14 Page 2 of 8
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Drone Technologies is a Taiwanese company having its registered office
`
`at No. 14, Ln. 50, Sec. 3, Nangang Rd., Nangang Dist., Taipei City 11510, Taiwan, Republic of
`
`China.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Parrot S.A. is a French société anonyme
`
`(public limited company) with a principal place of business at 174-178 quai de Jemmapes, 75010
`
`Paris, France.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Parrot, Inc. is a New York corporation
`
`with a principal place of business at 28446 Franklin Road, Southfield, MI 48034. Defendant
`
`Parrot, Inc. is a fully-owned subsidiary of Defendant Parrot, S.A.
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants are doing business, have carried out
`
`business, and have had other contacts within this judicial district. For example, Defendants’
`
`allegedly infringing devices are sold within this judicial district.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`Drone Technologies is the owner of United States Patent No. 7,584,071 (“the
`
`‘071 patent”), entitled “Remote-Controlled Motion Apparatus with Sensing Terrestrial
`
`Magnetism and Remote Control Apparatus Therefor.” A true and correct copy of the ‘071 patent
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`10.
`
`Drone Technologies is the owner of United States Patent No. 8,106,748 (“the
`
`‘748 patent”), entitled “Remote-Controlled Motion Apparatus with Acceleration Self-Sense and
`
`Remote Control Apparatus Therefor.” A true and correct copy of the ‘748 patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 1 Filed 01/24/14 Page 3 of 8
`
`11.
`
`The ’071 patent and the ‘748 patent relate to remote control systems comprising a
`
`remote controller and a remote-controlled device, such as a remote-controlled toy airplane or
`
`helicopter.
`
`12.
`
`The ‘071 patent relates to remote control systems that utilize magnetometers to
`
`control movement of the remote-controlled device based on movement of the remote controller.
`
`13.
`
`The ‘748 patent relates to remote control systems that utilize accelerometers to
`
`control movement of the remote-controlled device based on movement of the remote controller.
`
`14.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants Parrot, S.A. and Parrot, Inc. have sold
`
`and have offered to sell in the United States, and/or have imported into the United States the
`
`Parrot AR.Drone and the Parrot AR.Drone 2.0 (collectively, “the Parrot Drones”), and will
`
`continue to do so unless enjoined by this court.
`
`15.
`
`The Parrot Drones are toy drones that can be remotely-controlled using a
`
`smartphone or a tablet with the Parrot FreeFlight application (“app”) downloaded onto it.
`
`16.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc. provide the
`
`Parrot FreeFlight app for Android devices and Apple devices.
`
`17.
`
`By utilizing the magnetometers and accelerometers in a smartphone or tablet to
`
`detect motion and position of the smartphone or tablet, the Parrot FreeFlight app enables a
`
`smartphone or tablet to control movement of a Parrot Drone by tilting the smartphone or tablet.
`
`18.
`
`The product packaging and user manuals for the Parrot AR.Drone 2.0 instruct
`
`users to download the Parrot FreeFlight app onto a smartphone or tablet, in order to operate the
`
`Parrot AR.Drone 2.0 using the smartphone or tablet as a remote controller.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants Parrot, S.A. and Parrot, Inc. were on notice of a patent infringement
`
`allegation by Diane Lee, Drone Technologies’ predecessor in interest with respect to the ‘071
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 1 Filed 01/24/14 Page 4 of 8
`
`patent and the ‘748 patent, as early as September 29, 2012, when Apple Inc. notified Parrot S.A.
`
`that Ms. Lee believed the Parrot FreeFlight app infringed her patents.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants Parrot, S.A. and Parrot, Inc. were aware of the ‘071 patent and the
`
`‘748 patent at least as early as January 4, 2013, when Ms. Lee informed Parrot S.A. that she
`
`believed Parrot S.A. was infringing the ‘071 patent and the ‘748 patent.
`
`21.
`
`On March 12, 2013, in response to Ms. Lee’s infringement allegations, Apple
`
`removed the FreeFlight app from its App Store.
`
`22.
`
`On April 3, 2013, Apple informed Ms. Lee that Apple had “learned that Parrot
`
`has made changes to their app to resolve the matter,” and that “the app may be returned to sale in
`
`the App Store.”
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Parrot S.A. on April 9, 2013 issued a
`
`statement to customers stating: “AR.FreeFlight 2.2 was removed from iTunes last month due to
`
`the need for patents’ clarification on accelerometer and absolute control. In the meantime, we
`
`have enriched AR.Race2 App (version 2.2) with a free piloting mode in order for our customers
`
`using iOS devices to continue flying the AR.Drone. We’ll keep you updated. Sincerely, Parrot
`
`Team.”
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief the AR.Race2 App (version 2.2) did not include
`
`functionality to allow Parrot Drone users to control a Parrot Drone by utilizing a smartphone or
`
`tablet’s accelerometers or magnetometers.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, after the accelerometer and absolute control features
`
`were removed from Parrot’s apps for piloting the Parrot Drones with Apple devices, various
`
`Parrot Drone customers complained about the removal of those features and demanded that those
`
`features be returned.
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 1 Filed 01/24/14 Page 5 of 8
`
`26.
`
`On May 4, 2013, Defendants’ counsel informed Ms. Lee that Parrot S.A. rewrote
`
`its apps for Apple devices and that “[n]one of the re-written applications in the Apple store use
`
`the accelerometers or the magnetometer in the iPhone to operate the AR.Drone.”
`
`27.
`
`On May 5, 2013, Defendants’ counsel reiterated to Ms. Lee and represented to
`
`Apple that: “Parrot has re-written every single one of its AR.Drone-related apps such that that
`
`[sic] neither the accelerometers nor the magnetometer of the iPhone are used. As such, your
`
`patents do not cover the new apps and it is clear there is no infringement.”
`
`28.
`
`On June 25, 2013, FreeFlight version 2.3.0 for Apple devices was released,
`
`announcing “[a]ccelerometer piloting mode and absolute control is back.”
`
`29.
`
`On June 26, 2013, Apple informed Ms. Lee that the FreeFlight app would be
`
`returned for sale to the App Store, “in part due to representation by the developer that the app, as
`
`recently modified, no longer infringes your intellectual property rights.”
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘071 PATENT
`
`30.
`
`Drone Technologies realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 29 inclusive, and incorporates them herein by this reference.
`
`31.
`
`Users of the Parrot Drones in the United States directly infringe the ‘071 patent by
`
`making and using the claimed systems of the ‘071 patent when they download the Parrot
`
`FreeFlight app onto a smartphone or tablet and control a Parrot Drone using the smartphone or
`
`tablet, in accordance with the instructions provided by Defendants on the product packaging and
`
`user manuals for the Parrot Drones.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc.’s sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of
`
`the Parrot Drones, with instructions to make and use the claimed systems of the ‘071 patent,
`
`induces infringement of the ‘071 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 1 Filed 01/24/14 Page 6 of 8
`
`33.
`
`Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc.’s sale, offer for sale, and importation of
`
`the Parrot Drones, with instructions to make and use the claimed systems of the ‘071 patent, are
`
`acts of contributory infringement of the ‘071 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`34.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, Drone Technologies has been damaged in an amount
`
`that is yet to be ascertained and has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable loss and
`
`injury.
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘748 PATENT
`
`35.
`
`Drone Technologies realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 29 inclusive, and incorporates them herein by this reference.
`
`36.
`
`Users of the Parrot Drones in the United States directly infringe the ‘748 patent by
`
`making and using the claimed systems of the ‘748 patent when they download the Parrot
`
`FreeFlight app onto a smartphone or tablet and control a Parrot Drone using the smartphone or
`
`tablet, in accordance with the instructions provided by Defendants on the product packaging and
`
`user manuals for the Parrot Drones.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc.’s sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of
`
`the Parrot Drones, with instructions to make and use the claimed systems of the ‘748 patent,
`
`induces infringement of the ‘748 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`38.
`
`Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc.’s sale, offer for sale, and importation of
`
`the Parrot Drones, with instructions to make and use the claimed systems of the ‘748 patent, are
`
`acts of contributory infringement of the ‘748 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`39.
`
`By reason of the foregoing, Drone Technologies has been damaged in an amount
`
`that is yet to be ascertained and has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable loss and
`
`injury.
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 1 Filed 01/24/14 Page 7 of 8
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Drone Technologies, Inc. prays as to Counts I and II:
`
`A.
`
`that Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc., their officers, agents, servants, employees,
`
`and attorneys be permanently enjoined from infringing the ‘071 patent;
`
`B.
`
`that Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc., their officers, agents, servants, employees,
`
`and attorneys be permanently enjoined from infringing the ‘748 patent;
`
`C.
`
`that Defendants Parrot S.A. and Parrot, Inc. be found liable to Drone Technologies for
`
`their acts of infringement, that such acts of infringement be found to be willful, and that
`
`Defendants be ordered to pay treble compensatory damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 as a
`
`result of their infringing acts, including all damages suffered by Drone Technologies as a result
`
`of the infringement;
`
`D.
`
`that Drone Technologies be awarded its costs and prejudgment interest on all damages
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`E.
`
`that the Court find this case to be exceptional and award reasonable attorney fees to
`
`Drone Technologies; and
`
`F.
`
`that Drone Technologies be awarded such further relief as the Court shall deem
`
`appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 1 Filed 01/24/14 Page 8 of 8
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`s/ Richard T. Ting
`Richard T. Ting
`PA I.D. No. 200438
`rting@beckthomas.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Charles H. Dougherty, Jr.
`PA I.D. No. 83795
`cdougherty@beckthomas.com
`
`John C. Thomas III
`PA I.D. No. 85532
`jthomas@beckthomas.com
`
`Beck & Thomas, P.C.
`1575 McFarland Road
`Suite 100
`Pittsburgh, PA 15216
`Phone: (412) 343-9700
`Fax: (412) 343-5787
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Drone Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 24, 2014