SZ DJI Technology v. Autel Robotics - Complaint

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and
DJI Europe B.V.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Autel Robotics USA LLC,
Autel Aerial Technology Co., Ltd., and
Autel Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiffs SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and DJI Europe B.V. (collectively, Plaintiffs or
DJI) hereby assert this Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendants Autel Robotics
USA LLC, Autel Aerial Technology Co., Ltd., and Autel Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.
(collectively, Defendants or Autel).
PARTIES
1.
Plaintiff SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. (DJI SZ) is a Chinese corporation with
its principal place of business at 14th Floor, West Wing, Skyworth Semiconductor Design
Building, No. 18 Gaoxin South 4th Ave, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, China. DJI SZ is
responsible for the research and development of DJI-branded products sold in the United States.
2.
Plaintiff DJI Europe B.V. (DJI BV) is a European corporation with its principal
place of business at Bijdorp-Oost 6, 2992 LA Barendrecht, Netherlands. DJI BV sells DJIbranded products in the United States.
3.
On information and belief, Defendant Autel Robotics USA LLC (Autel Robotics
USA) is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business at 22522 29th

Dr. SE I101, Bothell, WA.
4.
On information and belief, Defendant Autel Aerial Technology Co., Ltd., which is
also known as Autel Aerotech Co. Ltd., (Autel ATC) is a Chinese corporation with a principal
place of business at 9th Floor, Building B1, Zhiyuan, Xueyuan Road, Xili, Nanshan, Shenzhen
518055, China. Upon information and belief, Autel ATC has at times also been referred to as
Autel Robotics Co. Ltd.
5.
On information and belief, Defendant Autel Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.
(Autel ITC) is a Chinese corporation with a principal place of business at 6th-10th Floor,
Building B1, Zhiyuan, Xueyuan Road, Xili, Nanshan, Shenzhen 518055, China, and with an
office in the United States at 175 Central Ave, Suite 200, Farmingdale, NY.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
This Complaint arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United States Code. Thus, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28
U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).
7.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because, on information
and belief, each Defendant has regularly and systematically transacted business in this judicial
district, directly or through intermediaries, and/or committed acts of infringement in this judicial
district. Each Defendant has also placed infringing products into the stream of commerce by
shipping those products into this district or knowing that the products would be shipped into this
district.
8.
On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Autel ATC
and/or Autel ITC because these corporations have made, used, sold, offered for sale or imported
into the United States infringing products, including the Autel X-Star and X-Star Premium

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and/or components thereof. On information and belief,
Autel ATC and/or Autel ITC designed and manufactures the infringing Autel X-Star and X-Star
Premium UAVs. On information and belief, the infringing Autel X-Star and X-Star Premium
UAVs sold in the United States identify that the products are made in China. On information and
belief, Autel ATC shares the same website with Autel Robotics USA and identifies the
infringing Autel X-Star and X-Star Premium UAVs sold in the United States as its own. On
information and belief, Autel ITC identifies on its website the infringing Autel X-Star and X-Star
Premium UAVs sold in the United States as its own. Autel ATC and/or Autel ITC has placed
these products into the stream of commerce in the United States, including within this district,
with the intent to serve the market in this district, and has purposely availed itself of the benefits
of the market in this district. The sale of these infringing products in this judicial district has
caused harm in this district. Autel ITC and/or Autel ATC has marketed these products in this
district under the mark AUTEL, which Autel ITC applied to register with the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office via Trademark Application Serial No. 86876815 (dated January 15, 2016), for
goods described as Drone, namely, unmanned aircraft or spaceship that can navigate
autonomously without human control or beyond line of sight, unmanned aircraft or spaceship
that is guided remotely, unmanned aerial vehicle, unmanned aerospace vehicle. In addition,
Autel ATC and/or Autel ITC has marketed these products in this district under the mark XStar, which Autel ATC applied to register with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office via
Trademark Application Serial No. 86472057 (dated December 5, 2014), for goods described as
Drone, namely, unmanned aircraft that can navigate autonomously without human control or
beyond line of sight, unmanned aircraft that is guided remotely, unmanned aerial vehicle,
unmanned aerospace vehicle and Digital camera. On information and belief, Autel ITC and/or

Autel
ATC
owns
and
operates
an
interactive,
English-language
website,
http://www.autelrobotics.com/, on which it continuously advertises the infringing products

identified above, promoting the benefits of using the described products, and offering product
support, registration, user fora, training information and downloads of both updated firmware
and user manuals. This website is directed at the U.S. market, including this district, and all of
the product support, firmware and user manual downloads are accessible from within this
district. On information and belief, the firmware and user manuals were prepared and published
by Autel ITC and/or Autel ATC. On information and belief, Autel ITC and/or ATC provides a
warranty to end-user customers on the infringing Autel products.
9.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Autel Robotics USA by virtue of its
being a limited liability company created and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.
10.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), (c), (d),
and/or 1400(b) because, among other things, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in
this District, have committed acts of patent infringement in this District, and continue to commit
acts of infringement in this District. In addition, venue is proper in this Judicial District as to
Autel Robotics USA under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) and 1400(b) by virtue of its being a corporation
created and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
11.
DJI brings this action to seek injunctive relief and damages arising out of Autels
infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,016,617, 9,284,049, 9,321,530 and D691,514 (collectively
the Patents-in-Suit).
DJI
12.
DJI is an innovator at the forefront of commercial UAV technology. DJI develops

and manu
ufactures aeerial videogrraphy and ph
hotography ssystems for commerciall and recreattional
use. DJIs UAVs include, for example,
e
thee DJI Phantoom 3 (Figurre 1, below)) and Phantom 4
2 below), which
w
bring together DJIs
D
patenteed technologgy in easy tto use, all-inn-one
(Figure 2,
products that providee consumers with access to high quaality aerial im
maging.
Figure 1 (DJI Phant om 3)
Figure 2 (DJI Phant om 4)

13.

DJIs operations are

a global, currently spaanning Northh America, E
Europe, and Asia.
5

DJIs commercial UAVs are versatile; they are used each and every day for things such as aerial
photography and cinematography, scientific research, geological surveying, and much more. DJI
has developed highly sophisticated software applications and interfaces that allow consumers to
fully control the flight system and onboard camera.
14.
Since its founding, DJI has invested millions of dollars in research to develop
industry leading technology fundamental to the very concept of UAVs. To date, DJI employs
over seven hundred engineers that develop cutting-edge and ground-breaking solutions to the
many challenging issues facing commercial UAVs in an emerging industry. In order to provide
out-of-the-box, ready-to-fly products for both amateur and professional consumers, DJIs UAVs
are manufactured and pre-assembled with precision and careful calibration.
15.
DJIs extensive research and development efforts have resulted in more than just
the design and development of revolutionary UAVs like the DJI Phantom series; they have also
led to DJIs development of supporting applications, such as those used for filming, advertising,
construction, firefighting, farming, and many others. For instance, as the Wall Street Journal
reported in November 2015, DJI has developed applications to help farmers more efficiently
spray their crops in plots of land that are difficult for airplanes to reach.
16.
Presently, DJIs products are available for sale online and in retail stores,
including Amazon.com, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, eBay, the Apple Store, and hobby shops.
DJIs Patents-in-Suit
17.
The Patents-in-Suit go to the heart of DJIs business, represent key achievements
in DJIs continuous research and development efforts, and help drive consumer demand for DJIs
products.
18.
On April 28, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and

legally issued U.S. Patent No. 9,016,617 (the 617 patent), entitled Unmanned aerial vehicle
and operations thereof. DJI SZ is the owner of the 617 patent. DJI BV is the exclusive licensee
of the 617 patent. A true and correct copy of the 617 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
19.
On March 15, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
20.
On April 26, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
21.
On October 15, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
legally issued U.S. Design Patent No. D691,514 (the 514 patent), entitled Rotor aircraft.
DJI SZ is the owner of the 514 patent. DJI BV is the exclusive licensee of the 514 patent. A
true and correct copy of the 514 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
Autel
22.
On information and belief, Autel ITC is headquartered in Shenzhen, China. On
information and belief, Autel ATC is headquartered in Shenzhen, China at the same location as
Autel ITC, and is a subsidiary of Autel ITC.
23.
On information and belief, Autel Robotics USA is a subsidiary of Autel ITC
and/or Autel ATC. Autel Robotics USA was formed in Delaware in November 2015. On
information and belief, Autel Robotics USA is a U.S. branch of Autel ITC and/or Autel ATC
responsible for marketing and sales of the infringing products.

24
4.
On in
nformation and
a belief, Autel
A
has maade, used, im
mported, offfered to selll, and
sold UAV
Vs in the United States since at leaast as early aas January 22016, includding the Auttel XStar and Autel X-Staar Premium (collectively
(
y the X-Starrs) (Figuress 3 and 4, below).
Figure 3 (Autel X-S

Star)
Fiigure 4 (Autel X-Star P

Premium)
25.
On Jaanuary 6, 20
016, Autel announced its Americcan debut at CES 22016,

LVCC 25202 with its first line of consumer drones, the X-Star series.
26.
The X-Stars are multi-rotor UAVs that contain a variety of electrical components
used to control various aspects of the operation of the UAVs and sensors for navigational,
surveillance, or remote sensing purposes. The X-Stars are assembled with pre-configured
electrical components and have pre-configured flight modes.
27.
As seen in Figures 3 and 4, above, the X-Stars consist of a housing that forms a
central body of the UAV. The housing has outer and inner surfaces.
28.
The inner surface of the X-Stars housing creates a cavity that contains some of
the electrical components used to control operation of the X-Star UAV. The electrical
components within the cavity include a power source, flight control module, inertial
measurement unit (IMU), and/or GPS receiver.
29.
The X-Stars have extension members that extend away from the central body of
the UAV and that function as a landing stand. Attached to one of these members is a
magnetometer, which is housed sufficiently distant from the central body to reduce the
interference effects from the one or more electrical components contained within the cavity of
the central body. The magnetometer is located more than 3 centimeters but less than 0.5 meters
away from one or more electrical components in the central body.
30.
The X-Stars have four branch housings that extend out from the central body
housing. Each of the branch housings has an upper and a lower branch housing member.
31.
Each of the branch housings has an actuator assembly that is partially within and
partially extending from the branch housing. Each actuator assembly has beneath it a portion of
its respective lower branch housing member. The actuator assemblies consist of an actuator and a
rotor blade and enable the UAV to move in response to signals from a flight control module.

32.
On information an
nd belief, Au
utel copied tthe look andd feel of DJIIs UAVs whhen it
designed
d its X-Stars.. Further, on
n information
n and belief,, Autel knew
w of DJIs deesign patentts and
deliberately and willffully copied DJIs paten
nted designs (see Table 11, below).
TABLE
A
1: Exemplary Infr
fringement
The 514 Patent
P
Figu
ures
X-Star
10

TABLE 1: Exemplary Infr
fringement
11

TABLE
A
1: Exemplary Infr
fringement
33.
The design
d
of thee X-Stars is the same orr substantiallly the samee as the design of
the 514 patent. The UAV desig

gns are so sim
milar as to bbe nearly iddentical suchh that an orddinary
observer,, giving succh attention as a purch
haser usuallyy gives, woould be so deceived byy the
substantiial similarity
y between th
he designs so
o as to be innduced to puurchase an X
X-Star believving it
to be sub
bstantially the same as th
he design pro
otected by thhe 514 patennt.
12

The Commercial UAV Market
34.
The commercial UAV industry is young and fast-growing. According to one
market report, the total Commercial UAV Market was valued at $15.22 Million in 2014, and is
expected to reach $1.27 Billion by 2020, at an estimated CAGR (Compound Annual Growth
Rate) of 109.31% between 2014 and 2020.
35.
Customers in the UAV market include, for example, photographers,
cinematographers, hobbyists, geological surveyors, first responders, energy equipment

inspectors, and technology enthusiasts. Popular sales channels include direct consumer sales,
consumer electronics retail, and online retail sales.
36.
According to an April 2015 Economist article, DJI is a leading player and a
pioneer in the nascent market. The Wall Street Journal calls DJI the company that kick started
the global craze for UAVs. CKGSB Knowledge noted in late 2015 that DJI was the first drone
maker to put together a turnkey package that doesnt require any special knowledge to use.
Competition Between DJI and Autel
37.
DJI and Autel are competitors in the UAV market.
38.
On information and belief, Autel markets the X-Stars as competitors to DJIs
UAVs, including the DJI Phantom models.

39.
On information and belief, in August 2014, Autel hired a former engineer of DJI,
Mr. Fazhan Chen. Mr. Chen worked extensively on the research and development for DJIs
UAV products, including the DJI Phantom models. Upon information and belief, Mr. Chen
provided material information to Autel regarding the development and functioning of DJIs
UAVs. In addition, upon information and belief, Mr. Chen had knowledge of DJIs patent
portfolio and the features of DJIs UAVs that were patent protected.
13

40.
On information and belief, Autel introduced its X-Star UAV products at CES
2016. At CES, Autel announced its pricing as $799 for the X-Star and $999 for the X-Star
Premium. On information and belief, as of the date of this Compliant, Autel sells its X-Stars for
even less at $699 for the X-Star and $899 for the X-Star Premium. On information and belief,
Autel priced its X-Star UAV products in order to compete with and undercut the pricing of DJIs
UAVs, including the DJI Phantom models.
41.
On information and belief, Autel either had actual knowledge of the Patents-in-
Suit and/or their respective applications prior to this action, or willfully blinded itself to the
existence of the Patents-in-Suit. In any event, Autel had actual knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit
no later than the filing of the original Complaint in this action.
42.
On information and belief, Autel had knowledge of DJIs patent portfolio,
including the Patents-in-Suit based on information provided by Mr. Chen. In addition, on

information and belief, Autel monitors DJIs patent portfolio by, for example, monitoring press
releases, articles, and websites regarding DJIs patent portfolio, and had knowledge of DJIs
patent portfolio as a result.
43.
including the Patents-in-Suit, based on previous lawsuits between DJI and Autel involving
foreign counterparts to the 514 patent.
44.
including the Patents-in-Suit, based on the lawsuit filed by DJI against Yuneec International Co.
Ltd. and Yuneec USA Inc. in the Central District of California earlier this year, which was
covered by numerous press and news sources that Autel monitors for information regarding DJI.
Upon information and belief, Autel had knowledge of the contents of DJIs complaint against
14

Yuneec, which specifically mentions the 617 patent and its disclosure of a magnetometer
positioned on the landing stand of a UAV.
45.
On information and belief, Autel willfully blinded itself to the Patents-in-Suit to
the extent it lacked affirmative knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit prior this suit and/or failed to
investigate DJI, the company that kick started the global craze for UAVs.
46.
On information and belief, Autel has known about the Patents-in-Suit and/or their
respective claims since before the filing of this lawsuit. Despite having full knowledge of these
claims, Autel continues its infringing conduct to this day.
COUNT I
(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,016,617)
47.
DJI hereby restates and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 46 and
incorporates them by reference.

48.
Autel has infringed and continues to infringe, either literally and/or under the
doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1-11 and 14 of the 617 patent by making, using, selling,
offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products including, but not limited to,
its X-Star and X-Star Premium products, without the permission of DJI. Autel, is thus liable for
direct infringement of the 617 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(a).
49.
On information and belief, Autel had knowledge of the 617 patent prior to, or at
least as of, the filing of this Complaint and had knowledge that the products identified herein
infringe, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1-11 and 14 of
the 617 patent. Autel has induced and encouraged the direct infringement of the 617 patent by
Autels customers, resellers, retailers, and end users by intentionally directing them and
encouraging them to make, use, sell, and/or offer to sell within the United States and/or to import
into the United States one or more products that embody the patented invention. On information
15

and belief, Autel provides user guides, video tutorials, and customer support to instruct its
customers on how to use the infringing technology. Autel is therefore liable for indirect
infringement of the 617 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(b).
50.
least as of, the filing of this Complaint and had knowledge that the products identified infringe,
either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1-11 and 14 of the 617
patent. Autel has and continues to contributorily infringe, and will continue to contributorily
infringe, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the 617
patent. Autel has contributorily infringed the 617 patent by offering to sell, selling, and/or
importing into the United States a component constituting a material part of the invention
disclosed in the 617 patent, knowing the same to be made or adapted specially for use in the
infringement of the 617 patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
substantial noninfringing use. Autel is therefore liable for indirect infringement of the 617
patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(c).
51.
Unless enjoined by this Court, Autel will continue to infringe the 617 patent, and
DJI will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
Accordingly, DJI is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against such
infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283.
52.
As a result of Autels infringement of the 617 patent, DJI has been and continues
to be irreparably injured in its business and property rights, and is entitled to recover damages for
such injuries pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT II
53.
16

54.
doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1-13, 15, 16-24 and 26-30 of the 049 patent by making,
using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products including, but
not limited to, its X-Star and X-Star Premium products, without the permission of DJI. Autel is
thus liable for direct infringement of the 049 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(a).
55.
infringe, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1-13, 15, 16-24
and 26-30 of the 049 patent. Autel has induced and encouraged the direct infringement of the
049 patent by Autels customers, resellers, retailers, and end users by intentionally directing
them and encouraging them to make, use, sell, and/or offer to sell within the United States and/or
to import into the United States one or more products that embody the patented invention. On
information and belief, Autel provides user guides, video tutorials, and customer support to
instruct its customers on how to use the infringing technology. Autel is therefore liable for
indirect infringement of the 049 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(b).
56.
either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1-13, 15, 16-24 and 26-30
of the 049 patent. Autel has and continues to contributorily infringe, and will continue to
contributorily infringe, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more
claims of the 049 patent. Autel has contributorily infringed the 049 patent by offering to sell,
selling, and/or importing into the United States a component constituting a material part of the
17

invention disclosed in the 049 patent, knowing the same to be made or adapted specially for use
in the infringement of the 049 patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce
suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Autel is therefore liable for indirect infringement of
the 049 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(c).
57.
58.
COUNT III
59.

60.
doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1-13 and 16-28 of the 530 patent by making, using,
selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products including, but not
limited to, its X-Star and X-Star Premium products, without the permission of DJI. Autel is thus
liable for direct infringement of the 530 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(a).
61.
infringe, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1-13 and 16-28
of the 530 patent. Autel has induced and encouraged the direct infringement of the 530 patent
18

by Autels customers, resellers, retailers, and end users by intentionally directing them and
62.
either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1-13 and 16-28 of the
530 patent. Autel has and continues to contributorily infringe, and will continue to
63.
64.
19

COUNT IV
(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D691,514)
65.

66.
doctrine of equivalents, at least the claim and Figures 1-7 of the 514 patent by making, using,
selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products including, but not
limited to, its X-Star and X-Star Premium products, without the permission of DJI. Autel is thus
liable for direct infringement of the 514 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271(a).
67.
infringe, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least the claim and Figures 17 of the 514 patent. Autel has induced and encouraged the direct infringement of the 514 patent
by Autels customers, resellers, retailers, and end users by intentionally directing them and
68.
either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least the claim and Figures 1-7 of the
514 patent. Autel has and continues to contributorily infringe, and will continue to
20

69.
70.
such injuries pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 and/or 289 in an amount to be determined at trial.
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), DJI demands a trial by jury as to all
claims, defenses, and other issues so triable in this action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, DJI respectfully requests that the Court, upon final hearing of this matter,
grant the following relief against Autel:
A.
That Defendants are liable for infringement, contributing to the infringement,
and/or inducing the infringement of one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit, as alleged herein;
21

B.
That
Defendants
and
their
parents,
subsidiaries,
affiliates,
successors,
predecessors, assigns, and the officers, directors, agents, servants, and employees of each of the
foregoing, customers and/or licensees and those persons acting in concert or participation with
any of them, are enjoined and restrained from continued infringement, including but not limited
to using, making, importing, offering for sale and/or selling products that infringe, and from
contributorily and/or inducing the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit prior to their expiration,
including any extensions;
C.
An Order directing Defendants to file with this Court and serve upon Plaintiffs
counsel within 30 days after the entry of the Order of Injunction a report setting forth the manner
and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction;
D.
An award of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the infringement that
has occurred, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 284 and/or 289, in lost profits, price erosion
and/or reasonable royalty, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rates
allowed by law;
E.
An accounting and/or supplemental damages for all damages occurring after any
discovery cutoff and through the Courts decision regarding the imposition of a permanent
injunction;
F.
An award of attorneys fees based on this being an exceptional case pursuant to
35 U.S.C. 285, including prejudgment interest on such fees;

G.
Costs and expenses in this action;
H.
Such other and further relief, in law and in equity, as this Court may deem just
and appropriate.
22

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of August, 2016
/s/ George Pazuniak
George Pazuniak (DE Bar No. 00478)
OKelly & Ernst, LLC
901 N. Market St. Suite 1000
Wilmington, DE 19801
D. 302 478-4230
E. GP@del-iplaw.com
Of Counsel
David M. Farnum, Esq.
Sherry X. Wu, Esq.
ANOVA LAW GROUP, PLLC
21351 Gentry Drive Ste 150
Sterling, VA 20166
M. 703 801-1084
E. david.farnum@anovalaw.com
M. 703 622-0573
E. sherry.wu@anovalaw.com
Jonathan M. James, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
2901 North Central Avenue Ste 2000
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
D. 602.351.8440
M. 602.502.7990
E. JJames@perkinscoie.com
Attorneys for SZ DJI Technology Co.,
Ltd. and DJI Europe B.V.
23
Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 24
Exhibit1
Exhibit2
Exhibit3
Exhibit4
JS 44 (Rev. 11/15)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and DJI Europe B.V.
Autel Robotics USA LLC, Autel Aerial Technology Co., Ltd., and
Autel Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
George Pazuniak (DE Bar No. 00478)

OKelly & Ernst, LLC, 901 N. Market St. Suite 1000
(302) 478-4230
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
U.S. Government
Defendant
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1
DEF
1
and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT
TORTS
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
OTHER STATUTES
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original
Proceeding
2 Removed from
State Court
Remanded from
Appellate Court
4 Reinstated or
Reopened
5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
6 Multidistrict
Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
35 U.S.C. 271(a), 35 U.S.C. 271(b), 35 U.S.C. 271(c), 35 U.S.C. 283, 35 U.S.C. 284
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Patent infringement
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
DEMAND $
DOCKET NUMBER
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
/George Pazuniak /
08/11/2016
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
Print
APPLYING IFP
Save As...
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
Reset
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/15)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
(b)
(c)
Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V.
Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

SZ DJI Technology v. Autel Robotics - Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

SZ DJI Technology v. Autel Robotics - Complaint

Uploaded by

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 2

On information and belief, Defendant Autel Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 3

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 4

http://www.autelrobotics.com/, on which it continuously advertises the infringing products

DJI is an innovator at the forefront of commercial UAV technology. DJI develops

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 5

Figure 1 (DJI Phant om 3)

Figure 2 (DJI Phant om 4)

DJIs operations are

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 6

The Patents-in-Suit go to the heart of DJIs business, represent key achievements

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 7

On information and belief, Autel ITC is headquartered in Shenzhen, China. On

On information and belief, Autel Robotics USA is a subsidiary of Autel ITC

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 8

Figure 3 (Autel X-S

Fiigure 4 (Autel X-Star P

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 9

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 10

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 11

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 12

the 514 patent. The UAV desig

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 13

The commercial UAV industry is young and fast-growing. According to one

Customers in the UAV market include, for example, photographers,

cinematographers, hobbyists, geological surveyors, first responders, energy equipment

According to an April 2015 Economist article, DJI is a leading player and a

DJI and Autel are competitors in the UAV market.

On information and belief, Autel markets the X-Stars as competitors to DJIs

UAVs, including the DJI Phantom models.

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 14

On information and belief, Autel had knowledge of DJIs patent portfolio,

including the Patents-in-Suit based on information provided by Mr. Chen. In addition, on

On information and belief, Autel had knowledge of DJIs patent portfolio,

On information and belief, Autel had knowledge of DJIs patent portfolio,

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 15

On information and belief, Autel willfully blinded itself to the Patents-in-Suit to

incorporates them by reference.

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 16

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 17

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 18

incorporates them by reference.

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 19

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: 20

incorporates them by reference.

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: 21

That Defendants are liable for infringement, contributing to the infringement,

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: 22

An award of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the infringement that

An award of attorneys fees based on this being an exceptional case pursuant to

35 U.S.C. 285, including prejudgment interest on such fees;

Costs and expenses in this action;

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: 23

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 24

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 25

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 26

Case 1:16-cv-00706-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 08/11/16 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 27