直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • Life Sciences
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • Experience

Experience

Clear skies ahead for drone maker DJI after defeating NPE at the PTAB and in the Western District of Texas

SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.

Synergy Drone, LLC

Finnegan secured a significant win for client DJI, a leading Chinese drone maker, defeating patent infringement accusations against most of DJI’s products. Synergy Drone, LLC (later joined by Drone-Control, LLC, collectively “Drone-Control”) filed a complaint in the Western District of Texas, accusing SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. (DJI) of infringing five patents directed to control of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs, or drones). Drone-Control asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,200,375 (“the ’375 patent”), 8,380,368 (“the ’368 patent”), 8,649,918 (“the ’918 patent”), 9,079,116 (“the ’116 patent”), and 9,568,913 (“the ’913 patent”). Drone-Control sought damages and a permanent injunction against DJI’s drones with intelligent flight modes, including course lock and home lock.

Finnegan worked with DJI to immediately prepare and file petitions for inter partes review (IPR) on the asserted patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review on all five patents and held a five-hour hearing. Shortly thereafter, the PTAB declared all challenged claims of all five patents unpatentable. The Board also denied Drone-Control’s request to substitute claims for four of the five asserted patents. DJI completely prevailed against 76 original claims and 66 substitute claims in five asserted patents. None of the 142 claims survived.

Drone-Control did not appeal the PTAB’s final written decision for the ’375 patent, and subsequently, Drone-Control dropped its case in the Western District of Texas.

SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. v. Synergy Drone, LLC, IPR2018-00204, -00205, -00206, -00207, -00208, PTAB, Judges Goodson, Ippolito, Scanlon

Synergy Drone, LLC v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., 1:17-cv-00242, W.D. Tex., Judge Yeakel

Tags

drones

Related Professionals

Qingyu Yin
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4213
Email
Joshua L. Goldberg
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 202 408 6092
Email

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Pretrial Strategies

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Experiences

Synergy Drone v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.

Daedalus Blue LLC v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Yuneec International Co. Ltd.

SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.

Defeating a motion for preliminary injunction in the Western District of Texas

Cosentino SA et al

Certain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Components Thereof

DJI Technology Inc. et al.

Advanced Aerodynamics, LLC v. DJI Technology, Inc.

DJI Technology, Inc.

Clean sweep at the PTAB for SharkNinja

SharkNinja Operating LLC et al

Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Shenzhen AOTO Electronics Co., Ltd.

Shenzhen AOTO Electronics Co., Ltd

Finnegan revives key Jublia® patent at the Federal Circuit

Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Bausch Health Care

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP