Zipline patent case update

(Corrected 20th Jul, because i am a numpty)

In 2021 Zipline filed a patent for acoustic detection and avoid and SARA – Scientific Applications and Research Associates raised a case to counter that. There has recently been a ruling in this case.

We first heard (see what I did there) about SARA in 2010 when they launched Passive Acoustic Non-cooperative Collision-Alert System (PANCAS) utilizes Low-Cost Scout UAV Acoustic System (LOSAS) technology.

SARA developed a first-of-its-kind acoustic collision avoidance technology for UAV’s and filed for patent protection on October 17, 2007.  U.S. Patent No. 7,606,115, entitled “Acoustic Airspace Collision Detection System”, issued on October 20, 2009.  Since then, SARA has continued to enhance its acoustic DAA technology, demonstrating superior performance and scalability, and has partnered with major players in the UAV industry.

This is what was filed last year against Zipline.

According to the complaint, “Since at least April 2020, Zipline has been manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or licensing UAV’s featuring Acoustic DAA systems which infringe one or more claims of SARA’s ’115 patent.  Additionally, successful implementation of SARA’s Acoustic DAA technology into Zipline’s UAV’s requires the unauthorized use of SARA’s proprietary technology, trade secrets, and know-how. On information and belief, Zipline has thus misappropriated and is using SARA’s trade secrets in violation of California and federal trade secret laws, and in breach of the Confidential Non-Disclosure Agreement executed by the parties.”    

Zipline’s announcement, on June 7, 2022, that it had developed an acoustic DAA system comes on the heels of its recent announcements of a partnership with Walmart for deployment of home delivery drone services and of having raised $250 Million of new funding at a valuation of $2.75 Billion.

The complaint lays out a timeline of the relationship between SARA and Zipline:  “In 2017, Zipline entered into discussions with SARA related to incorporating SARA’s acoustic DAA technology into Zipline’s delivery UAV’s. As part of these discussions, the parties entered into a Confidential Non-Disclosure Agreement.

That Agreement included a description of the proprietary information to be shared by the parties indicating that SARA would be sharing information related to its acoustic sense and avoid technology for UAV’s. During 2017 and early 2018, the companies’ ongoing discussions led to negotiation of a term sheet describing the proposed details of their partnership. As part of these discussions, Zipline was made aware of SARA’s ’115 patent and its Acoustic DAA technology. Zipline also obtained confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information about SARA’s products and technology, subject to the Confidential Non-Disclosure Agreement between the parties. In 2018, Zipline ceased communications with SARA relating to this potential partnership.”  

I think if I try and interpret what the judge ruled I will butcher, it so here it is.

A spokesperson from Zipline speaking to sUAS New has said this evening:-

“Our revolutionary Detection and Avoidance system uses proprietary technology that Zipline independently developed, specifically for our aircrafts. This lawsuit entirely lacks merit and we will vigorously defend ourselves.” – Zipline spokesperson

sUAS News reader Rob Honeycutt very kindly pointed me in the right direction.

That is merely a ruling on what’s called “claim construction.” That’s just a process for clearly defining the terms used in the patent claims. So, no, that’s not Zipline losing the case at all.

In this claim construction Zipline is trying to say the term “noise” is “indefinite,” suggesting that in the scope of the patent it’s not clear enough language to fully understand the intellectual property being claimed. The judge is ruling that anyone with skills in relevant technology would, indeed, understand what was being referred to by the word “noise.”

Claim construction comes very early in patent litigation. There will be a lot of other ways that Zipline’s lawyers will try to argue their client either doesn’t infringe or SARA’s patent is invalid.

If this were tennis you might say, “Advantage SARA.” But this is still in the first game of the match.