IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

DAEDALUS BLUE LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and DJI 

EUROPE B.V., 

 Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00073-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANTS SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., AND DJI EUROPE B.V.’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6) 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 17
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...................................................... 2

III. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM OF INFRINGEMENT AGAINST THE DJI DEFENDANTS. ......... 4

A. Legal Standard .......................................................................................................4

B. Daedalus Fails to Allege That Either of the DJI Defendants Perform All 

of the Claimed Method Steps. ................................................................................5

C. Daedalus Fails to Adequately Plead Joint Infringement. .......................................6

D. Daedalus Fails to State a Plausible Claim of Induced or Contributory 

Infringement. ........................................................................................................13

IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 13

 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 17
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 

797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) .................................................................................5 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................4 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................4 

De la Vega v. MicroSoft Corp., 

6:19-cv-00612-ADA, D.I. 29 (February 7, 2020) ................................2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 

Fernandez-Montez v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 

987 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1993) .....................................................................................................4 

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 

572 U.S. 915 (2014) .................................................................................................................13 

Lyda v. CBS Corp., 

838 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 

NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 

418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................2 

Ziptronix Inc. v. Omnivision Techs., Inc., 

C 10-5525 SBA, 2011 WL 5416187 (N. D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011) ............................................6, 7 

Other Authorities 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ..............................................................................1, 4, 13

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 17
1 

Defendants SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and DJI Europe B.V. (“DJI Defendants”) hereby 

file this motion to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff, Daedalus Blue, LLC (“Daedalus”) 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Daedalus’ complaint should be dismissed because it fails to state a plausible infringement 

claim against either of the DJI Defendants. Though it spans 60 pages, the complaint contains no 

claim charts and its infringement allegations consist largely of conclusory, boilerplate statements 

unsupported by factual allegations to support its claims. At most, it attempts to provide an elementby-element showing of infringement for one method claim of each patent. D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶¶37-

45, 66-72, 91-99. But that attempt is legally deficient because “a typical claim of direct 

infringement requires proof that a defendant performs each step of the claimed method.” Lyda v. 

CBS Corp., 838 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The complaint provides no allegations that 

either DJI Defendant, or any other entity, perform each step of these method claims. Instead, the 

Complaint treats the claims as though they are apparatus claims and improperly reads the recited 

method steps on the product itself. 

Daedalus’ infringement claims are also deficient because the method claims it identifies 

present a case of joint infringement and the complaint contains none of the allegations required to 

adequately plead joint infringement. Both the complaint allegations and the patent claim language 

establish that multiple actors are involved in performing the claimed method steps of each patent. 

For example, the complaint alleges that the “user” performs the “piloting” step in the asserted 

method claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,228, 232 (“’232 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. No. 7,231,294 

(“’294 Patent”), while attributing other steps like “reading” from a GPS receiver to applications 

and/or programs that implicate other entities. Similarly, the asserted method claims of the ‘294 

Patent, as well as those of U.S. Patent No. 7,286,913 (the “’913 Patent”), recite a step of “receiving 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 4 of 17
2 

... a user’s selection of a GUI map pixel” while the complaint alleges that the “mapping” step is 

again performed through applications and programs that implicate other entities, including third 

party providers that map locations to Earth coordinates. To adequately plead joint infringement, 

Daedalus must allege that one entity exercises direction or control over another’s performance, or 

that the multiple actors form a joint enterprise. Lyda, 838 F.3d at 1339; De la Vega v. MicroSoft 

Corp., 6:19-cv-00612-ADA, D.I. 29 (February 7, 2020). The complaint contains no such 

allegations. 

Daedalus’ failure to identify an entity who performs each of the steps of the claimed 

methods is particularly troublesome here. Neither of the DJI Defendants has business locations in 

the United States. SZ DJI is located in China and DJI Europe B.V. in the Netherlands. D.I. 1, 

Complaint, ¶6. To plausibly allege direct infringement of method claims, Daedalus must not only 

provide the DJI Defendants with adequate notice as to how each of them performed all steps of 

the claimed method, Daedalus must also adequately allege that each DJI Defendant performed the 

claimed steps within the United States. NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 

1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (no infringement of method claims where a method step is performed outside 

the United States). Daedalus has not come close to doing so and its complaint should be dismissed. 

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Daedalus is a non-practicing entity formed in December 2019. (Ex. 1). Daedalus 

purportedly acquired some 500 IBM patents from another Daedalus entity, Daedalus Group LLC, 

in January 2020. (Ex. 2), (Ex. 3). Days later, Daedalus filed this lawsuit accusing the DJI 

Defendants of directly and indirectly infringing three patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,228,232, U.S. 

Patent No. 7,231,294, and U.S. Patent No. 7,286,913. Each of these patents generally relates to 

navigating an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or “UAV”. 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 5 of 17
3 

Daedalus’ Complaint contains conclusory, unsupported allegations that virtually all of 

DJI’s “drone and drone-related products” infringe all 96 claims in these three patents. D.I. 1, 

Complaint, ¶¶30, 56, 65. However, Daedalus does not provide a claim chart showing how all of 

these products infringe all 96 claims. Instead, it provides allegations purporting to read one method 

claim in each patent (claim 1) on a particular DJI product. For the ‘232 Patent, Daedalus alleges 

that method claim 1 reads on the “Mavic Series UAV”. D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶¶37-45. Method claim 

1 of the ‘232 Patent states: 

1. A method for navigating a UAV, the method comprising: 

[a] piloting the UAV, under control of a navigation computer, in accordance with a 

navigation algorithm; 

[b] while piloting the UAV: 

[c] reading from a GPS receiver a sequence of GPS data; 

[d] anticipating a future position of the UAV in dependence upon the sequence of 

GPS data; 

[e] identifying an obstacle in dependence upon the future position; 

[f] selecting an obstacle avoidance algorithm; and 

[g] piloting the UAV in accordance with the selected obstacle avoidance algorithm. 

D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶38 (underlining added for emphasis in joint infringement discussion). 

Similarly, Daedalus alleges that method claim 1 of the ‘294 Patent reads on the Phantom 4 

Pro Series UAV. D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶¶65-72. Method claim 1 of the ‘294 Patent states: 

1. A method for navigating an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”), the method 

comprising: 

[a] receiving in a remote control device a user's selection of a GUI map pixel that 

represents a waypoint for UAV navigation, the pixel having a location on the GUI; 

[b] mapping the pixel’s location on the GUI to Earth coordinates of the waypoint; 

transmitting the coordinates of the waypoint to the UAV; 

[c] reading a starting position from a GPS receiver on the UAV; and 

[d] piloting the UAV, under control of a navigation computer on the UAV, from 

the starting position to the waypoint in accordance with a navigation. 

D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶66 (underlining added for emphasis in joint infringement discussion). 

Last, Daedalus alleges that method claim 1 of the ‘913 Patent reads on the Phantom 4 Pro 

Series UAV. D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶¶90-99. Method claim 1 of the ‘913 Patent states: 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 6 of 17
4 

1. A method for navigating an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), the method 

comprising: 

[a] receiving in a remote control device a user’s selection of a GUI map pixel that 

represents a waypoint for UAV navigation, the pixel having a location on the GUI; 

[b] mapping the pixel’s location on the GUI to Earth coordinates of the waypoint; 

[c] receiving downlink telemetry, including a starting position from a GPS receiver 

on the UAV, from the UAV through a socket on the remote control device; 

[d] calculating a heading in dependence upon the starting position, the coordinates 

of the waypoint, and a navigation algorithm; 

[e] identifying flight control instructions for flying the UAV on the heading; and 

[f] transmitting uplink telemetry, including the flight control instructions, through 

the socket to the UAV. 

D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶91 (underlining added for emphasis in joint infringement discussion). 

Daedalus’ complaint does not allege or identify how either of the DJI Defendants, or any other 

entity, performs each step of these method claims. Instead, Daedalus attempts to read the steps of 

a method claim on the DJI product itself. 

III. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A CLAIM OF INFRINGEMENT AGAINST THE DJI DEFENDANTS. 

A. Legal Standard 

A court is entitled to dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss 

under Rule 12(b)(6), a court takes as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and construes them 

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Fernandez-Montez v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 

284 (5th Cir. 1993). To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); De la 

Vega, 6:19-cv-00612-ADA, D.I. 29 at 3 (February 7, 2020). The plausibility standard is not met 

unless the “plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Courts “are not bound to accept as 

true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id. Thus, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 7 of 17
5 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Here, 

Daedalus has failed to state a plausible claim that either of the DJI Defendants are liable for patent 

infringement. 

B. Daedalus Fails to Allege That Either of the DJI Defendants Perform All of the 

Claimed Method Steps. 

The claims that Daedalus attempts to read on accused products in its complaint are method 

claims.

1

 See D.I. Complaint, ¶¶38-45, 66-72, 91-99. “Direct infringement under § 271(a) occurs 

where all steps of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to a single entity.” Akamai 

Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). “[A] 

typical claim of direct infringement requires proof that a defendant performs each step of the 

claimed method.” Lyda, 838 F.3d at 1338. Here, Daedalus’ complaint fails to state a claim because 

it does not plausibly allege that all of the claimed method steps are performed by either of the DJI 

Defendants, or any other single entity. Rather, the Complaint treats the claims as though they are 

apparatus claims and attempts to read the recited method steps on the product itself. This can be 

seen by reference to the ‘232 Patent allegations set forth below: 

39. On information and belief, the Mavic Series UAV (“Mavic”) performs a method for 

navigating an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”).... 

40. On information and belief, the Mavic pilots the UAV under control of a navigation 

computer, in accordance with a navigation algorithm.... 

41. On information and belief, the Mavic, while piloting the UAV, reads from a GPS 

receiver a sequence of GPS data.... 

42. On information and belief, the Mavic anticipates a future position of the UAV in 

1

 The patents also include claims to a “system” and a “computer program product”, but Daedalus has chosen 

to read only the method claims on accused products. 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 8 of 17
6 

dependence upon the sequence of GPS data.... 

43. On information and belief, the Mavic identifies an obstacle in dependence upon the 

future position.... 

44. On information and belief, the Mavic selects an obstacle avoidance algorithm.... 

45. On information and belief, the Mavic pilots the UAV in accordance with the selected 

obstacle avoidance algorithm.... 

D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶¶38-45 (emphasis added.). Plaintiff applies the same approach to the asserted 

method claims of the ‘294 and ‘913 Patents. D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶¶66-72, 91-99. In effect, Plaintiff 

completely sidesteps the quintessential requirement for establishing infringement of a method 

claim – identifying an entity who performs each of the recited steps. By doing so, Plaintiff has 

wholly failed to provide the DJI Defendants with adequate notice of the conduct accused of 

infringement. Ziptronix Inc. v. Omnivision Techs., Inc., C 10-5525 SBA, 2011 WL 5416187, at 

*4 (N. D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011) (“their counterclaims contain no allegation that all steps and stages 

of their protected process have been used by Plaintiff. Consequently, Defendants’ claims of direct 

infringement are insufficient to provide Plaintiff with notice of the alleged infringement, and, as 

to these claims, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.”). 

C. Daedalus Fails to Adequately Plead Joint Infringement. 

The deficiencies in Daedalus’ infringement allegations are particularly acute here because 

the claims and Complaint indicate that multiple actors are involved in performing the claimed 

method steps. When multiple actors are involved in performing the method steps of a claim, a 

case of joint infringement arises. See De la Vega, 6:19-cv-00612-ADA, D.I. 29 at 6 (February 7, 

2020). To meet the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard for joint infringement by the combined acts 

of multiple parties, the complaint must plead “facts sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that 

all steps of the claimed method are performed and either (1) one party exercises the requisite 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 9 of 17
7 

‘direction and control’ over the other’s performance or (2) the actors form a joint enterprise such 

that performance of every step is attributable to the controlling party.” Lyda, 838 F.3d at 1339; 

De la Vega, 6:19-cv-00612-ADA, D.I. 29 at 6. As discussed above, Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid 

of any allegation that either DJI defendant performs all of the recited method steps, much less 

allegations that one of them exercises direction or control over another’s performance of claimed 

steps, or that the multiple actors form a joint enterprise. 

In De la Vega, this Court recently dismissed a complaint for failure to state a claim of 

direct infringement of asserted method claims. De la Vega, 6:19-cv-00612-ADA, D.I. 29 at 6 

(February 7, 2020). De la Vega alleged that Defendants Microsoft and Google each perform all 

the recited steps of claim 1. But when explaining how Microsoft and Google performed these 

steps, De la Vega illogically contended that actors other than Microsoft or Google perform some 

of the claim steps. Id. at 7. This Court concluded that “[b]ecause claim 1 on its face plainly 

requires at least multiple actors—a fact which Plaintiff recognizes and addresses in his complaints 

(see above)—Defendants are correct that this is a case of joint infringement.” Id. This Court then 

dismissed De la Vega’s Complaint because it “fails to make even conclusory allegations” of 

direction, control or joint enterprise. Id. 

Similarly, in Lyda, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that Mr. Lyda 

failed to adequately plead direct or joint infringement where the claims required third party actions 

such as “having the audience member input the program identifier code into the user input device” 

during a television program to transmit the response to a program presenter. Lyda, 838 F.3d at 

1335. With only conclusory statements that CBS was responsible for the accused actions, the 

Court found “no allegations in the Amended Complaint that can form the basis of a reasonable 

inference that each claim step was performed by or should be attributed to Defendants.” Id. 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 10 of 17
8 

Here, Daedalus’ complaint is even more deficient than the ones dismissed in De la Vega 

and Lyda. The complaint contains no allegations that any entity performs all of the steps of claim 

1 of any of the asserted patents. See Supra, Part III.B. And as demonstrated below, the complaint 

allegations and the claim language itself indicate that multiple actors are involved in performing 

the steps of the asserted method claims. 

The ‘232 Patent. Method claim 1 of the ‘232 Patent recites a step [a] of “piloting the 

UAV, under control of a navigation computer.” D.I. 1, Complaint, Ex. A. Plaintiff’s complaint 

alleges that the user pilots the Defendants’ products. D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶34 (“the portions of 

Defendants’ products that allow the user to pilot the Defendants’ products in accordance with a 

selected obstacle avoidance algorithm”). The Complaint also quotes from a product User Manual 

that states the aircraft waits for “pilot commands,” that the user may tap or press a button to retake 

control, and that if no pilot command is given, the aircraft flies to the home point: 

D.I. Complaint, ¶44 (quoting User’s Manual, Mavic 2 Pro/Zoom at p. 17). And while Daedalus 

avers generally that the “Mavic pilots the UAV,” the Complaint cites as support a portion of the 

DJI GS Pro User’s Manual which describes actions the user takes to “[s]et a waypoint flight path” 

and “start flying with a tap”: 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 11 of 17
9 

D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶40. 

In addition, claim 1 includes steps that are not alleged to be performed by the user and 

implicates other entities. For example, claim 1 includes steps of [c] reading from a GPS receiver 

a sequence of GPS data, [d] anticipating a future position of the UAV, and [e] identifying an 

obstacle in dependence on the future position. D.I. 1, Complaint, Ex. A. The Complaint does not 

allege that a user reads from a GPS receiver, anticipates a future position of the UAV, or identifies 

an obstacle. Rather, the complaint appears to allege that this is done autonomously based on 

programs and algorithms stored in the products or in applications. See, e.g., D.I. 1, Complaint, 

¶33 (“DJI branded model lines...utilize flight planning and control programs implementing 

‘Obstacle Avoidance Algorithms’ that aid the user of the Defendants’ products, as the products 

autonomously avoid obstacles by GPS based avoidance of two- or three-dimensional geographic 

areas...or three-dimensional physical objects. Such obstacle avoidance algorithms, stored both 

on-board Defendants’ UAVs and within Defendants applications.”); see also ¶¶41-43. The 

Complaint likewise cites to a User Manual for the “anticipating” and “identifying” steps. This 

User Manual refers to a Failsafe RTH mode that “automatically activates after the remote control 

signal is lost” and when activated “the aircraft starts to retrace its original flight route.” 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 12 of 17
10 

D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶42 (emphasis in original). In De la Vega, the Complaint alleged that Defendant 

Microsoft provided the program or application and the user downloaded and streamed the program. 

De la Vega, 6:19-cv-00612-ADA, D.I. 29 at 5. The reading, anticipating and identifying steps 

here are similarly alleged to be performed by applications and programs. Accordingly, just as in 

De la Vega, entities other than the user are involved in performing the claimed steps, and a case 

of joint infringement is presented. 

The ‘294 Patent. Daedalus’ assertions concerning method claim 1 of the ‘294 Patent also 

implicate multiple actors. ‘294 Claim 1 includes the same step of “piloting the UAV, under control 

of a navigation computer” found in claim 1 of the ‘232 Patent. D.I. 1, Complaint, Ex. A. Daedalus’ 

allegations with respect to the ‘294 Patent mirror the allegations it makes with respect to the ‘232 

patent. Daedalus alleges that the user pilots the Defendants’ products. D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶60 

(“the portions of Defendants’ products that allow the user to pilot the Defendants’ products in 

accordance with [a selected obstacle avoidance] algorithm”). Further, the Complaint cites to a 

YouTube video as support for this method step: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvvbMxQ9Hj0. D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶72. 

This video describes how a user can fly and navigate the aircraft to set waypoints. Id. Claim 1 

also includes the step [a] of “receiving in a remote control a user’s selection of a GUI map pixel 

that represents a waypoint for UAV navigation.” Before this receiving step is performed, a user 

must select a GUI map pixel that represents a waypoint for UAV navigation. 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 13 of 17
11 

However, ‘294 Claim 1 also includes steps that are not alleged to be performed by the user 

and implicate other entities. For example, claim 1 includes steps of [b] “mapping the pixel’s 

location on the GUI to Earth coordinates of the waypoint” and [c] “reading a starting position from 

a GPS receiver on the UAV.” D.I. 1, Complaint Ex. B. GUI is an acronym for “Graphical User 

Interface” and refers to a display means for a computer screen. D.I. 1, Complaint, Ex. A, 3:58-59. 

“GPS” is an acronym for the Global Positioning System which is a network of satellites orbiting 

the earth. D.I. 1, Complaint, Ex. A, 4:50-56. The complaint does not allege that a user maps the 

pixel’s location on a computer screen display or reads a starting position from a GPS receiver. 

Instead, the Complaint alleges that these “mapping” and “reading” steps are performed by 

applications and software installed in the DJI products and/or remote control devices. For instance, 

the Complaint alleges that the DJI products are “sold with remote-control devices equipped with, 

or able to be equipped with, GUI mapping” and/or that users can “download and install DJI brand 

applications and software (DJI GO4, DJI Terra, DJI FlightHub, DJI GS Pro) on to mobile 

computing devices (smartphones, laptop, tablets) to effectively turn said devices into remote 

controls equipped with GUI mapping.” D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶61. 

Daedalus’ allegation that the [b] “mapping” and [c] “reading” steps are performed by 

applications and software in the accused products implicates entities other than the user. For 

example, the step of “mapping the pixel’s location on the GUI to Earth coordinates” implicates 

third party providers who map locations to Earth coordinates. In addition, the Complaint cites a 

User’s Manual for the [c] “reading step”, and that manual states that the aircraft flies automatically

to the start point: 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 14 of 17
12 

D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶71. Accordingly, just as in De la Vega, the claim and complaint identify 

multiple actors who are involved in performing the method steps and a case of joint infringement 

is presented. 

The ‘913 Patent. Daedalus’ allegations concerning method claim 1 of the ‘913 Patent also 

implicate multiple actors. The ‘913 Patent includes the same “receiving” and “mapping” steps 

found in the ‘294 Patent. D.I. 1, Complaint, Ex. C. Just like the ‘294 Patent, the Complaint alleges 

that the “mapping” step is performed by control applications and algorithms in the DJI products 

and/or in remote control devices. D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶86 (“DJI branded model lines ... utilize at 

least three mission planning and UAV control applications implementing ‘Navigation Algorithms’ 

that allow the user to control the Defendants’ product by means of a remote control with GUI Map 

pixels representing waypoints: (1) the DJI GO 4, (2) the DJI GS Pro, (3) DJI Terra, and (4) DJI 

FlightHub.”); Complaint, ¶94 (mapping). 

The ‘913 claim steps thus implicate multiple entities for the same reasons stated above for 

the ‘294 Patent. The “receiving” step indicates that a user must select a GUI map pixel before the 

“receiving step” is performed. Meanwhile, the “mapping” step implicates entities other than the 

user, including third party providers that map locations to Earth coordinates. Accordingly, a case 

of joint infringement is presented. 

As discussed above, Daedalus’ allegations present a case of joint infringement for claim 1 

of each of the asserted patents. Yet, Daedalus’ complaint is bereft of any of the allegations of 

direction or control or joint enterprise that are required to plead joint infringement. As in Lyda 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 15 of 17
13 

and De la Vega, the “Complaint fails to make even conclusory allegations” of “direction, control 

or joint enterprise”, much less “allege any facts in support of the same.” De la Vega, 6:19-cv00612-ADA, D.I. 29, at 6 (February 7, 2020). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for 

direct infringement based on the method claims of any of the asserted patents, and the complaint 

must be dismissed. Lyda v. CBS Corp., 838 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016); De la Vega, 6:19-cv00612-ADA, D.I. 29 at 6 (February 7, 2020). 

D. Daedalus Fails to State a Plausible Claim of Induced or Contributory 

Infringement. 

To sufficiently allege indirect infringement, a Complaint must contain allegations of an 

underlying act of direct infringement. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 572 U.S. 

915, 920-21 & n. 3 (2014). Here, Daedalus fails to adequately plead the predicate act of direct 

infringement. See Supra, Part III.B, III.C. Daedalus cannot include additional allegations ad hoc

in hopes the one of them will stick. Daedalus must provide the specific basis for allegations of 

direct, and induced and contributory infringement within the complaint. Accordingly, since 

Daedalus failed to adequately plead direct infringement, Daedalus’ claims of induced and 

contributory infringement must also be dismissed. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to 

state a claim of infringement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Dated: May 20, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 KING & SPALDING LLP 

/s/ Steven M. Zager 

Steven M. Zager 

State Bar No. 22241500 

500 West 2nd Street 

Suite 1800 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 16 of 17
14 

36916139.v3 

Austin, TX 78701 

szager@kslaw.com 

Phone: (512) 457-2040 

Jeffrey D. Mills 

State Bar No. 24034203 

500 West 2nd Street 

Suite 1800 

Austin, TX 78701 

jmills@kslaw.com 

Phone: (512) 457-2027 

Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendants 

SZ DJI Technology Co. and DJI Europe B.V. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on May 20, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

DEFENDANTS SZ DJI TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. AND DJI EUROPE B.V.’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 12(b)(6) was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of 

the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other 

parties will be served by regular U.S. Mail. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s 

electronic filing system. 

/s/ Jeffrey D. Mills 

Jeffrey D. Mills 

Case 6:20-cv-00073-ADA Document 14 Filed 05/20/20 Page 17 of 17