Drone-Control, LLC v. Miami Labs, Inc.
Infringement action filed 7 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and closed 23 Oct 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case settled.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10248117B2US11281205B2US10095226B1
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-22541
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D. Fla.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Florida
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 7 Jul 2023 – 23 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 108 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Settled
- Products & marks
- EXO Blackhawk 2 Pro · EXO Mini · EXO X7 Ranger PLUS · Radio-controlled aircraft products · EXO Cinemaster 2
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Radio controlled aircraft, remote controller and methods for use therewith
A radio controlled (RC) vehicle includes a receiver that is configured to receive an RF signal from a remote control device. The RF signal contains command data in accordance with a first coordinate system that is from a perspective of the remote control device. A motion sensor is configured to generate motion data. A processor is configured to transform the command data into control data based on the motion data and in accordance with a second coordinate system that is from a perspective of the RC vehicle. A plurality of control devices are configured to control motion of the RC vehicle based on the control data.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 2 Apr 2019
- Est. expiry
- 12 Feb 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- STUCKMAN, KATHERINE C. · REYNOLDS, MICHAEL D.
- Classification
- G05D1/00A63H31/10B64C19/00B64C27/57G05D1/02G05D1/08A63H30/04B64C39/02A63H27/00B64U10/17B64U30/297
- Prosecution counsel
- TOLER LAW GROUP
- Examiner
- BLACK, THOMAS G
Radio controlled aircraft, remote controller and methods for use therewith
A radio controlled (RC) vehicle includes a receiver configured to receive a radio frequency (RF) signal from a remote control device. The RF signal indicates command data in accordance with a first coordinate system. The command data includes yaw-velocity command data. The RC vehicle includes motion sensors configured to generate motion data. The RC vehicle includes a processor coupled to the motion sensors and to the receiver. The processor is configured to transform the command data into control data based on the motion data and in accordance with a second coordinate system from a perspective of the RC vehicle. The control data includes yaw-velocity control data. The yaw-velocity control data is related to the yaw-velocity command data. The RC vehicle includes control devices coupled to the processor and configured to control motion of the RC vehicle based on the control data.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 22 Mar 2022
- Est. expiry
- 31 Oct 2029
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- STUCKMAN, KATHERINE C. · REYNOLDS, MICHAEL D.
- Classification
- G05D1/00A63H27/00A63H30/04A63H31/10B64C19/00B64C27/57B64C39/02G05D1/02G05D1/08B64U10/17B64U30/297
- Prosecution counsel
- GARLICK & MARKISON
- Examiner
- NOLAN, PETER D
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Drone-Control, LLC
- Core tech
- G05D1/00A63H31/10B64C19/00B64C27/57
- Counsel
- C. Matthew Rozier · James F. McDonough III · Marcos Daniel Jimenez
- Firm
- Leon Cosgrove Jimenez, LLP, Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
Miami Labs, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Benjamin D. Witte · James Evans Gillenwater · Kathryn E. Albanese · Scott J. Bornstein
- Firm
- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Greenberg Traurig PA
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| C. Matthew Rozier | Drone-Control, LLC | Plaintiff |
| James F. McDonough III | Drone-Control, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Marcos Daniel Jimenez | Drone-Control, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Benjamin D. Witte | Miami Labs, Inc. | Defendant |
| James Evans Gillenwater | Miami Labs, Inc. | Defendant |
| Kathryn E. Albanese | Miami Labs, Inc. | Defendant |
| Scott J. Bornstein | Miami Labs, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“ORDERON NOTICEOF SETTLEMENT. Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Case, (ECF No. 28 ), which states that the parties have reached an agreement that will resolve all matters in controversy between them. The parties shall file a Notice of Dismissal or a Stipulation of Dismissal,a proposed Order of Dismissal or Final Judgment;and any other documents necessary to conclude this action on or before November 20, 2023. The Clerk is Directed to Deny all Pending Motions as Moot. The Clerk shall Administratively Close this case for statistical purposes only. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 10/20/2023. See attached document for full details. (nan) (Entered: 10/23/2023)”
Case 1:23-cv-22541 · S.D. Fla. · closed 23 October 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:23-cv-22541?
1:23-cv-22541 is a patent infringement action brought by Drone-Control, LLC against Miami Labs, Inc., filed on 7 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case closed on 23 October 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-22541?
US10248117B2 (“Radio controlled aircraft, remote controller and methods for use therewith”), assigned to DRONE-CONTROL, LLC, currently active; US11281205B2 (“Radio controlled aircraft, remote controller and methods for use therewith”), assigned to DRONE-CONTROL LLC, currently inactive; US10095226B1 (“Radio controlled aircraft, remote controller and methods for use therewith”), assigned to DRONE-CONTROL, LLC. The record also lists EXO Blackhawk 2 Pro, EXO Mini, EXO X7 Ranger PLUS, Radio-controlled aircraft products and EXO Cinemaster 2.
How was case 1:23-cv-22541 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case settled. The termination text reads: “ORDERON NOTICEOF SETTLEMENT. Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Case, (ECF No. 28 ), which states that the parties have reached an agreement that will resolve all matters in controversy between them. The parties shall file a Notice of Dismissal or a Stipulation of Dismissal,a proposed Order of Dismissal or Final Judgment;and any other documents necessary to conclude this action on or before November 20, 2023. The Clerk is Directed to Deny all Pending Motions as Moot. The Clerk shall Administratively Close this case for statistical purposes only. Signed by Judge Jose E. Martinez on 10/20/2023. See
How long did case 1:23-cv-22541 take?
108 calendar days, from filing on 7 Jul 2023 to closure on 23 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-22541?
C. Matthew Rozier, James F. McDonough III and Marcos Daniel Jimenez are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Drone-Control. Benjamin D. Witte, James Evans Gillenwater, Kathryn E. Albanese and Scott J. Bornstein appear for defendant Miami Labs.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-22541 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.