Textron v. DJI: Four UAV Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice After 538 Days
Textron, Inc. sued DJI and three affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four patents covering unmanned aerial vehicle flight control and safety technologies across DJI’s entire consumer drone portfolio. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after 538 days, with each side bearing its own legal costs — a resolution that permanently closes the door on these specific claims.
Textron’s four-patent UAV assault on DJI ends by stipulation
On September 9, 2022, Textron, Inc. filed suit against SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and three related entities — DJI Europe B.V., SZ DJI Baiwang Technology Co. Ltd., and iFlight Technology Company Ltd. — in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00351). Textron alleged infringement of four U.S. patents: US8332082B2, US11288972B2, US8682505B2, and US10275950B2, all directed at UAV flight control and safety systems. The accused products spanned virtually DJI’s entire consumer drone lineup, including the Phantom, Inspire, Mavic, Mini, Air, Spark, and FPV series.
The case closed on February 29, 2024, when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The court accepted the stipulation and dismissed all claims and causes of action with prejudice, meaning Textron is permanently barred from reasserting the same patent claims against the same defendants. No costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees were awarded to either side — an equal-footing resolution that is consistent with a negotiated settlement, though the specific financial terms, if any, remain confidential and are not reflected in the public record.
The 538-day duration suggests the parties engaged in meaningful litigation activity — likely including claim construction briefing and discovery — before reaching resolution. The breadth of the accused product list and the four-patent assertion strategy suggest Textron mounted a substantive challenge, making the with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing particularly notable. What drove resolution at this specific juncture — whether a licensing agreement, a strategic business decision, or litigation risk assessment — is not publicly disclosed.
Filing to settlement in 538 days
538 days — longer than many E.D. Tex. patent cases that settle pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation — Textron cannot refile
Joint stipulation of dismissal — what it means
A joint stipulation of dismissal is a procedural instrument filed by both parties asking the court to close the case. Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal, a joint stipulation signals that both sides agreed to the exit terms. The court’s role is largely ministerial — it accepted and acknowledged the stipulation here without issuing a merits ruling. This mechanism is commonly used when parties have reached a private resolution they prefer not to disclose in court filings.
Bilateral agreed exitWith prejudice bars Textron from refiling these claims
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Textron cannot refile any of the four asserted patents — US8332082B2, US11288972B2, US8682505B2, or US10275950B2 — against these specific DJI defendants in a new action. This is a significant concession by the plaintiff, suggesting the parties reached a durable resolution rather than Textron simply withdrawing to reassert claims later.
Permanent claim barEach party bears its own fees — no prevailing party
The court’s order specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a district court may award attorney fees in exceptional patent cases, but no such award was made here. The equal cost allocation is consistent with a negotiated exit and signals that neither party successfully argued exceptional-case status. After 538 days of litigation, both sides effectively absorbed their own legal spend as part of the resolution.
No § 285 fee awardAll pending relief denied as moot
The dismissal order explicitly denies as moot all pending requests for relief not otherwise addressed. This is standard housekeeping language that cleanly terminates any outstanding motions — such as claim construction disputes, summary judgment motions, or discovery requests — without the court needing to rule on their merits. It provides a clean administrative close, but gives no signal about the likely outcome of any substantive pending motion.
Clean docket closureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Textron, Inc. | Company | Aerospace & defense conglomerate — holder of four UAV flight control patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. — world’s largest consumer drone manufacturer, Shenzhen, ChinaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Boyang Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Caroline Duncan | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Emily F. Deer | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Harrison Gheens Rich | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffery Scott Becker | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin James Meek | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kurt Max Pankratz | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Speegle | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Morgan Grissum Mayne | Attorney | Counsel for Textron, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Langsam | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andy Tindel | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Catherine Nyarady | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Cole | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Katherine Forrest | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kenneth Robert Adamo | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kripa A. Raman | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mao Wang | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marc Weinstein | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Robinson | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael E. Jones | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Samantha Mehring | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott M. Daniels | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shaun William Hassett | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas E Bejin | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William K. Broman | Attorney | Counsel for SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Texas Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal order’s language — ‘all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ — is comprehensive and bilateral. The phrase ‘having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES’ indicates the court did not independently evaluate the merits; it acted on the parties’ joint request. The explicit denial of all pending relief as moot confirms no substantive rulings survived the dismissal. For DJI, the with-prejudice bar on these four patents provides clean closure; for Textron, the cost-neutral exit preserves reputational neutrality while any private terms remain undisclosed.
US8332082B2, US11288972B2, US8682505B2 & US10275950B2 — UAV flight control
The four patents at issue — US8332082B2, US11288972B2, US8682505B2, and US10275950B2 — cover unmanned aerial vehicle flight control, safety, and operational management technologies. The application numbers (US13/391522, US16/720543, US13/711234, and US13/951900) place their origins across a multi-year filing window spanning the early-to-mid 2010s, a period of rapid commercialisation of consumer UAV platforms. Textron, with its aerospace heritage through Bell Helicopter and AAI Corporation, holds a deep UAV patent estate rooted in professional and military drone development that predates the consumer drone boom.
The strategic significance of these patents lies in their breadth: asserting them against DJI’s entire consumer and prosumer product range — from the entry-level Mini SE to the Mavic 3 Cine — suggests the claimed technology covers foundational flight control or safety concepts rather than niche features. For competitors and new market entrants in the UAV sector, this case signals that legacy aerospace IP holders like Textron are actively monitoring and monetising their portfolios against consumer drone OEMs. Any company commercialising UAV flight control stacks should assess freedom-to-operate against Textron’s broader patent family.
Should you run an FTO against US8332082B2 and the Textron UAV portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing UAV flight control systems — whether for consumer, commercial, or industrial applications — should treat this case as a trigger for proactive FTO analysis. Textron’s assertion covered a remarkable breadth of DJI products, suggesting the claimed scope is broad. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves this dispute only between these specific parties; Textron’s portfolio remains intact and available against new defendants. FPV system makers, autonomous drone developers, and UAV platform integrators are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and legal teams to map claims from US8332082B2, US11288972B2, US8682505B2, and US10275950B2 against your product architecture in minutes — not weeks. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can also alert you to continuation filings or newly granted patents in Textron’s UAV family, so you’re never caught off guard by a portfolio that continues to evolve after this case’s closure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8332082B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar UAV patent infringement cases in U.S. federal courts
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the UAV and drone IP landscape
Textron’s four-patent broadside against DJI’s full consumer lineup — and its with-prejudice exit — carry real implications for how UAV IP is asserted and defended.
Eastern District of Texas remains a credible venue for UAV patent disputes
Textron’s choice of E.D. Tex. for a multi-patent UAV assertion against a Chinese OEM follows a well-established playbook. The district’s patent-friendly reputation and established local rules make it attractive for plaintiffs with broad product portfolios to target. Companies in the drone supply chain should treat E.D. Tex. filings as a live enforcement signal worth monitoring.
Broad product-line assertions create settlement leverage even before trial
By accusing virtually every major DJI consumer drone — across Phantom, Mavic, Mini, Inspire, Spark, Air, and FPV lines — Textron maximised the damages exposure calculation from day one. This scope of assertion, covering four separate patents, is consistent with a strategy designed to create settlement pressure rather than necessarily proceed to verdict. The with-prejudice exit suggests that pressure was effective.
Textron v SZ — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on February 29, 2024. All claims and causes of action asserted by Textron against DJI and its affiliates were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Textron from refiling the same claims against the same defendants.
Textron asserted four U.S. patents: US8332082B2 (App. No. US13/391522), US11288972B2 (App. No. US16/720543), US8682505B2 (App. No. US13/711234), and US10275950B2 (App. No. US13/951900). All four patents relate to UAV flight control and safety technologies.
The accused products spanned virtually DJI’s entire consumer and prosumer drone lineup, including the Phantom series, Inspire series, DJI Mini series, Mavic series, DJI Air 2S, Spark series, and DJI FPV series. The broad product list encompassed dozens of individual SKUs across DJI’s portfolio.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Textron cannot refile the four asserted patents — US8332082B2, US11288972B2, US8682505B2, or US10275950B2 — against the named DJI defendants in a new action. However, Textron retains the right to assert other patents from its portfolio against these or other defendants in future proceedings.
The inclusion of iFlight Technology Company Ltd. alongside DJI entities suggests Textron’s legal team mapped the broader UAV supply chain and distribution network when filing suit. iFlight is known as an FPV drone component supplier and manufacturer. Naming supply chain participants alongside the primary OEM is an increasingly common enforcement strategy in patent litigation, broadening the litigation’s commercial pressure and potential damages exposure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.