DJI Lose Patent Dispute with Autel. The END for DJI Mavic Drones?  Might be the time to stock up on some spare propellors.

This will be interesting.

The only thing that will result from this is the disappearance of Autel drones...

Financial settlement hopefully followed by greater Autel volumes.  Where do Air props fit into this given the change where any prop any motor fit applies?

DJI World domination proceeds as usual

Interesting indeed.

Woe Posted at 5-20 06:07
Interesting indeed.

Its also curious how the props on the Air 2 are slightly different now.

DAFlys Posted at 5-20 23:53
Its also curious how the props on the Air 2 are slightly different now.

I didn't catch that. Maybe because of the ruling.

A ban on the drones would not ban accessories.  Even if the ban made it through the courts it would be temporary. This is a tactic by Autel, using an absolutely ridiculous and should be illegal patent, to force DJI to pay them royalties.  

DJI could simply buy Autel and flush them, no one would care.....

Woe Posted at 5-21 14:01
I didn't catch that. Maybe because of the ruling.

Thats my guess too.

Geebax Posted at 5-21 17:03
DJI could simply buy Autel and flush them, no one would care.....

Hmm,  hostile take overs are not always that easy.

I'm sure they will find a way.

I posted in another thread that it could be possible that Autel could be securing a future endeavor with providing U.S. based drone makers with props and other parts.  Unfortunately, it seems that DJI dropped the ball with securing the patent, as they had the design first.  We don't know all of the details though.

Neo Supreme Posted at 5-22 04:15
I posted in another thread that it could be possible that Autel could be securing a future endeavor with providing U.S. based drone makers with props and other parts.  Unfortunately, it seems that DJI dropped the ball with securing the patent, as they had the design first.  We don't know all of the details though.

These patents won’t hold.  Maybe a few, but the majority of them are literally not legally patentable.  Especially the rotor assemblies and attachment method.  

Seems Autel has already lost:    The patents seem to be void.

Here is an article on the above subject.......

[url=]https://dronedj.com/2020/05/22/dji-scores-win-against-autel-in-latest-patent-dispute-round/?fbclid=IwAR2-TDf2RXI9hyiZAXTqJh9LSdSaAtbM-J_O7qp_fXRDVgbimQpTftVMIyw[/url]

Hotrod in Daytona Posted at 5-22 15:03
Seems Autel has already lost:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tTWqDLZm3I  The patents seem to be void.

From what I could discern...

DJI is not off the hook for Patent Infringement involving Blades.  Whilst, DJI is off the hook for other supposed infringements as charged by Autel.

What recent news comes down to is; law firm representing DJI was trying to put things in best light.  Spinning away from Blade Patent infringement loss, and promoting their win for DJI on other supposed patent infringements.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-22 19:47
From what I could discern...

DJI is not off the hook for Patent Infringement involving Blades.  Whilst, DJI is off the hook for other supposed infringements as charged by Autel.

DJI is not off the hook for Patent Infringement involving Blades.
That's not what the source document says
Read it here: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/ip-updates/latest-development-in-the-dji-autel-disputes.html

This whole much hyped saga is a total beatup and will make no difference to anything except lawyers bank accounts.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-22 19:47
From what I could discern...

DJI is not off the hook for Patent Infringement involving Blades.  Whilst, DJI is off the hook for other supposed infringements as charged by Autel.

Looks like you spoke to soon again.

https://dronedj.com/2020/05/22/d ... tent-dispute-round/

The ITC judge doesn't make a judgement on the validity of the patent but only on if DJI violated it.  In the mean time, DJI took the patents to a patent judge who has said the patents are invalid.  This is pretty typical in these patent disputes.  In the end, Autel looks pretty stupid for buying patents, yes, the patents belonged to another company that Autel bought,  that are invalid and then trying to enforce them against DJI.  With the negative reaction from the community and the pandemic, will Autel even be in business in 6 months?

Labroides Posted at 5-22 20:44
DJI is not off the hook for Patent Infringement involving Blades.
That's not what the source document says
Read it here: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/ip-updates/latest-development-in-the-dji-autel-disputes.html

"and will make no difference to anything except lawyers bank accounts."

AND to Inventors who put a lot of time, effort, testing, and money in to getting their invention Patented.

You may or may not know how much it costs for inventor to get a utility patent.   Forget any of non-sense about merely sending in lowly Govt. Patent Fee.  It takes an attorney specializing in Patents to push Patent through system.  Figure on spending about $10K U.S.  There are also maintance fees on keeping a Patent going.   

All that money comes out of Inventor's / Patent owner's bank accounts.


How DJI's legal team got U.S. to overturn a valid Canadian issued Patent is beyond my knowledge of global system.  But what I do know is DJI did knowingly ingore Patent, and cheated Inventor / Patent owner out of time and effort, along with legitimate compensation.

hallmark007 Posted at 5-22 22:49
Looks like you spoke to soon again.

https://dronedj.com/2020/05/22/dji-scores-win-against-autel-in-latest-patent-dispute-round/

Thank you for posting article.

Hotrod in Daytona Posted at 5-23 04:03
The ITC judge doesn't make a judgement on the validity of the patent but only on if DJI violated it.  In the mean time, DJI took the patents to a patent judge who has said the patents are invalid.  This is pretty typical in these patent disputes.  In the end, Autel looks pretty stupid for buying patents, yes, the patents belonged to another company that Autel bought,  that are invalid and then trying to enforce them against DJI.  With the negative reaction from the community and the pandemic, will Autel even be in business in 6 months?

Think you nailed it, except for issue over U.S. Judge deciding a Canadian issued Patent was invalid.

What is missing here is: To best of everyone's knowledge, including DJI, is Patent on Blade system was valid.  It was only as of this week that DJI's legal team found a U.S. Judge to rule Patent was invalid.

Point being - DJI ignored the Patent.  It shows Dishonesty on part of DJI.  
For that, I really hope DJI is forced to pay out and pay out big.

Realize some don't care.  But they should, being this kind of Big Corporate abuse of Patents using Lawfare kills small time Inventors.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-23 10:21
"and will make no difference to anything except lawyers bank accounts."

AND to Inventors who put a lot of time, effort, testing, and money in to getting their invention Patented.

Autel dji yuncee where all using prop design before patent was purchased, so all including Autel were in breach of whatever the patent was which now turns out to be not much and the likelihood is Autel purchased for no other reason than to sue , so their gamble didn’t pay off which is great news, and draganfly got paid for there patent, everyone’s a winner except those who tried to be to cute..

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-23 10:21
"and will make no difference to anything except lawyers bank accounts."

AND to Inventors who put a lot of time, effort, testing, and money in to getting their invention Patented.

The inventor got paid when Autel bought the patent.

The Canadian patent would have had to be registered in the US as patents don't cross country borders.  So it very much had a US patent number registered, which is what got tossed out by the US judge.

Worldwide patent law doesn't exist thus making doing patents challenging.  You literally have to register the idea around the world at about the same time.  Trust me when I say the Chinese are watching every patent in the US and trying to register it in China before the other company does.  This is one of the ways how they have been legally stealing ideas.

Hotrod in Daytona Posted at 5-23 12:14
The inventor got paid when Autel bought the patent.

The Canadian patent would have had to be registered in the US as patents don't cross country borders.  So it very much had a US patent number registered, which is what got tossed out by the US judge.

"This is one of the ways how they have been legally stealing ideas."

A nice and polite way to put it.  

Perhaps tables will turn again, and Justice for Patent holders will prevail.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-23 12:27
"This is one of the ways how they have been legally stealing ideas."

A nice and polite way to put it.  

When the patent system was created information only travelled as fast as the horse could go.  A bit different today which is what makes it such a complicated issue.

hallmark007 Posted at 5-23 10:29
Autel dji yuncee where all using prop design before patent was purchased, so all including Autel were in breach of whatever the patent was which now turns out to be not much and the likelihood is Autel purchased for no other reason than to sue , so their gamble didn’t pay off which is great news, and draganfly got paid for there patent, everyone’s a winner except those who tried to be to cute..

A different take.  Autel and Yuncee were contacted by Patent owner and given three options:
1) Cease breach of Patent and pay damages.
2) License Patent and pay back license fees for already manufacture drones.
3) Buy Patent and continue manufacturing.

Autel chose #3.  

Yuncee ignored options and went on.
DJI comes along with Mavic (or was it Phantom 4?) and decides if Yuncee can ignore Patent, they can too.

Autel now owning Patent goes after DJI.  Why DJI and not Yuncee?  Cause DJI makes most drones breaching Autel's Patent (aka most lost revenue to Autel).

What matters now comes down too...

Whether Autel decides to appeal this weeks ruling.  

Whether DJI wants to do what is business ethical.

Would imagine you could releate to having someone use a 3D laser scanner on your products, send scanner data to CAD system, make a few minor tweaks, send output on to CAM system, and start making knockoffs.

Hotrod in Daytona Posted at 5-23 12:14
The inventor got paid when Autel bought the patent.

The Canadian patent would have had to be registered in the US as patents don't cross country borders.  So it very much had a US patent number registered, which is what got tossed out by the US judge.

I wonder about whether inventor got paid vs. getting PAID?

Inventor seeing what he was up against, was left with little choice of selling patent to Autel (or anyone who would buy Patent).

A case of where, getting some money is better than getting none and paying out a small fortune in Lawfare fees.

Do hope the Inventor, original patent holder, got a lot of money selling patent to Autel.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-23 12:55
A different take.  Autel and Yuncee were contacted by Patent owner and given three options:
1) Cease breach of Patent and pay damages.
2) License Patent and pay back license fees for already manufacture drones.

Over the last 8 years Autel have been suing dji for one thing or another, but when you look at their drones it’s very easy to tell from the gimbals to the frames they’re the company doing the copying , and they have lost all cases they brought against dji, but what they have gained is publicity but it’s done them no good. Their time would be better spent getting their drones to market. They announced release of two new drones in January , it’s now May and they’re still well behind on getting drones to market. Dji announce a drone 4 weeks ago and it’s already delivered globally and that’s because dji are interested in drones and their customers and that’s the way customers will see this.

hallmark007 Posted at 5-23 13:08
Over the last 8 years Autel have been suing dji for one thing or another, but when you look at their drones it’s very easy to tell from the gimbals to the frames they’re the company doing the copying , and they have lost all cases they brought against dji, but what they have gained is publicity but it’s done them no good. Their time would be better spent getting their drones to market. They announced release of two new drones in January , it’s now May and they’re still well behind on getting drones to market. Dji announce a drone 4 weeks ago and it’s already delivered globally and that’s because dji are interested in drones and their customers and that’s the way customers will see this.

First to market with a Thingamajig, does not mean it was invented by said.  Small company could well take many months to setup fabrication system for a Thingamajig.  Whereas large company has resources to do so in several weeks.  Massive, multiple Billion dollar company, likely a few days.

So how can you tell who is copying who?   Only way I know of is too look at who owns Intellectual Property Rights or Patents.


Years ago; DJI should have challenged validity of Canadian issued Patent and gotten Patent nullified, before DJI ever started manufacturing Quads with technology.  


Sad reality - Regardless of whether it is business or sports; Hard to compete when you follow the rules against a competitor who is playing fast and loose with rules.  

Would like to hear DJI's explanation of how it got to this point.  Along with timeline of events.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-23 15:15
First to market with a Thingamajig, does not mean it was invented by said.  Small company could well take many months to setup fabrication system for a Thingamajig.  Whereas large company has resources to do so in several weeks.  Massive, multiple Billion dollar company, likely a few days.

So how can you tell who is copying who?   Only way I know of is too look at who owns Intellectual Property Rights or Patents.

Well only a blind man couldn’t see that Autel Star was a direct rip off of phantom, you say it’s down to patents and intellectual rights. Well if that’s the case Autel lost once again.

You obviously don’t know Autel released 2 drones at CES , sold them for delivery in February, it’s now almost June. If that was dji you’d be leading the charge of the whiners here.
You’re also mistaken if you think Autel Robotics are some small tin pot company. They are indeed a very big company, with a tiny division that makes bad drones and doesn’t really give a damn about it’s customers and you will find if they keep getting hammered in the drone market they’ll drop their customers like a hot potato.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-23 15:18
Would like to hear DJI's explanation of how it got to this point.  Along with timeline of events.

Maybe they’ll give a statement right after we all here from Autel, after all was it not Autel who brought the case and lost once again .

hallmark007 Posted at 5-23 15:36
Well only a blind man couldn’t see that Autel Star was a direct rip off of phantom, you say it’s down to patents and intellectual rights. Well if that’s the case Autel lost once again.

You obviously don’t know Autel released 2 drones at CES , sold them for delivery in February, it’s now almost June. If that was dji you’d be leading the charge of the whiners here.

"You obviously don’t know Autel released 2 drones at CES , sold them for delivery in February, it’s now almost June. If that was dji you’d be leading the charge of the whiners here."

Autel could release 0 drones or 10 drones at CES and whether Autel is late with drones to retail is - Irrelevant to question of who is copying who.


Unless DJI has ability to see years into future and knew starting 3rd week of May 2020 they would get a U.S. Judge to void a Canadian issued patent, DJI ignored Patent holders rights.
Think another forum member nailed it with previous post of:  "Trust me when I say the Chinese are watching every patent in the US and  trying to register it in China before the other company does.  This is  one of the ways how they have been legally stealing ideas."

hallmark007 Posted at 5-23 15:38
Maybe they’ll give a statement right after we all here from Autel, after all was it not Autel who brought the case and lost once again .

"after all was it not Autel who brought the case and lost once again ."

Since DJI brought the case after the fact, ignoring another company's Patent, it is DJI who needs to explain (perhaps justify ?) their actions.

Usage of other entity's Intellectual Property and Patented Ideas or Concepts may be acceptable in China, but that does not make it right.

Knowing a lot of members here enjoy photography, and consider their work their own.  Wondering how those members would feel about another entity using your photos (or videos) for Profit?

Hotrod in Daytona Posted at 5-22 15:03
Seems Autel has already lost:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tTWqDLZm3I  The patents seem to be void.

That’s not surprising.  They had patents that were insanely broad.  They also used a well known patent troll.  They also did this timed out so it would happen at the release of their new drones.  It’s a disgusting strategy from a company.  Why make a better product when you can just try to kill your competition?

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-23 20:14
Usage of other entity's Intellectual Property and Patented Ideas or Concepts may be acceptable in China, but that does not make it right.

Knowing a lot of members here enjoy photography, and consider their work their own.  Wondering how those members would feel about another entity using your photos (or videos) for Profit?

Well mister, you didn’t seem to mind trolling through others photographs family photographs , defacing them and posting them. Causing member notably me to report this and you got warned. So don’t go around stealing others photos.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 5-23 20:06
"after all was it not Autel who brought the case and lost once again ."

Since DJI brought the case after the fact, ignoring another company's Patent, it is DJI who needs to explain (perhaps justify ?) their actions.

After the fact is how this always works with patent fights.  One company sues the other for patent infringement.  Then the second company files a suit to invalidate the patent.  Autel won with the trade commission judge but lost the patent that decision was based upon.  

The Autel patents clearly had prior art issues.  For example, the backup sensors on cars for obstacle avoidance clearly was around before the sensor patent for drones.  Trying to patent how the blades go on is a bit like trying to patent the lug nut pattern for putting a tire on a car.   Those patents had all sorts of issues that made them invalid.  

Unfortunately, the patent offices don't do nearly enough research before issuing patents.  They rely upon the courts to invalidate them.  A patent isn't good until it has stood up in a trial.