SDH Claims AOPA Infringed On Its Patents For Flight Planning Software

On Monday, October 7, 2013, AOPA responded to the SD Holdings (SDH) patent infringement lawsuit. AOPA alternatively moved to dismiss the lawsuit or have the lawsuit moved from Oregon to Maryland. 

AOPA requests dismissal due to the fact there is no basis for SDH’s patent infringement allegations against “FlyQ Web,” AOPA’s online aviation flight planning tool that is available to members free of charge. AOPA explains that SDH does not assert a tenable claim of patent infringement, and therefore that the only allegation of patent infringement is defective, and that SDH lacks any good-faith basis to assert patent infringement against AOPA.

In the event that the Oregon court declines to dismiss SDH’s complaint, the motion also requests the transfer of the case to Maryland, according to an e-mail from AOPA spokesperson Katie Pribyl.

In the lawsuit, SDH alleges that AOPA has infringed on two patents. The inventors listed on the patents include Roger Stenbock and Kyle Everson.  According to records in the Secretary of State's office in Washington State, SDH was formed as a business entity in 2012 and according to the incorporation records "Flight Prep" is listed as a "Member" of the new company.

AOPA said in an earlier statement that it "categorically denies the allegations of patent infringement as well as the validity of the patents, and AOPA intends to defend itself vigorously."

SDH is seeking $6 million in royalties from AOPA.

In its filing, AOPA asserts:

"Given the fact that the FlyQ Web tool uses FAA aviation charts that already include terrain and navigation information, and because the FlyQ Web tool does not need to merge, overlay, and/or compress composite charts at a server computer, AOPA also explained: Given the fact that we cannot identify any AOPA product (specifically including the FlyQ Web product, which is the only AOPA product listed in the Complaint) that can even arguably infringe any claim of the ’098 or ’512 patents under any reasonable claim construction, we would like to enter into a discussion regarding SDH’s basis for bringing this lawsuit against AOPA. For example, if SDH has information that is inconsistent with our internal research (e.g. an example of any AOPA product with composite travel navigation charts, as claimed in the two patents), we would certainly like to be made aware of that information. However, if SDH does not have any information inconsistent with our investigation, then, we see no good faith basis for SDH’s claims against AOPA. If that is the case, then we kindly ask that SDH withdraw its Complaint against AOPA."

FMI: www.aopa.org