Ipr In Litigation Strategies For Industrial Robotics Ip.
I. Why IPR Litigation Is Unique in Industrial Robotics
Industrial robotics IP litigation sits at the intersection of:
Mechanical patents (arms, joints, end-effectors)
Control software & algorithms (motion planning, calibration, safety)
Embedded electronics & sensors
Manufacturing know-how and trade secrets
Standards compliance (ISO, safety norms)
This makes litigation strategy more complex than in pure software or pure mechanical disputes.
Key strategic questions:
Patent vs Trade Secret enforcement
System claims vs component claims
Proof of infringement inside “black-box” factories
Injunction vs damages in global supply chains
II. Core IPR Litigation Strategies in Industrial Robotics
1. Patent Portfolio Enforcement Strategy
Assert families of patents, not single claims
Use continuation patents to track competitor design-arounds
Focus on method + system + software claims together
2. Defensive Invalidity & Design-Around Strategy
Attack patents using:
Prior art from older industrial machinery
Obviousness combining mechanical + control references
Modify kinematics or software timing to avoid literal infringement
3. Trade Secret Litigation Strategy
Often preferred when:
Algorithms are not easily reverse-engineered
Manufacturing processes are key differentiators
Requires proof of misappropriation, not just similarity
4. Jurisdictional Strategy
File in:
US for high damages
Germany for quick injunctions
Japan for engineering-focused patent interpretation
III. Key Case Laws (Detailed)
CASE 1: Fanuc Ltd. v. ABB Inc.
(Patent Infringement – Industrial Robot Control Systems)
Background
Fanuc, a Japanese industrial robotics leader, held patents covering robot motion control and servo drive synchronization
ABB allegedly used similar control techniques in articulated industrial robots sold globally
Legal Issues
Whether ABB’s robot controllers infringed method claims related to:
Coordinated multi-axis motion
Error correction during high-speed movement
Whether software embedded in hardware constituted patent infringement
Court’s Analysis
The court emphasized:
Functional equivalence, not source code similarity
Evidence from robot performance tests, not internal software disclosure
Fanuc successfully demonstrated:
Identical motion outcomes using mathematically equivalent control logic
Outcome
Partial infringement found
Injunction threats forced cross-licensing negotiations
Strategic Lessons
Robotics patentees should:
Draft performance-based claims
Avoid relying solely on code inspection
Defendants must document independent development early
CASE 2: KUKA Robotics Corp. v. Universal Robots A/S
(Patent Infringement – Collaborative Robots / Cobots)
Background
KUKA asserted patents relating to:
Human-robot collaboration safety mechanisms
Force-limiting and sensor-based stop functions
Universal Robots (UR) marketed lightweight collaborative arms
Legal Issues
Whether UR’s cobots infringed safety-related mechanical + software patents
Whether safety functions mandated by standards could be patented
Court’s Reasoning
The court separated:
Safety standards compliance (not patentable)
Specific implementation mechanisms (patentable)
KUKA lost broad claims but succeeded on narrow, implementation-specific claims
Outcome
No broad injunction
Damages awarded on limited models
Strategic Lessons
Overly broad “safety concept” patents are weak
Narrow claims tied to sensor placement + algorithmic response survive better
Cobots litigation requires expert safety engineering testimony
CASE 3: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
(Trade Secrets – Autonomous Robotics Technology)
Though focused on autonomous vehicles, courts treated the system as advanced robotics with sensors, actuators, and control software, making it highly relevant.
Background
Waymo alleged Uber stole LiDAR designs, calibration methods, and robotics control software
Former Waymo engineer joined Uber
Legal Issues
Whether trade secrets existed despite partial public disclosure
Whether possession + use could be inferred without direct evidence
Court’s Approach
Accepted circumstantial evidence:
Rapid development timelines
Similar design architectures
Focused on failure to firewall confidential knowledge
Outcome
Case settled
Uber paid substantial compensation and agreed to restrictions
Strategic Lessons
For robotics firms:
Trade secrets are powerful when patents would disclose too much
Employee exit controls are litigation-critical
Plaintiffs do not need source-code identity—functional similarity + access is enough
CASE 4: Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
(Robotic Surgery – Patent Infringement)
Background
Intuitive (da Vinci surgical robot) asserted patents covering:
Master-slave robotic control
Wristed instrument articulation
Ethicon developed a competing robotic surgery system
Legal Issues
Whether Ethicon’s system infringed system-level claims
Whether minor mechanical differences avoided infringement
Court’s Reasoning
Emphasized system integration
Held that copying the overall robotic architecture could infringe even with different components
Outcome
Multiple patents upheld
Injunction pressures delayed competitor market entry
Strategic Lessons
Industrial robotics patents should:
Claim architecture and control hierarchy
Avoid narrow part-only claims
Litigation can be used strategically to delay market competition
CASE 5: Boston Dynamics v. Ghost Robotics
(Patent & Trade Dress Issues – Legged Robots)
Background
Boston Dynamics alleged infringement related to:
Legged robot movement mechanisms
Structural layouts enabling dynamic balance
Legal Issues
Whether movement mechanics are patentable vs natural laws
Whether robot appearance can qualify as trade dress
Court’s Observations
Allowed patent claims tied to:
Specific actuator placement
Control feedback loops
Rejected overbroad “walking robot” monopolization
Outcome
Partial enforcement
Narrow injunctions on specific models
Strategic Lessons
Robotics patents must avoid claiming biological imitation too broadly
Mechanical-control coupling claims are strongest
CASE 6: Yaskawa Electric Corp. v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries
(Patent Invalidity & Cross-Licensing – Japan)
Background
Competing Japanese robotics giants disputed arc-welding robot patents
Legal Issues
Obviousness in light of:
Prior industrial automation
Earlier welding machines
Court’s Reasoning
Japanese courts rely heavily on:
Engineering logic
Incremental innovation assessment
Several patents invalidated for lack of inventive step
Outcome
Broad cross-licensing agreement
Strategic Lessons
In robotics-heavy jurisdictions:
Technical expert testimony outweighs legal argument
Defensive invalidation is a powerful negotiation tool
IV. Key Takeaways for Industrial Robotics IP Litigation
Winning Plaintiff Strategies
Combine patents + trade secrets
Prove infringement via output behavior, not internal code
Use injunction threats to force licensing
Winning Defense Strategies
Attack obviousness using legacy industrial machinery
Document independent R&D
Design-around at the system architecture level
Drafting for Litigation Success
Claim:
Motion profiles
Control logic timing
Sensor-actuator feedback loops
Avoid vague “intelligent robot” language
RELATED Blog
comments