Delta Black Seeks a Declaratory Judgment That the Raider 330 Does Not Infringe Three Hop Flyt Patents.

The parties and the court

The case is Delta Black Aerospace, Inc. v. Hop Flyt, Inc., No. 4:26-cv-01530 (E.D. Tex.). Delta Black filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and of no breach of contract. Delta Black is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in McKinney, Texas. The complaint says Delta Black was incorporated on August 5, 2024, and that it is developing the Raider 330, which it describes as a hybrid-electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Hop Flyt is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Salisbury, Maryland. It says Hop Flyt is identified as the assignee on the face of the '390 and '509 patents, and that the inventor assigned the '935 patent to Hop Flyt on June 17, 2020.

Jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202, and under the patent laws. The contract claim is pleaded under supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). The complaint alleges Hop Flyt licenses patents to a drone manufacturer in Mineral Wells, Texas, conducts test flights of its Squall aircraft in Texas, and agreed to a Collin County, Texas, venue provision in the settlement. It says Collin County is in the Sherman Division and that the Raider 330 is designed, developed, and tested in Texas. Delta Black demands a jury under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38.

The license and the settlement

The complaint alleges that on August 29, 2024, Hop Flyt granted Delta Black a royalty-bearing license under certain Hop Flyt patent rights, including the '390 and '935 patents, in a defined defense field for air vehicles of 330 pounds gross weight and below. It alleges a dispute over Hop Flyt's notice purporting to terminate the license, and that Delta Black sued in the 493rd Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas, Cause No. 493-09881-2025. The complaint alleges the settlement agreement effective August 11, 2026, confirmed that the license was terminated as of that date. Paragraph 6(a), as the complaint quotes it, says the license is terminated and that Delta Black has no right to use the licensed technology or any other intellectual property owned by Hop Flyt. Paragraph 6(a)(i) is a representation that Delta Black is not using that technology or intellectual property and will not use it. Paragraph 6(e), as the complaint quotes it, reserves "any claims related to the unauthorized use of the intellectual property Hop Flyt currently owns, including but not limited to all causes of action for patent infringement." The complaint says the agreement is governed by Texas law and awards reasonable and necessary attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

The complaint alleges that on October 12, 2026, Hop Flyt's counsel demanded that Delta Black remove all Raider 330 advertising and provide documents and a technical explanation that the aircraft does not use Hop Flyt intellectual property. It alleges that on October 15, 2026, Hop Flyt representatives told government officials that Delta Black was using Hop Flyt's patented technology, and that a member of Congress informed Delta Black of those statements on October 16, 2026. The complaint says Delta Black understands "intellectual property" in the October 12 demand to mean the three patents.

What the patents cover

U.S. Patent 10,696,390, titled Aircraft Having Independently Variable Incidence Channel Wings with Independently Variable Incidence Channel Canards, issued June 30, 2020, from Application No. 15/676,054, filed August 14, 2017. It has eleven claims. Claim 1 is the only independent claim, and claims 2 through 11 depend from claim 1. Claim 1 covers an aircraft with a fuselage, a first channel wing, a second channel wing, a first channel canard, and a second channel canard. The channel wings are coupled to the fuselage, have at least one propeller each, and have controlled independently variable incidences relative to the fuselage. The channel canards are coupled to the fuselage and have at least one propeller each. At least one of a propeller of the channel wings and a propeller of the channel canards can become ducted propellers by being enclosed with a retractable mechanism for takeoff and landing.

U.S. Patent 11,820,509, titled Retractable Duct Channel Wing, issued November 21, 2023, from Application No. 17/026,530, filed September 21, 2020. It has seven method claims. Claim 1 is independent, and claims 2 through 7 depend from it directly or through claim 2 or claim 6. Claim 1 covers a method that positions a channel wing at an angle of greater than 45 degrees incident to a water line of the aircraft, extends a retractable duct or shroud over a propeller mounted in a channel of the channel wing, powers up that propeller in a manner that increases altitude, changes the angle of incidence of the wing in a manner that moves the aircraft forward, and retracts the retractable duct into the wing as forward momentum is gained so that the duct is stowed inside the wing for forward cruise. The retractable duct comprises a forward duct, a rearward duct, and a bridge duct between them, and the retracting and stowing uses a guide ring that is rigid and has a low drag airfoil shape.

U.S. Patent 7,487,935, titled Aircraft Having Variable Incidence Wing and Air Cushion Landing System, issued February 10, 2009, from Application No. 11/478,165, filed June 29, 2006. It has twenty-six claims. Claims 1, 7, 21, and 24 are independent, and each requires an air cushion system mounted beneath the fuselage. Claim 1 covers an aircraft with a fuselage, at least one controlled variable incidence wing coupled to the fuselage, and an air cushion system mounted beneath the fuselage that provides a forced cushion of pressurized air ejected downwards against a surface below, for supporting the fuselage in ground effect when taxiing, take off, and landing. The angle of the wing is controlled during take off and landing to maintain the fuselage substantially horizontal so as to maintain support of the forced air curtain. Claim 7 adds a flotation and support system, a movable portion of a leading edge or trailing edge, and a portion of the wing between two catamaran type hulls with a large rear flap. Claim 21 requires an engine and an air cushion system that uses engine thrust for lift. Claim 24 requires an engine and an air cushion system that comprises a lift system independent of the engine. Google Patents lists all three patents as active.

What the complaint alleges

Count I seeks a declaration that Delta Black, its customers, and its end users do not infringe any claim of the '390 patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) or 271(c). The complaint alleges the Raider 330 has no retractable mechanism, that no propeller can become a ducted propeller by being enclosed with one, and that the channel wings are fixed to the fuselage and do not rotate, while only the channel section of those wings rotates. Count II seeks the same declaration for the '509 patent. The complaint alleges the Raider 330 has no retractable duct or shroud, no forward duct, rearward duct, and bridge duct, and no rigid low drag guide ring used to retract and stow a duct. Count III seeks the same declaration for the '935 patent. The complaint alleges the Raider 330 has no air cushion system mounted beneath the fuselage, no forced air curtain, and no catamaran type hulls or rear flap that contains air in an air cushion. It says the propellers are mounted on channel canards and channel wings that extend outward from the fuselage.

Count IV seeks a declaration under 28 U.S.C. 2201 that Delta Black has not breached the settlement, including paragraph 6(a) and paragraph 6(a)(i), by making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Raider 330. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Hop Flyt contends those acts use the three patents and therefore breach paragraph 6(a). Delta Black's position, as pleaded, is that the aircraft does not practice any claim of the three patents, so continuing to make and sell it is not a use of Hop Flyt intellectual property.

Relief requested

The prayer asks for declarations of non-infringement by Delta Black and by its customers and end users, a declaration that Delta Black is not liable for damages or injunctive relief on any claim of the three patents, and an order enjoining Hop Flyt from asserting or threatening to assert those patents against Delta Black or its customers, end users, suppliers, distributors, or partners with respect to the Raider 330. It also asks for a declaration of no breach, a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, fees under that section and under paragraph 11 of the settlement, and interest. Counsel are Rex Mann and James Kappos of King & Spalding LLP in Dallas.

What it means

The complaint asks the court, under 28 U.S.C. 2201, to declare the parties' rights in the three patents and in paragraph 6(a) of the August 11, 2026 settlement. The central non-infringement theory pleaded for the '390 and '509 patents is the absence of a retractable mechanism, duct, or shroud, and for the '390 patent the complaint also says the channel wings are fixed to the fuselage. The theory pleaded for the '935 patent is the absence of an air cushion system mounted beneath the fuselage. The 2024 license, as the complaint describes it, included the '390 and '935 patents.

What to watch next

Watch for Hop Flyt's answer or a counterclaim for infringement or breach, any motion challenging declaratory-judgment jurisdiction, and any motion directed at the settlement. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.