השופטת בוורלי רייד אוקונול מבית המשפט המחוזי שבמחוז המרכז של קליפורניה קבעה בהחלטה בעניין SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Yuneec International Co. Ltd. et al כי בפטנט אשר עוסק מעקב אחר מטרות על ידי כלי טייס לא מאוייש עצם ההתייחסות בתביעות לכך שלכלי הטייס יש "מספר רוטורים" או "מכשיר צילום" מוציא את הפטנט מסכנת אי הכשירות כפי שבוטאה בפסק הדין בעניין אליס.
"The asserted dependent claims include additional physical limitations. For example, Claim 6 discloses [an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] with a 'plurality of rotors,' which is a physical component of the UAV, serving the function of 'generat[ing] lift.' Claim 7 discloses an imaging device coupled to the UAV, which is again a physical relationship between tangible components. These tangible claim elements suggest that the focus of the claims addresses more than just the abstract idea of automatic target tracking. . . . [Defendant's] characterization of the invention as 'automatic tracking of a target' also ignores the stated purpose of the invention, which is to provide solutions to several problems faced specifically in UAV technology. . . . [T]he claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of [Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)]. Rather, they are directed to specific improvements to the way UAVs can be operated to navigate under certain circumstances and to track targets."