Throop LLC v. Epson America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Throop, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Epson America, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: One LLP
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-10597, C.D. Cal., 12/16/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly transacting business, offering for sale, and selling infringing products within the district, as well as maintaining a regular and established place of business in the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Moverio line of smart glasses infringes patents related to wireless augmented reality communication systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns wearable, hands-free systems that provide users with two-way, wireless access to networked multimedia content and data streams.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the inventors listed on the patents-in-suit were engineers who worked at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It also states that the '897' Patent has been cited as relevant prior art by twenty-four issued U.S. patents.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,035,897 - Wireless Augmented Reality Communication System, issued April 25, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of using electronic technical manuals (ETMs) and accessing network resources in environments where a user's hands are occupied or conditions are harsh, such as during extravehicular space activities or industrial maintenance (’897 Patent, col. 1:26-44). Existing portable computer systems were described as self-contained, single-user paradigms lacking robust, two-way communication capabilities for multiple users over a network (’897 Patent, col. 1:50-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "wireless augmented reality system" comprising a wearable, portable access unit (PAU) that communicates wirelessly with a local "general purpose node." This architecture is designed to provide a user with tetherless, hands-free, two-way access to networked resources, including video, audio, data, and real-time biomedical telemetry (’897 Patent, col. 2:3-23, 60-62). The system allows users to connect to remote computers and other media devices through the network backbone (’897 Patent, col. 4:20-34).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a mobile, multi-user framework for accessing networked computational and multimedia resources in complex operational environments where traditional computer interfaces are impractical (’897 Patent, col. 2:41-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶17).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a mobile access unit comprising:
  • a video input and output for real-time video;
  • a wearable display connected to the video output;
  • a codec connected to the video input and output; and
  • a transceiver with a transmitter and receiver for wireless communication.
  • The claim further requires the codec to perform specific functions: encoding video from the input, multiplexing the encoded video with other data for transmission, demultiplexing received video from a data stream, and decoding it for the video output.

U.S. Patent No. 9,479,726 - Wireless Augmented Reality Communication System, issued October 25, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '726' Patent addresses the same technical problem as its parent '897 Patent: providing hands-free, networked communications and data access for users in demanding environments (’726 Patent, col. 1:24-44).
• The Patented Solution: This patent focuses on the user-interaction method for establishing connections within the wireless system. The invention describes a user connecting their portable unit to a network node, which then presents a list of available media devices on the user's display. The user can then select a device from the list using a touchpad to establish a data link and view multimedia content from that source (’726 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 4:47-67).
• Technical Importance: The invention describes a user interface paradigm for managing connections and accessing data from multiple networked sources through a single wearable device (’726 Patent, col. 4:51-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 25 (Compl. ¶29).
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶29).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a communication system comprising:
  • a portable access unit with a wearable device, a touchpad, and a transceiver;
  • the wearable device having a transparent display;
  • the system is configured to wirelessly connect to a node, display a list of connected media devices, receive a user command from the touchpad to select a device from the list, and subsequently display multimedia content from the selected device.
• Independent Claim 25 recites a method mirroring the system of claim 1, including the steps of wirelessly connecting to a node, displaying a list of media devices, receiving a touchpad command to select a device, and displaying multimedia content from that device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "Epson Moverio BT used with Moverio Assist," and specifically references the "Moverio BT-300 Smart-Glasses" (Compl. ¶¶13, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are described as wearable devices that provide "true two-way multimedia access" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges they feature a "silicon-based OLED... digital display technology," making them "see-through smart glasses" with a "high resolution transparent display" (Compl. ¶20).
• Technical functionalities identified in the complaint include a camera, wireless LAN (IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n/ac) and Bluetooth connectivity, and an Android-based operating system with pre-installed applications like a browser, camera, and email client (Compl. pp. 6-8).
• A diagram from the product's user guide is included in the complaint, illustrating components such as the headset, camera, and a "controller connector," which links the headset to a handheld controller (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’897 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused product's standard multimedia hardware performs the specific, claimed functions of "multiplexing" encoded video with other data into a single outbound stream and "demultiplexing" it from an inbound stream? The complaint asserts this functionality but provides limited technical detail beyond listing supported file formats like MP4 and MPEG2 (Compl. p. 7).

’726 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint does not provide a claim chart for the '726' Patent. It alleges infringement of claims 1 and 25 based on the product's overall operation, such as its ability to connect to wireless networks and display multimedia content (Compl. ¶¶29-30). A screenshot in the complaint shows the device's Wi-Fi setup screen, which displays a list of available SSIDs (network names) for the user to select (Compl. p. 7). Another diagram shows a "Tap to mute" feature on the headset itself (Compl. p. 6). These visuals may form the basis of the infringement theory for the method and system claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether a list of Wi-Fi network SSIDs, as shown in the complaint's visual evidence (Compl. p. 7), constitutes a "list of one or more media devices" as required by the claims. The patent specification appears to contemplate a list of specific endpoints like other users' devices, cameras, or computers (’726 Patent, col. 4:47-67, Fig. 1).
  • Scope Questions: Another question relates to the claim term "touchpad". The infringement theory will need to establish whether a component of the accused product, such as the handheld controller or the "Tap to mute" function on the headset (Compl. p. 6), meets the definition of a "touchpad connected to the wearable device".

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’897 Patent:

• The Term: "codec"
• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement claim depends on this component performing a specific set of ordered functions: encoding, multiplexing, demultiplexing, and decoding. The construction will determine whether a standard multimedia processor on an Android device, which handles various forms of data processing, meets the particular functional requirements recited in the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests the codec can be implemented with commercially available components, such as "digital signal processing chips by Texas Instruments" (’897 Patent, col. 7:22-24), which could support an argument that the term covers general-purpose multimedia hardware.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the codec to perform a specific sequence of multiplexing video with "other data" to create a single data stream for the transmitter, and then demultiplexing it from a received stream (’897 Patent, col. 7:48-61). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific data handling architecture rather than just generic video processing.

For the ’726 Patent:

• The Term: "list of one or more media devices"
• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint’s primary visual evidence for this limitation is a screenshot of available Wi-Fi networks (Compl. p. 7). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether a list of network access points (SSIDs) can be construed as a list of "media devices."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "media device," potentially leaving room for an interpretation that includes any network device that facilitates access to media.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s examples of selectable items include other "portable access units," "remote media devices," and "computers" (’726 Patent, col. 4:51-64). Furthermore, the example selection list in Figure 1 shows user names and specific device identifiers, suggesting the term refers to specific endpoints rather than network infrastructure components (’726 Patent, Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. The inducement claim is based on Defendant allegedly providing user guides, instruction manuals, and customer support that instruct customers on how to operate the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶23, 31). The contributory infringement claim alleges the products are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶24, 32).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents, based on knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of the Original Complaint in this action, or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶¶15, 30). The complaint also alleges Defendant acted with "objective recklessness" (Compl. ¶¶22, 30).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "list of one or more media devices," as used in the ’726 Patent in the context of selecting other users or specific remote equipment, be construed to cover a list of available Wi-Fi network SSIDs as presented in the accused product’s user interface?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused Moverio product's general-purpose multimedia hardware perform the specific "multiplexing" and "demultiplexing" of video and "other data" as recited in Claim 1 of the ’897 Patent, or is there a mismatch in the technical operation alleged by the complaint?
• A central question of fact will be the identification of claimed components: does the complaint adequately allege, and can evidence show, that a specific element of the Moverio system—such as its handheld controller or a sensor on the headset—functions as the "touchpad connected to the wearable device" required by the ’726 Patent claims?