Throop LLC v. Sony Corp Of America

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Throop, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: One LLP
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-10605, C.D. Cal., 12/16/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business in the district, offers the accused products for sale in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in Culver City, California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Sony SmartEyeglass infringes two patents related to wireless augmented reality communication systems.
• Technical Context: The technology involves wearable, hands-free devices that wirelessly connect to a network to provide two-way multimedia communication and superimpose digital information onto a user's field of view.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that a related Sony entity, Sony Deutschland GmbH, cited the ’897 Patent on an Information Disclosure Statement in February 2007 during the prosecution of its own patent application, a fact Plaintiff may use to assert pre-suit knowledge. The asserted patents list inventors who were engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The ’726 Patent is a continuation of a patent family that includes the '897 Patent.

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 accessing electronic information or manuals, particularly in environments where a user's hands are occupied or conditions are harsh, such as an astronaut performing a repair in space or a worker in a bio-isolation suit (Compl. ¶10; ’897 Patent, col. 1:26-44, col. 3:20-30). Prior hands-free computer systems were described as self-contained and not designed for multi-user, networked communication ('897 Patent, col. 1:50-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "small, wearable portable access unit (PAU)" that wirelessly connects to a "centrally-located network access unit, called a general purpose node" ('897 Patent, col. 2:30-32). This architecture provides the user with hands-free, two-way access to multimedia data streams (video, audio, data) over a network, enabling real-time teleconferencing and display of information on a headset ('897 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system is designed to facilitate communication between multiple users and devices on a network, rather than just being a standalone device ('897 Patent, col. 2:4-12).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a networked, multi-user communication system for tetherless, hands-free operations, improving efficiency and safety in complex work environments ('897 Patent, col. 3:11-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and one or more dependent claims (Compl. ¶17).
• Independent Claim 1 is for a "mobile access unit" comprising the following essential elements:
  • A video input configured to receive real-time video information;
  • A video output configured to provide real-time video information;
  • A wearable display connected to the video output;
  • A codec connected to the video input and video output;
  • A transceiver with a transmitter and a receiver for upstream and downstream wireless communication;
  • The codec is configured to encode, multiplex, demultiplex, and decode real-time video information to and from the data streams handled by the transceiver.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation, the ’726 Patent addresses the same problem as the ’897 Patent: enabling hands-free, networked access to digital information and communications in challenging environments (’726 Patent, col. 1:19-44).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is also a system of portable, wearable access units communicating wirelessly with a "general purpose node" to connect to a network (’726 Patent, col. 2:1-4). The claims of this patent focus more specifically on the user interaction with the system, such as using a touchpad to select a media device from a list provided by the node and establishing a data link to display multimedia content (’726 Patent, cl. 1). The system architecture, as shown in Figure 1, remains central to the invention's description (’726 Patent, col. 4:62-67).
• Technical Importance: This patent builds on the foundational system by claiming specific methods of interaction and control within the networked augmented reality environment (’726 Patent, cl. 25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 25 and one or more dependent claims (Compl. ¶29).
• Independent Claim 1 is for a "communication system" comprising:
  • A portable access unit that includes a wearable device, a touchpad, and a transceiver;
  • The wearable device has a transparent display;
  • The touchpad is configured to receive user commands;
  • The transceiver wirelessly connects to a "general purpose node";
  • The portable unit is configured to display a list of media devices (provided by the node), receive a user selection via the touchpad, establish a data link with the selected device, and display multimedia content.
• Independent Claim 25 is a method claim that largely mirrors the system and steps described in Claim 1.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Sony SmartEyeglass SED-SD1 is the accused product (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the SmartEyeglass as "lightweight, binocular eyewear that enables true augmented reality experiences" by superimposing text and images onto the user's natural field of view (Compl. ¶21, p. 8). The device includes a camera, a see-through display, and a separate controller (Compl. p. 5). A connectivity diagram in the complaint shows the SmartEyeglass communicating with a smartphone via Bluetooth and WLAN, with the smartphone running the associated applications (Compl. p. 7). The complaint highlights marketing materials promoting "hands-free use cases" for jobs, touring, and entertainment, such as an industrial application where a worker receives instructions in their field of view (Compl. ¶19, p. 5; ¶20, p. 6). The device's optical engine uses a holographic waveguide to project a monochrome green image onto the see-through display (Compl. p. 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’897 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused product's video processing constitutes the specific functions of the claimed "codec". The complaint alleges the device encodes, multiplexes, demultiplexes, and decodes video (Compl. ¶21), but the supporting evidence only refers to a "JPEG Stream" (Compl. p. 5). The court may need to determine if generating a JPEG stream meets the claim limitations of both encoding and multiplexing video with "other data" as required by the patent.
• Scope Questions: The term "codec" itself may be a point of dispute. The defense may argue that the components handling the JPEG stream in the SmartEyeglass do not meet the definition of a "codec" as understood in the context of the patent, which discusses standards-based video teleconferencing like H.263 ('897 Patent, col. 8:65-67).

’726 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis for U.S. Patent No. 9,479,726. Instead, it makes a general allegation that the Accused Products infringe at least claims 1 and 25 (Compl. ¶29).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue for the '726 Patent will be the interpretation of "general purpose node". The complaint's infringement theory appears to require that the user's smartphone, which connects to the SmartEyeglass, serves as the claimed "node" (Compl. p. 7). The defense may argue that a smartphone is part of the mobile system and not the "centrally-located" network infrastructure that serves multiple distinct users as depicted in the patent's specification and figures (’726 Patent, col. 2:31-32; Fig. 1).
• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint does not contain evidence showing that the SmartEyeglass, when connected to a smartphone, performs the specific function of displaying "a list of one or more media devices that are connected to the general purpose node" for the user to select, as required by claim 1 of the ’726 Patent. Proving that the accused system performs this claimed method of interaction will be critical for the plaintiff.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’897 Patent:

• The Term: "codec"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement hinges on whether the accused product performs the specific processing steps (encode, multiplex, demultiplex, decode) attributed to the "codec". The definition will determine if the SmartEyeglass's handling of its "JPEG stream" falls within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, instead describing the codec by its functions. A party could argue any set of components performing those functions meets the limitation, regardless of its specific implementation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly references industry standards for teleconferencing, stating "The preferred industry standards are: ITU H.263 based video, ITU G.722 based audio, and ITU H.221 based multiplexing" (’897 Patent, col. 8:65-67). A party could argue this language limits the scope of "codec" to components that perform more complex, standards-based compression and multiplexing than what is required for a simple JPEG stream.

For the ’726 Patent:

• The Term: "general purpose node"
• Context and Importance: The entire system architecture claimed in the '726 Patent revolves around a "portable access unit" connecting to a "general purpose node". Plaintiff's infringement case appears to depend on the user's smartphone being construed as this "node". Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement for the '726 patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the node "allows wireless-to-wire communication with a local network" (’726 Patent, col. 4:14-15), a function a modern smartphone performs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the node as a "centrally-located network access unit" that registers multiple, distinct "portable access units" (’726 Patent, col. 2:31-32, col. 4:35-40). Figure 1 depicts the node (150) as a separate piece of network hardware serving several users (100a, 102), which suggests it is not a user's personal smartphone but rather a shared access point.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents, asserting that Sony's "user guides, installation or instruction manuals, and other training materials" instruct customers on how to use the SmartEyeglass in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶23, ¶31). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the products are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶24, ¶32).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness for the ’897 Patent is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge, stemming from a 2007 citation of the patent by a Sony entity during its own patent prosecution (Compl. ¶15, ¶22). For the ’726 Patent, willfulness is based on knowledge gained from the filing of the complaint itself (post-suit knowledge) (Compl. ¶15, ¶30).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "general purpose node," which the patent describes as a "centrally-located" unit serving multiple users, be construed to read on a user's personal smartphone as it pairs with the accused SmartEyeglass?
• A key technical question will be one of functional operation: does the accused product's generation of a "JPEG Stream" for its camera perform the specific, multi-step process of encoding video, multiplexing it with other data, demultiplexing, and decoding as required by the "codec" limitations of the '897 patent?
• A critical question for damages will be one of imputed knowledge: can a 2007 patent citation by a foreign Sony entity be used to establish that the U.S. defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '897 patent, thereby supporting the claim for willful infringement?