Throop LLC v. Vuzix Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Throop, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Vuzix Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: One LLP
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-10606, C.D. Cal., 12/16/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant transacts business and offers products for sale in the district, including showcasing the accused Vuzix Blade Smart Glasses at a 2019 trade show in Los Angeles.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart glasses and related services infringe two patents related to wireless, wearable augmented reality communication systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns wearable computing devices that provide hands-free, two-way multimedia communication by wirelessly connecting to a network.
• Key Procedural History: The inventors of the patents-in-suit were engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge of the patents obtained at least upon the filing of the lawsuit.

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 identifies the difficulty of accessing electronic technical manuals or communicating in environments where users' hands are occupied or conditions are harsh, such as an astronaut performing a repair or a worker in a hazardous environment (ʼ897 Patent, col. 1:26-44). Prior hands-free systems were described as inadequate because they were typically self-contained, single-user devices that did not support networked, multi-user, two-way multimedia communication (ʼ897 Patent, col. 1:50-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked communication system centered on a "portable access unit" (PAU), a small, wearable device. The PAU connects wirelessly to a local "general purpose node," which acts as a gateway to a broader network, such as the Internet ('897 Patent, col. 4:12-29; Fig. 1). This architecture is designed to provide the user with hands-free, two-way video, audio, and data streams, enabling real-time teleconferencing and data access while also allowing for capabilities like remote monitoring of the user's biomedical sensors (ʼ897 Patent, col. 2:26-35).
• Technical Importance: The system was designed to provide tetherless, real-time multimedia access in specialized professional environments (e.g., aerospace, industrial, medical) where such capability was previously impractical, thereby improving efficiency and safety ('897 Patent, col. 3:9-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A mobile access unit comprising a video input and a video output.
  • A wearable display connected to the video output.
  • A "codec" connected to the video input and output.
  • A transceiver for wireless communication.
  • The "codec" is configured to "encode" real-time video, "multiplex" it with other data to create an upstream data stream, "demultiplex" an incoming downstream data stream, and "decode" the video for the display.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶17).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '897 patent, the '726 patent addresses the same fundamental problem of enabling hands-free, networked multimedia access for users in demanding environments (ʼ726 Patent, col. 1:24-43).
• The Patented Solution: The solution remains a system based on a wearable portable access unit communicating with a general purpose network node ('726 Patent, col. 2:3-9). However, the claims of the '726 Patent focus more specifically on the user interface and control method. Asserted claim 1 requires the portable unit to include a "touchpad" and a "transparent display". The claimed system operates by displaying a list of available network media devices to the user, who then uses the "touchpad" to select a device and establish a data link for viewing multimedia content ('726 Patent, cl. 1).
• Technical Importance: This patent builds on the earlier system by claiming a specific method of user interaction for navigating and controlling connections within the augmented reality environment, focusing on usability and system control.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system) and 25 (method).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A communication system with 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 system is configured to wirelessly connect to a general purpose node and then display a list of connectable media devices.
  • The system is configured to receive a user command via the "touchpad" to select a device from the list, establishing a data link.
  • Following the link establishment, the system displays multimedia content on the transparent display.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Vuzix Blade Smart Glasses and related software and services (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Vuzix Blade is a wearable device that incorporates a "highly integrated radio communication system allowing for true two-way multimedia access" (Compl. ¶14). The device is marketed as a "Hands Free" system for accessing data from a smartphone and the internet (Compl. p. 6). Technical features alleged in the complaint include an HD camera, a display, an OMAP processor running an Android operating system, and wireless connectivity via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth (Compl. ¶19). A product component diagram from Defendant's website is included in the complaint to identify these features. (Compl. p. 5, "M100 Primary Components" diagram). The complaint also points to the "LiveCast Duetto" software, which allegedly enables "two-way video streaming capabilities" using "Hardware assisted video encode and decode" for H.264 streaming (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’897 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A potential issue is whether the accused product's architecture, which relies on a general-purpose processor (OMAP) running an operating system (Android) and application software (LiveCast Duetto), performs the specific functions of "multiplexing" and "demultiplexing" the video stream with other data in the manner required by the claim. The complaint makes a direct allegation but provides limited technical evidence beyond marketing materials (Compl. ¶21).

’726 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement case for the '726 Patent may depend heavily on claim construction. A primary question is whether the accused product's "manual Control Buttons" and "3D gesture control" (Compl. p. 5) fall within the scope of the claim term "touchpad".
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not contain an exhibit or screenshot showing the accused product "display[ing]... a list of one or more media devices" for selection, as required by the claim. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product's user interface performs this specific, claimed step.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: "codec" (’897 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis of the '897 patent. The claim requires the "codec" to perform four distinct functions: encoding, multiplexing, demultiplexing, and decoding. The dispute may focus on whether the distributed software-and-hardware architecture of the accused product constitutes a single "codec" that performs all required functions.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent depicts the "codec" as a "Codec Subsystem" and part of a "coder/decoder (codec) pair," suggesting it can be a system of components rather than a single, monolithic chip ('897 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:9-10). This may support an interpretation where different software modules on a processor collectively perform the functions of the claimed "codec".
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of the "codec" being a "single chip, standards-based codec" and mentions a specific exemplary product, the "VCPEX chip by 8x8, Inc." ('897 Patent, col. 8:61-62; col. 7:22-23). This language could support an argument that the term implies a more integrated, dedicated hardware component rather than functions distributed across a general-purpose processor.

Term 2: "touchpad" (’726 Patent)

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a key limitation added in the '726 patent that is not present in the earlier '897 patent. The complaint does not explicitly identify a component on the accused product that is labeled a "touchpad." Infringement of claim 1 hinges on whether the product's actual input mechanisms can be construed as such.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the term functionally, stating that "an integrated 'touchpad' on the PAU may be used for remote computer control" ('726 Patent, col. 2:45-48). This focus on function over form could support arguing that any integrated input surface or system (like gesture control) that allows for user command and control qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not define the term, leaving it open to its plain and ordinary meaning, which typically implies a flat, touch-sensitive surface for cursor or pointer control. The specification also mentions a "three-D mouse or data glove input device" as other potential input mechanisms, suggesting the inventors viewed different types of input controls as distinct from one another ('726 Patent, col. 2:51-52).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. The inducement theory is based on Defendant allegedly providing user guides, instruction manuals, and advertising that instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶23, 31). The contributory infringement theory alleges the Vuzix Blade has no substantial non-infringing uses and is especially made for use in an infringing way (Compl. ¶¶24, 32).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The complaint claims Defendant "acted with objective recklessness" based on knowledge of its infringement obtained "since at least the filing of the Original Complaint in this action, or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶¶15, 22, 30). This suggests the claim is based primarily on alleged post-suit continuation of infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope, particularly for the later '726 patent: can the claim term "touchpad," which is central to the asserted claims, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused product’s system of physical buttons and 3D gesture controls?
• A second pivotal issue will be one of evidentiary mapping: does the complaint, which relies heavily on marketing materials, provide a sufficient factual basis to plausibly allege that the accused Vuzix system (a) performs the specific data "multiplexing" and "demultiplexing" functions recited in the '897 patent's claims, and (b) implements the specific user-interface workflow of displaying a selectable list of connectable devices, as required by the '726 patent's claims?