DCT

2:21-cv-06926

Mobile Acuity Ltd v. Blippar Ltd V

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:21-cv-06926, C.D. Cal., 03/14/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendants transact business, maintain an office, and have clients within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality platforms, including its browser, web applications, and software development kits, infringe patents related to using a captured image of an object to store and retrieve associated digital information.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue enables "mobile visual search," where an image of a real-world object itself functions as a digital marker, eliminating the need for visible cues like QR codes to link physical objects to online content.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties engaged in licensing negotiations beginning in November 2018. Plaintiff asserts it sent a cease-and-desist letter on September 24, 2020, putting Defendants on notice of the patents-in-suit. The complaint also notes that some Defendant entities previously defaulted in the action and that Defendants have failed to produce discovery.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-02-11 Priority Date for '618 and '658 Patents
2018-11-01 Plaintiff and Defendant allegedly begin negotiations
2019-06-28 Parties allegedly meet to discuss Plaintiff's portfolio value
2019-07-10 Negotiations allegedly transferred to Candy Ventures on behalf of Defendant
2019-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,445,618 ('618 Patent) Issues
2020-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,776,658 ('658 Patent) Issues
2020-09-24 Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant
2021-10-20 Default entered against certain Defendant entities
2022-03-14 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,445,618 - "Storing information for access using a captured image"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,445,618, "Storing information for access using a captured image," issued October 15, 2019 (’618 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a mechanism to associate digital information with real-world objects or locations without relying on conventional physical markers like barcodes or RFID tags, which were the predominant methods previously used (Compl. ¶25; ’618 Patent, col. 1:19-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a first user can associate digital content with a "model" image of an object, which is then stored in a server database. A second user can later capture a "scene" image containing that object (or a corresponding portion) and use it to query the server and retrieve the associated digital content. This effectively allows users to "leave" and "collect" information on physical objects using the objects' visual appearance as the key (’618 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-46).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled a more seamless integration of digital content with the physical world, a concept the complaint terms "mobile visual search," which was foundational for emerging augmented reality marketing and user engagement applications (Compl. ¶¶26, 30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 9 and reserves the right to assert others, including claims 11 and 16 (Compl. ¶¶84, 105, 108).
  • Independent Claim 9 Elements:
    • A method of storing user-defined information for future access by multiple parties, performed at a server controlled by a third party.
    • Receiving user-defined information from a first originating party.
    • Associating that information with at least a first portion of a first image in a database, where this new information augments first user-defined information already associated with that image portion.
    • Providing access to the combined information to a second party when they capture a second image that includes a corresponding portion of the first image.

U.S. Patent No. 10,776,658 - "Storing information for access using a captured image"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,776,658, "Storing information for access using a captured image," issued September 15, 2020 (’658 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’618 Patent: linking digital information to real-world objects without physical tags (’658 Patent, col. 1:19-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is structurally similar to the ’618 Patent, involving a server-based system for associating information with images. However, the asserted claim in the ’658 Patent adds a critical condition: access to the stored information is dependent not only on the visual match between images but also on the geographical "location at which the second image is captured." (’658 Patent, Claim 9; col. 5:62-65).
  • Technical Importance: By adding a location-based condition, the invention allows for more context-aware augmented reality, where the same object could trigger different digital experiences depending on the user's physical location (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 9 and reserves the right to assert others, including claims 11 and 16 (Compl. ¶¶120, 140, 142).
  • Independent Claim 9 Elements:
    • A method performed at a server controlled by a third party.
    • Receiving user-defined information from a first originating party.
    • Associating that information with a first portion of a first image in a database, where the information augments existing information for that image portion.
    • Providing access to the combined information to a second party based on a captured second image, with the access being dependent on both the image correspondence and the location at which the second image is captured.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "Blippar AR Browser," "Blippar Web AR application," the "Studio" service, the "Blippbuilder creation tool," and the "Web AR SDK" (collectively, the "Blippar Platform") (Compl. ¶¶74-78).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Blippar Platform allegedly enables brands and developers ("first originating party") to create and deploy augmented reality experiences by associating digital content with images of real-world objects (Compl. ¶¶87, 91). The complaint alleges the Studio service, Blippbuilder tool, and SDK are used to define and upload this content (Compl. ¶¶91, 127).
  • End-users ("second party") then use the Blippar AR Browser or Web AR application to scan ("blipp") these objects. The platform then allegedly recognizes the object and retrieves the associated augmented reality content from a server (Compl. ¶¶89, 96, 125).
  • The complaint alleges these products are marketed for creating "interactive, rich media ads" and have been used in campaigns for major brands like Max Factor (Compl. ¶¶96-98, 132-133). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not attached to the filed document; the following analysis is based on the narrative allegations (Compl. ¶¶104, 139).

'618 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of storing user-defined information for future access by multiple parties comprising, at a server controlled by a third party: Blippar allegedly operates a platform where its servers are controlled by Blippar, which Plaintiff contends is the "third party" relative to the brand (first party) and the end-user (second party). ¶¶86, 107 col. 2:60-65
receiving from a first originating party user-defined information that is defined by the first originating party and is for access by multiple parties; and The Blippar Platform, via its Studio, Blippbuilder, and SDK tools, allegedly enables a first party (e.g., a brand) to define and upload digital content for an AR experience. ¶87 col. 3:55-59
associating the user-defined information received from the first originating party and at least a first portion of a first image in a database, wherein the user-defined information augments first user-defined information already associated at the server with at least the first portion of a first image in the database; and The Blippar Platform is alleged to associate the first party's content with an image of a physical object in a database, thereby augmenting the information associated with that object. ¶88 col. 13:15-19
providing access by a second party to the user-defined information and the first user-defined information, when a second image, captured by the second party, includes a portion corresponding to at least the first portion of the first image. The Blippar AR Browser allegedly enables a second party (an end-user) to capture an image of the object, which is matched by Blippar's server to provide access to the stored content. ¶89 col. 13:20-28

'658 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...providing access by a second party to the user-defined information and the first user-defined information, in dependence upon the first portion of the first image and a second image, captured by the second party, and also a location at which the second image is captured. The infringement allegations for this patent are largely identical to those for the '618 Patent, with the addition that access is also dependent on the end-user's location. The complaint alleges the Blippar AR Browser enables this functionality. ¶125 col. 14:14-17
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether Blippar, as the platform operator, qualifies as a "server controlled by a third party" under the patent's framework. The complaint asserts that Blippar itself is the "third party" (Compl. ¶¶107, 141), a characterization that could be central to the dispute.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’658 Patent, a key factual question is how the Blippar Platform makes access "in dependence upon... a location." The complaint alleges this functionality (Compl. ¶125) but does not provide specific facts explaining whether the system uses location data as a determinative condition for access, as opposed to merely collecting it.
    • Technical Questions: The claim term "augments first user-defined information already associated" raises the question of whether the accused system adds to an existing data record for an image, or if it creates a new, distinct association each time a brand creates a campaign. The complaint's allegations do not detail this specific mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "server controlled by a third party"

  • Context and Importance: This term, found in the preamble of the asserted claims, is treated as a limitation by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶107). Its construction is critical because it defines the required architecture of the infringing system. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute involves a two-sided platform (Blippar serving brands and end-users), and whether the platform provider itself can be the "third party" is a potentially dispositive issue.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a system of client devices communicating with a central "server 6" via a network, a general architecture that could encompass the Blippar Platform (’618 Patent, Fig. 1). The patent also broadly recites a "method of storing information for future access by others comprising: associating first information... in a database controlled by a third party" (’618 Patent, col. 2:60-63).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of a "first client device" used by a first user and a "second client device" used by a second user, both interacting with a server, could be argued to imply that the "third party" is an entity distinct from the two principal users and their direct agents (’618 Patent, col. 2:4-14).

  • The Term: "augments first user-defined information already associated"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation appears in the "associating" step of both asserted independent claims. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused Blippar Platform performs an "augmentation" of existing data. Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies an action of adding to or modifying an existing data set, not merely creating a new one.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition of "augments." Plaintiff may argue that any addition of new interactive content to an object's image profile within the database constitutes an augmentation of the information associated with that object.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process specifically for "adding new information to a model user image key already in the database" (’618 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 4:13-16). This could support an interpretation that "augments" requires modifying a pre-existing data record, as opposed to creating a wholly separate entry for a new campaign.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants provide their products (e.g., the Blippar AR Browser and SDK) with instructions, marketing, and developer tools that actively encourage and enable customers and end-users to perform the steps of the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶95-102, 113, 146). Contributory infringement is also alleged, on the basis that the accused products embody a material part of the invention and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶111-112, 114, 145, 147).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents. The complaint pleads pre-suit knowledge stemming from business negotiations that began in November 2018 and a formal cease-and-desist letter sent on September 24, 2020 (Compl. ¶¶66-67). The allegation of continued infringement after receiving this notice forms the basis of the willfulness claim (Compl. ¶¶94, 128).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "server controlled by a third party" be construed to read on the Blippar Platform, where Blippar itself operates the server and provides services to both the "first originating party" (a brand) and the "second party" (an end-user)? The resolution of this question could determine whether the accused architecture falls within the patent's scope.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: for the '658 Patent, what evidence will demonstrate that the accused system provides access "in dependence upon... a location," as the claim requires? The case may turn on whether discovery reveals that location is merely an ancillary data point collected by the system or a genuine, functional condition for retrieving content.
  • A third central question will concern the technical meaning of "augments." The dispute may focus on whether the Blippar Platform's method of associating new content with an image constitutes an "augmentation" of pre-existing information, as required by the claims, or the creation of a new, separate data entry, which might represent a mismatch in technical operation.