DCT
2:22-cv-04513
Virtual Immersion Tech LLC v. Accenture LLP
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Immersion Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Accenture plc (Ireland) and Accenture LLP (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-04513, C.D. Cal., 07/01/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for Accenture plc as a foreign entity and for Accenture LLP based on its commission of infringing acts and established places of business within the Central District of California, including offices in Irvine and Los Angeles.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ remote collaboration and virtual experience platforms infringe a patent related to interactive virtual reality systems that combine live performers with a virtual environment.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-user virtual reality (VR) systems that enable real-time, three-way interaction between participants, live performers, and a shared, immersive digital environment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patent-in-suit has been the subject of approximately 50 prior litigations initiated by the Plaintiff, all of which have been terminated. The patent expired in July 2019, limiting any potential recovery to damages for past infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-07-19 | '599 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-06-25 | '599 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-07-19 | '599 Patent Expiration Date |
| 2022-07-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,409,599 - "Interactive Virtual Reality Performance Theater Entertainment System," issued June 25, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art VR systems focused on interactions between a single participant and computer-generated objects, or between groups of participants and on-stage performers in a non-immersive medium. (Compl. ¶¶15-17; ’599 Patent, col. 1:57-2:9). These systems allegedly lacked the capacity for simultaneous, three-way communication between participants, live performers, and an immersive VR environment, thereby limiting the user experience. (Compl. ¶17; ’599 Patent, col. 2:40-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that enables a "three-way immersive interactive communication" between participants, live (or pre-recorded) performers, and the virtual environment itself. (’599 Patent, col. 2:55-57). The system superimposes the video image of a live performer into the graphical VR environment viewed by participants, allowing for real-time interaction that can be influenced by participant inputs via devices like keypads. (Compl. ¶20; ’599 Patent, col. 4:5-12). This architecture is intended to create a more dynamic and engaging shared experience than prior systems. (’599 Patent, col. 3:11-22).
- Technical Importance: The invention claims to be an improvement in computer technology by enabling innovative mixing and switching techniques to present a live performer superimposed within a virtual environment, creating a novel interactive experience. (Compl. ¶20; ’599 Patent, col. 4:5-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 9. (Compl. ¶43).
- Independent Claim 9:
- Providing an immersive virtual reality environment.
- Providing a performer input device.
- Providing a participant input device.
- Providing a performer output device.
- Providing a participant output device.
- Having a live performer interact with a participant and the environment, which includes a live or prerecorded video image of the performer and audio communication.
- Having the participant interact with the live performer and the environment, resulting in an experience controlled in part by the participant and their input device.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Accenture's "remote collaboration virtual reality" services and platforms, specifically referencing a webpage for "virtual experiences." (Compl. ¶¶19, 40).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities are systems that perform a method for providing interactive communications between participants and performers. (Compl. ¶41). The functionality is described as providing an immersive virtual reality environment and various input/output devices for both performers and participants, allowing a live performer to interact with a participant within that environment. (Compl. ¶41). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation of the accused services beyond mapping them to the patent's claim language.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint refers to an "Exhibit B" containing an exemplary infringement analysis, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶42). The following chart summarizes the infringement allegations for claim 9 based on the narrative description provided in the body of the complaint.
’599 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) providing an immersive virtual reality environment | Defendants' systems allegedly perform a method that includes "providing an immersive virtual reality environment." | ¶41 | col. 18:66-19:1 |
| (b) providing at least one performer input device in electronic communication with said immersive virtual reality environment | The accused method is alleged to include "providing... a performer input device." | ¶41 | col. 19:2-4 |
| (c) providing at least one participant input device in electronic communication with said immersive virtual reality environment | The accused method is alleged to include "providing... a participant input device." | ¶41 | col. 19:5-7 |
| (d) providing at least one performer output device in electronic communication with said immersive virtual reality environment | The accused method is alleged to include "providing... a performer output device." | ¶41 | col. 19:8-10 |
| (e) providing at least one participant output device in electronic communication with said immersive virtual reality environment | The accused method is alleged to include "providing... a participant output device." | ¶41 | col. 19:11-13 |
| (f) having at least one live performer interact with at least one participant and said immersive virtual reality environment, by including with said virtual reality environment a live or prerecorded video image of said at least one live performer and audio communication... | The accused method allegedly includes "a live or prerecorded video image of the live performer and audio communication between the live performer and the participant." | ¶41, p. 9:1-4 | col. 19:14-20:5 |
| (g) having at least one participant interact with at least one such live performer and said immersive virtual reality environment, thereby resulting in an experience which is in part controlled by said at least one participant and said at least one participant input device. | The accused method allegedly involves "having the participant interact with the live performer and the immersive virtual reality environment, resulting in an experience which is in part controlled by the participant and the participant input device." | ¶41, p. 9:4-6 | col. 20:6-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether Accenture's business-focused "remote collaboration" platforms constitute the "performance theater entertainment system" described and claimed in the patent. The complaint does not specify the context of use (e.g., entertainment, business meeting, training), which could be a point of contention.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations track the claim language without providing specific evidence of how the accused Accenture platforms technically meet each limitation. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that Accenture's services provide the specific combination of input/output devices and performer/participant interactions required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "immersive virtual reality environment"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the asserted claim. Its construction will determine the threshold for what kind of virtual experience infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification provides a potentially limiting definition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself could be argued to have a plain and ordinary meaning that encompasses any virtual environment that provides a sense of presence, which may cover modern VR/AR collaboration tools.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines an "immersive environment" as one "in which a greater than 25 degree diagonal field of view is provided no more than 10 feet from the viewer." (’599 Patent, col. 4:61-63). Defendants may argue this definition limits the scope of the claim to systems meeting this specific geometric requirement.
The Term: "live performer"
Context and Importance: The identity and role of the "live performer" is critical, as the claim requires specific interactions between this entity and the "participant." The dispute may center on whether a colleague or presenter in a corporate virtual meeting qualifies as a "live performer" in the context of the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that performers can deliver their performance from remote sites via the Internet and that the system can be used for "business applications such as... teaching and lecturing." (’599 Patent, col. 5:10-12, 20-22). This could support applying the term to presenters in a business context.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled an "Entertainment System" and repeatedly refers to a "performance theater," "stand-up comedy," and "dramatic presentations," which suggests the "performer" is an entertainer distinct from the "participant" audience. (’599 Patent, Title; col. 3:9-10; 5:20-21). This may support a narrower construction that excludes participants who are peers in a collaborative environment.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A question of patent scope: Will the claims, which are rooted in the context of a "performance theater entertainment system," be construed broadly enough to read on modern corporate and collaborative virtual reality platforms, or will the patent’s specific embodiments and definitions limit the claims to entertainment-focused applications?
- A definitional question: Can the term "immersive virtual reality environment" be interpreted by its plain meaning, or will the court adopt the specific quantitative definition provided in the patent's specification ("greater than 25 degree diagonal field of view... no more than 10 feet from the viewer"), creating a specific technical hurdle for the plaintiff's infringement case?
- An evidentiary question: Given the patent's 2019 expiration and the complaint's high-level allegations, a key issue will be whether the plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Accenture's accused platforms practiced every element of the asserted method claim during the relevant damages period.