DCT

2:22-cv-04517

Virtual Immersion Tech LLC v. Shell PLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-04517, C.D. Cal., 07/01/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for Shell PLC as a foreign entity and for Shell USA, Inc. based on an established place of business within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality remote expert system infringes a patent related to interactive virtual reality systems that facilitate communication between participants, performers, and a virtual environment.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves immersive virtual reality systems, specifically those that integrate live or pre-recorded human performers with whom users can interact, a concept applicable to entertainment, training, and remote collaboration.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,409,599, expired on July 19, 2019, limiting the Plaintiff's potential remedy to past damages. The complaint also discloses that the patent has been asserted in approximately 50 prior litigations, all of which have been terminated.

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
2022-06-30 Date of article on Accused Instrumentality cited in Complaint
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 identifies a limitation in prior art virtual reality systems where interaction was primarily between a participant and computer-generated objects, or between participants and a non-immersive host (Compl. ¶15; ’599 Patent, col. 2:38-54). These systems allegedly lacked the capacity for "three-way immersive interactive communication" between participants, live performers, and the virtual environment itself (’599 Patent, col. 2:55-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method that combines a computer-generated "immersive virtual reality environment" with the ability to superimpose video of a live or pre-recorded performer within that environment (Compl. ¶¶ 18-20; ’599 Patent, col. 4:5-12). This architecture enables participants, using input devices, to interact not only with the environment but also with the performer, creating a "synergistic effect" where participant actions can influence the performance's outcome (’599 Patent, col. 3:17-22). The patent's system diagram (Fig. 7) illustrates the interconnection of control computers, audio/video processors, and various input/output devices for both performers and participants to achieve this three-way communication (’599 Patent, Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: The invention sought to merge the fields of live performance and interactive virtual reality, moving beyond passive viewing or simple game mechanics to create a more dynamic and shared experience (’599 Patent, col. 2:55-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 9 (Compl. ¶43).
  • The essential steps of independent claim 9 include:
    • (a) providing an immersive virtual reality environment
    • (b) providing at least one performer input device
    • (c) providing at least one participant input device
    • (d) providing at least one performer output device
    • (e) providing at least one participant output device
    • (f) having at least one live performer interact with at least one participant and the environment, which includes a video image of the performer and audio communication between them
    • (g) having the participant interact with the performer and the environment, resulting in an experience "in part controlled by" the participant and their input device
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as "Shell's augmented reality remote expert" systems and methods (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 41).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality "performs a method for providing interactive communications between participants and performers" (Compl. ¶41). It cites an online article describing the system as a tool that "gives its remote-workers a heads-up," suggesting a use case where a field technician (a "participant") receives guidance from a remote expert (a "performer") via an augmented reality interface (Compl. ¶19). The functionality is alleged to include providing an immersive virtual reality environment with various input and output devices for both the performer and participant, allowing a live performer to interact with the participant (Compl. ¶41).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "Exemplary infringement analysis" in Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶42). The complaint's narrative infringement theory is summarized below. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’599 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities directly infringe claim 9 by performing a method that provides interactive communications between participants and performers (Compl. ¶41). The allegations map the roles in Shell's system to the claim terms, identifying the remote worker as the "participant" and the remote expert as the "live performer." The complaint asserts that the system provides an "immersive virtual reality environment" and the necessary input/output devices for both parties, and that the resulting experience is controlled in part by the participant's input (Compl. ¶41).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the terms "performer" and "participant," as used in a patent titled "Interactive Virtual Reality Performance Theater Entertainment System", can be construed to cover a remote technical expert and a field worker in an industrial context. The patent specification heavily describes entertainment and educational applications (’599 Patent, col. 2:55-3:6). The interpretation of these terms could be dispositive.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement case will depend on evidence that the accused system meets the specific technical requirements of the claims. What evidence shows the accused system provides an "immersive virtual reality environment" as defined in the patent (i.e., "a greater than 25 degree diagonal field of view is provided no more than 10 feet from the viewer")? (’599 Patent, col. 4:61-64). Furthermore, what evidence demonstrates that the "experience" in the accused system is "in part controlled by the participant," as required by the final clause of claim 9?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"immersive virtual reality environment"

Context and Importance

This term is foundational to the asserted claim. Its construction will determine the technical threshold the accused system must meet. A narrow construction could allow the defendant to design around the claim or argue non-infringement based on technical specifications.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used generally in the summary of the invention to describe a platform where participants interact with performers and each other (’599 Patent, col. 3:55-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides an explicit definition: "an 'immersive' display as one which has greater than a 25 degree diagonal field of view with a distance of no more than 10 feet from the viewer" (’599 Patent, col. 6:40-43). The specification also repeatedly references the use of a head-mounted display (HMD) to create this immersion (’599 Patent, col. 4:64-66).

"live performer"

Context and Importance

The applicability of this term to Shell's remote technical expert will be a key point of contention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's context is overwhelmingly oriented toward entertainment.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not limit the performer to an entertainment context. Claim 9 only requires a "live performer" who interacts with a participant through audio and video (’599 Patent, col. 20:1-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, and background consistently frame the invention as an "entertainment system" or "performance theater" (’599 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 1:17-18). The specification gives examples like "stand-up comedy, dramatic presentations, teaching and lecturing" (’599 Patent, col. 5:21-23), suggesting a person presenting to an audience, not a technician providing one-on-one support.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and includes language that Defendants are liable for "causing to be used systems in a method according to claim 9" (Compl. ¶40). While this language echoes inducement, the complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement or provide specific factual allegations regarding the requisite knowledge and intent.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 10, ¶C). The complaint does not allege facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patent, which is typically a predicate for such a finding.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "performer" and "participant," which are rooted in the patent's disclosure of an "entertainment system," be construed broadly enough to cover the industrial roles of a remote technical expert and a field worker in the accused system?
  • A second central question will be evidentiary and technical: can the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to prove that Shell's augmented reality system creates an "immersive virtual reality environment" that meets the specific, quantitative field-of-view and distance metrics defined in the '599 patent's specification?
  • Finally, the case presents a procedural and remedial question: given that the patent expired three years prior to the filing of the complaint, the doctrine of laches may be raised to challenge the timeliness of the suit, and any potential recovery is strictly limited to damages for past infringement.