DCT

8:23-cv-01860

E Vision LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:23-cv-01860, C.D. Cal., 10/03/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California based on Defendant Lenovo's regular and established place of business in the district, the presence of over 100 employees, and the maintenance of numerous resellers and authorized service providers. The complaint also asserts that Lenovo sells the accused products to customers within the district through its website.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality (“AR”) smart glasses infringe seven U.S. patents related to the design and construction of electronic eyewear.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on technologies for integrating sophisticated electronic components—such as processors, sensors, displays, and power sources—into the frames of wearable devices like AR glasses.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Lenovo was made aware of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,708,483, 8,801,174, 8,905,541, 8,931,896, 10,598,960, 10,795,411, and 11,586,057 via a letter sent on September 29, 2023, four days prior to the filing of the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-06-06 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,931,896
2005-06-21 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,795,411
2007-05-04 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,708,483 and 11,586,057
2010-07-02 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,905,541
2011-02-11 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,801,174
2012-01-06 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,598,960
2014-04-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,708,483 Issued
2014-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,801,174 Issued
2014-12-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,905,541 Issued
2015-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,931,896 Issued
2020-03-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,598,960 Issued
2020-10-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,795,411 Issued
2023-02-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,586,057 Issued
2023-09-29 Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant
2023-10-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,708,483 - "Electronic eyeglass frame"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of integrating electronic components into eyewear in a way that is both functional and cosmetically pleasing, avoiding the bulky and unaesthetic designs common in early electronic glasses (’483 Patent, col. 1:19-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular design where electronic components are housed within a “sealed moisture resistant module” that is disposed within one of the temples (side arms) of the eyeglass frame (’483 Patent, Abstract). This approach aims to protect the electronics from the environment while integrating them cleanly into the conventional structure of eyeglasses (’483 Patent, col. 6:1-14).
  • Technical Importance: This modular and protected design for electronic components allowed for more robust and versatile smart eyewear, separating sensitive electronics from the main frame and lenses.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • Eyewear comprising a frame.
    • A sealed moisture resistant module attached to the frame.
    • The module comprises within the seal any two of: a switch, a detector, a processor, a power source, a drive circuit, a transmitter, a receiver, a transceiver, and a sensor.
    • The frame comprises a first temple and a second temple.
    • The module is disposed within the first temple.
  • The complaint states that Claim 1 is not representative of all claims in the patent (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 8,801,174 - "Electronic frames comprising electrical conductors"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background identifies a need for efficient design and manufacturing of electronic eyeglass frames, particularly with respect to providing robust and reliable electrical connections between components housed in different parts of the frame (’174 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes using dedicated electrical conductors that are coupled to a temple of the eyewear. These conductors serve a dual purpose: they create conductive paths from an electronics module in the temple to the lens housing, and they are also configured to physically "constrain the electronics module" within the temple, securing it in place (’174 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-52).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for both electrically connecting and physically securing a modular electronic component within an eyeglass temple, contributing to a more integrated and durable design.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A first device, comprising a lens housing for supporting lenses.
    • A first and second temple movably coupled to the lens housing.
    • An electronics module disposed at least partially within the first temple.
    • A first electrical conductor coupled to the first temple, providing a first conductive path from the temple to the lens housing.
    • A second electrical conductor coupled to the first temple, providing a second conductive path from the temple to the lens housing.
    • The first and second electrical conductors are configured to couple the electronics module to the first temple to constrain the electronics module.
  • The complaint states that Claim 1 is not representative of all claims in the patent (Compl. ¶72).

U.S. Patent No. 8,905,541 - "Electronic spectacle frames"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an electronic device with a frame that includes a housing module for an electronics module. A key feature is an insulating layer disposed between the electronic components and the frame, intended to protect the electronics from the frame itself, which may be conductive (’541 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products’ frame, which includes a housing for a processor and sensors, infringes. It points to the Qualcomm XR-1 processor, thermal sensor, and microphones as the claimed electronics module, and alleges an insulating layer exists between these components and the frame (Compl. ¶¶90, 94-97).

U.S. Patent No. 8,931,896 - "Eyewear including a docking station"

  • Technology Synopsis: The invention relates to eyewear that includes a "docking station" supported by the frame. This docking station has ports for audio, video, and power, allowing the eyewear to connect to and communicate with an external electronic device (’896 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 22 (Compl. ¶114).
  • Accused Features: The complaint identifies the Accused Products’ ability to connect to a PC or mobile device via a removable USB-C cable as the claimed "docking station." This connection is alleged to provide audio, video, and power signals between the external device and the eyewear's speakers and displays (Compl. ¶¶118-125).

U.S. Patent No. 10,598,960 - "Eyewear docking station and electronic module"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes eyewear with an "application module" that contains a microphone and a wireless chip. The module is designed to receive a verbal query from a wearer, wirelessly transmit it to an external device (like a smartphone), and provide the response back to the wearer via a speaker (’960 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶146).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products’ built-in microphones, speakers, and Qualcomm XR-1 processor, in conjunction with their ability to connect via Bluetooth to a host PC or phone, constitute the claimed application module for handling verbal commands (Compl. ¶¶152-155).

U.S. Patent No. 10,795,411 - "Eyewear including a remote control camera and a docking station"

  • Technology Synopsis: The invention is an eyewear assembly that presents a "virtual image that appears to a wearer... as if the virtual image is floating in space." The system includes an electronic lens, a controller, and a tether that connects the frame to an enclosure containing a power source (’411 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶172).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products’ dual 1080p AR displays create the claimed floating virtual image. The Qualcomm XR-1 processor is identified as the controller, and the USB-C cable connecting to a PC or phone is alleged to be the claimed "tether" and "enclosure" with a power source (Compl. ¶¶175-177, 181-183).

U.S. Patent No. 11,586,057 - "Moisture-resistant eye wear"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an electronic eyewear frame constructed from a "front component piece" and a distinct "back component piece." These pieces form a "frame front cavity" between them, which houses an electronic module. The design also includes temples operably coupled to the frame front via hinges (’057 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶200).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products have a frame with a front, a back, and a cavity between them that contains the Qualcomm XR-1 processor and associated circuitry. The complaint also points to the foldable temples as meeting the "operably coupled... via a first hinge" limitation (Compl. ¶¶202-204).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Lenovo brand AR smart glasses, specifically the ThinkReality A3, ThinkReality A6, ThinkReality VRX, and Lenovo Mirage VR S3 (Compl. ¶31). The complaint’s technical allegations focus almost exclusively on the ThinkReality A3 model.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Lenovo ThinkReality A3 as "augmented reality smart glasses" with an "Industrial Frame" (Compl. ¶¶35, 62). Its relevant technical features are alleged to include a Qualcomm XR-1 processor, dual 1080p AR displays, multiple cameras for room-scale tracking, a thermal sensor, built-in stereo speakers and microphones, and physical buttons (Compl. ¶¶37-41). The complaint provides a screenshot from a Lenovo video that labels these key components on the glasses. (Compl. p. 9). The device connects to a PC or mobile phone via a USB-C port and cable to transfer data and receive power (Compl. ¶¶40, 67). The complaint alleges the product has an IP54 rating for moisture resistance and conforms to ANSI Z87.1 safety standards for, among other things, "liquid splash exposures" (Compl. ¶36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,708,483 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Eyewear comprising: a frame; The Accused Products are described as "[g]lasses with Industrial Frame" and "[l]ightweight, foldable frames." ¶35 col. 2:39-41
and a sealed moisture resistant module attached to the frame, The Accused Products have an "IP54 rating," indicating protection against splashing water, and conform to ANSI Z87.1 requirements for "liquid splash exposures." ¶36 col. 3:20-25
wherein the module comprises within the seal any two of: a switch, a detector, a processor... a sensor, The Accused Products include a Qualcomm XR-1 processor, a thermal sensor, microphones (alleged to be detectors/sensors), and buttons (alleged to be switches). ¶¶37-41 col. 3:26-31
wherein the frame comprises a first temple and a second temple, The Accused Products include two "temple ends." ¶42 col. 3:32-34
and wherein the module is disposed within the first temple. The electronic components (processor, sensors, port, buttons) are located within the temple ends of the Accused Products. ¶¶43-44 col. 3:35-37

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "sealed moisture resistant module" can be construed to cover a product with an IP54 rating. The defense could argue that IP54, which protects against "splashing water," does not meet the patent’s requirement for a "sealed" module intended to house and protect a collection of sensitive electronic components. The complaint’s visual evidence, such as the image identifying the "Qualcomm XR-1" processor and cameras, does not on its own establish that these components are housed within a single, sealed module. (Compl. p. 9).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint identifies several discrete components (processor, sensor, microphones) as satisfying the "module" limitation. A point of contention may be whether these physically separate components, integrated throughout the temple, constitute a single "module" as contemplated by the patent, or if the patent requires a more discrete, self-contained unit.

U.S. Patent No. 8,801,174 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A first device, comprising: a lens housing adapted to support a first lens and a second lens; The Accused Products include a "lens insert holder designed to accommodate prescription lenses." ¶63 col. 3:56-58
a first temple movably coupled to the lens housing; a second temple movably coupled to the lens housing; The Accused Products have two "temple ends" that are movably coupled to the lens housing, allowing them to be adjusted. ¶¶64-65 col. 3:59-61
an electronics module disposed at least partially within the first temple; The temples of the Accused Products include built-in stereo speakers, microphones, a USB-C port, and buttons for volume/brightness control. ¶¶66-67 col. 4:1-3
a first electrical conductor coupled to the first temple, ... and a second electrical conductor coupled to the first temple, The temple ends include a USB-C port, microphones, speakers, and buttons, which are alleged to necessarily include at least a first and second electrical conductor. ¶68 col. 4:4-12
wherein a first conductive path is provided from the first temple to the lens housing ... and wherein a second conductive path is provided... The buttons on the temple control the brightness of the displays located in the lens housing, which allegedly demonstrates the existence of conductive paths. ¶69 col. 4:6-12
wherein the first and second electrical conductors are configured to couple the electronics module to the first temple to constrain the electronics module. The Accused Products include a USB-C port for connecting a data cable and a cable retainer that attaches to a notch on the temple to "secure the cable in place." ¶¶70-71 col. 4:13-16

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory for the "constrain the electronics module" limitation may raise a significant scope question. The complaint identifies a cable retainer for an external USB-C cable as the constraining structure (Compl. ¶71). The defense may argue that the claim requires internal electrical conductors to constrain an internal electronics module within the temple, as suggested by the patent’s figures and description, not a mechanism for securing an external accessory.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the presence of various electronic components in the temples "include at least a first electrical conductor and a second electrical conductor" (Compl. ¶68). While this is a reasonable inference, a technical question for discovery will be to identify the specific conductors and trace the specific conductive paths alleged to meet these limitations. The complaint's visual evidence showing the location of buttons on the temple does not itself delineate these internal conductors or paths. (Compl. p. 10).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’483 Patent

  • The Term: "sealed moisture resistant module"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’483 patent. The dispute may turn on whether the accused products' IP54 rating for "splashing water" meets the "sealed" requirement as understood in the context of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint’s evidence of an industry rating (IP54) may not align with the specific level of protection implied by the patent’s description of a self-contained, protected module.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the module as being "substantially water resistant, sweat resistant, water proof, and/or wear resistant" (’483 Patent, col. 3:21-23), language which could support an interpretation that does not require absolute hermetic sealing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to the invention as a "self-contained electronic module" (’483 Patent, col. 9:66-67), which could imply a discrete, fully enclosed unit designed to provide a higher level of protection than mere splash resistance. The Abstract also describes the module as being "sealed," which may suggest a more stringent requirement than simply "resistant."

For the ’174 Patent

  • The Term: "constrain the electronics module"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this functional language is critical. The plaintiff alleges that a retainer for an external cable satisfies this limitation. The defendant will likely argue that the claim requires internal conductors to physically secure the internal electronics module.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional ("configured to... constrain"). Plaintiff may argue that any structure coupled to the conductors that performs the function of constraining the module—even by securing its connection to an external power/data source—falls within the claim's scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states that the "first and second electrical conductors may be configured to hold the electronics module in place" within a cavity in the temple (’174 Patent, col. 4:40-43). This language, combined with figures like Fig. 12 showing an internal module (106) held within a temple, suggests that the term "constrain" refers to the physical securing of the internal module itself, not an external cable connected to it.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶¶49, 76, 102, 134, 160, 188, 211). The allegations are based on Lenovo providing instructions, guides, manuals, marketing, and technical support that allegedly "encourage and induce customers to use Lenovo’s Accused Products in a manner that infringes" the claims (Compl. ¶¶49, 51).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Lenovo's infringement is knowing and willful (Compl. ¶¶57, 84, 110, 142, 168, 196, 219). The basis for willfulness includes alleged knowledge of the patents from at least the date the lawsuit was filed. For all asserted patents, the complaint also alleges pre-suit knowledge based on a letter sent to Lenovo on September 29, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶46, 73, 99, 131, 157, 185, 208).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term “sealed moisture resistant module” in the ’483 patent be construed to cover products with a standard industry IP54 rating for “splash resistance,” or does the patent’s context require a higher, more integral degree of sealing for its electronic components?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional and structural correspondence: does the accused product's use of a retainer for an external cable perform the function of the ’174 patent’s claim that internal conductors “constrain the electronics module” within the eyeglass temple, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the location and technical operation of the constraining element?
  • Across the seven asserted patents, a central theme will involve mapping claim elements to an integrated system: the case will likely require a detailed analysis of whether the discrete, modular components described in the patents (e.g., "docking station," "tether," "application module") can be read onto the multipurpose, integrated features of the accused AR glasses, such as a single USB-C port that provides power, data, and video connectivity.