E Vision Optics LLC v. Luxottica Group Spa

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: E-Vision Optics, LLC (New York) and E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Luxottica Group Spa. (Italy) and Luxottica of America, Inc. (Ohio)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: King & Spalding LLP
• Case Identification: 8:23-cv-02013, C.D. Cal., 03/29/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendants conduct substantial business in the district, Luxottica of America maintains established places of business including multiple retail stores, and both entities committed alleged acts of infringement, such as offering for sale and selling the accused products, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Ray-Ban smart glasses, including the Ray-Ban Stories and Ray-Ban Meta lines, infringe five patents related to the integration of electronic modules and components into eyewear frames.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves smart glasses, a growing consumer electronics category that integrates cameras, speakers, microphones, and other electronics into a conventional eyeglass form factor.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendants have been on notice of the asserted patents and their alleged infringement since at least October 25, 2023, via a pre-suit letter. The original complaint in this matter was filed on October 26, 2023. This First Amended Complaint was filed on March 29, 2024.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-05-04	’483 Patent Priority Date
2010-07-02	’541 Patent Priority Date
2011-02-11	’174 and ’355 Patents Priority Date
2012-01-06	’960 Patent Priority Date
2014-04-29	’483 Patent Issue Date
2014-08-12	’174 Patent Issue Date
2014-12-09	’541 Patent Issue Date
2020-03-24	’960 Patent Issue Date
2020-04-07	’355 Patent Issue Date
2023-10-25	Alleged pre-suit notice of infringement via letter
2023-10-26	Original Complaint Filing Date
2023-10-31	Service of Original Complaint
2024-03-29	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

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

Issued April 29, 2014 (’483 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of integrating electronic components into fashionable eyeglass frames in a robust manner without compromising aesthetics, and in a way that allows for a platform of interchangeable electronic modules rather than single-function devices (U.S. Patent 8,708,483, col. 1:1-2:51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an electronic eyeglass frame featuring a "sealed moisture resistant module" that is attached to and disposed within one of the frame's temples. This sealed module houses at least two electronic components (e.g., a processor, power source, sensor), protecting them from environmental factors while integrating them into the conventional structure of the eyewear (U.S. Patent 8,708,483, Abstract; col. 8:14-16).
• Technical Importance: This design provides a method for incorporating advanced, environmentally-sensitive electronics into the standard form factor of eyeglasses, a key step in making "smart glasses" a viable consumer product category (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, focusing its detailed allegations on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • Eyewear comprising a frame; and
  • a sealed moisture resistant module attached to the frame, wherein
  • the module comprises within the seal any two of a specified list of electronic components (switch, processor, power source, etc.),
  • the frame comprises a first and second temple, and
  • the module is disposed within the first temple.
• The complaint notes that claim 1 is not representative of all claims in the patent (Compl. ¶38).

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

Issued August 12, 2014 (’174 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the need for an efficient and robust way to not only provide electrical connectivity within an eyeglass frame but also to securely mount the electronic components within the frame's temples without complex assembly (U.S. Patent 8,801,174, col. 9:48-10:14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes using electrical conductors that serve a dual purpose. First, they provide conductive paths for power and data between an electronics module in the temple and the lens housing. Second, these same conductors are configured to physically couple with and "constrain" the electronics module, securing it within the temple and simplifying the mechanical and electrical integration (U.S. Patent 8,801,174, Abstract; col. 11:49-12:3).
• Technical Importance: This dual-function approach to electrical and mechanical integration offers a more streamlined and potentially more durable method for manufacturing complex smart glasses (U.S. Patent 8,801,174, col. 10:5-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, focusing its detailed allegations on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57-58).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A first device comprising a lens housing and first and second temples movably coupled to the 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; and
  • wherein the first and second electrical conductors are configured to couple the electronics module to the first temple to constrain the electronics module.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶69).

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

Issued December 9, 2014 (’541 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need to protect sensitive electronic components from the frame itself, particularly when the frame might be conductive or when environmental factors pose a risk. The solution involves an electronics module located within a housing module, which is in turn coupled to a structural member of the frame, and includes an "insulating layer" disposed between the electronic components and the frame to provide electrical and environmental isolation (U.S. Patent 8,905,541, Abstract; col. 2:6-14).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶89).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Ray-Ban smart glasses' frame, temples, the housing module containing electronics, and insulating material such as a "blue foam" disposed between the printed circuit board assembly and the frame (Compl. ¶¶91-95). A product teardown photo in the complaint shows a blue foam disposed between a memory chip and another component on the printed circuit board assembly (Compl. p. 38).

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

Issued March 24, 2020 (’960 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a voice-interactive eyewear system. The invention comprises an eyewear frame with a speaker and an application module that is both mechanically and operably coupled to the frame and speaker. The module contains a microphone and a wireless chip to receive a verbal query from the wearer, transmit it to an external device (like a smartphone), receive a response, and provide that response to the wearer via the speaker (U.S. Patent 10,598,960, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶116).
• Accused Features: The complaint targets the "Facebook Assistant" feature of the accused products, which allows users to issue verbal commands like "Hey Facebook" (Compl. ¶123). The allegations map this functionality to the claimed system of a frame, speakers, microphones, and a wireless chip for communicating with an external device (Compl. ¶¶118-122). The complaint includes a diagram from a user guide identifying the locations of microphones on the accused products (Compl. p. 50).

U.S. Patent No. 10,613,355 - Moisture-resistant eye wear

Issued April 7, 2020 (’355 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical problem of protecting electronic assemblies in eyewear from moisture. The patented solution is an eyewear system with an electronics assembly (including a capacitive touch switch) that is sealed by a "conformal layer." This entire sealed assembly is then disposed within an enclosure in the eyewear's temple, ensuring the components and their electrical connections are moisture-proof (U.S. Patent 10,613,355, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶144).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused products' electronics assembly, which includes a capacitive touchpad, is sealed with various insulating and conformal layers (Compl. ¶¶152-157). This entire assembly is then enclosed within the temple of the glasses, allegedly infringing the claims (Compl. ¶¶158, 160). An FCC teardown photo provided in the complaint shows a metal layer placed over and sealing components on a printed circuit board (Compl. p. 65).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the Ray-Ban Stories, Ray-Ban | Meta Wayfarer, and Ray-Ban | Meta Headliner smart glasses (Compl. ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as "smart glasses" and "wearable tech" that integrate features of a smartphone with an eyeglass frame (Compl. ¶¶33, 59). The relevant technical functionalities alleged include a frame with two temples; sealed internal modules containing electronics such as processors, power sources, switches, sensors, and transceivers; a capacitive touchpad for user control; integrated speakers and microphones; and a wireless chip for connectivity (Compl. ¶¶33-37, 119-122, 147-149). This hardware enables features like taking photos, listening to audio, and interacting with a voice assistant ("Hey Facebook") (Compl. ¶123). The products are marketed and sold through Defendants' websites and at retail stores, including Ray-Ban and SunglassHut locations (Compl. ¶¶7, 11).

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 "smart glasses" having a frame (Compl. p. 11).	¶33	col. 8:10-12
and a sealed moisture resistant module attached to the frame,	The products include modules sealed within the frame that are described as "resistant to water splashes." FCC teardown photos show these internal modules (Compl. p. 9).	¶34	col. 12:19-22
wherein 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 products include components such as a touchpad (switch) and a camera (sensor), among others, within the modules.	¶35	col. 12:23-28
wherein the frame comprises a first temple and a second temple,	The accused products include at least two temples of 150 mm or 155 mm depending on the model.	¶36	col. 8:12-13
and wherein the module is disposed within the first temple.	The products' camera button and touchpad are located in the right temple. A user guide diagram shows these components integrated into the temple arm (Compl. p. 11).	¶37	col. 8:14-16

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary point of dispute may be the scope of the term "sealed moisture resistant module." The complaint alleges the products are "resistant to water splashes" (Compl. ¶34). The court may need to determine if this level of resistance meets the "sealed" requirement of the claim, or if the patent requires a higher, potentially hermetic, degree of sealing.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the module is "disposed within the first temple" (Compl. ¶37). Evidence will be required to establish the precise boundaries of the "module" and demonstrate that it is located "within" the temple structure as opposed to being attached to its exterior.

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 two lenses supported by a lens housing.	¶60	col. 1:53-56
a first temple movably coupled to the lens housing; a second temple movably coupled to the lens housing;	The accused products include two temples that can be folded, demonstrating they are movably coupled to the lens housing.	¶61	col. 1:56-59
an electronics module disposed at least partially within the first temple;	The accused products include various electronics within each temple, as shown in FCC teardown photos (Compl. p. 23).	¶62	col. 1:60-61
a first electrical conductor coupled to the first temple, wherein a first conductive path is provided from the first temple to the lens housing...; and a second electrical conductor coupled to the first temple, wherein a second conductive path is provided...	The products include a ribbon cable extending from each temple into the lens housing, which provides conductive paths. FCC photos show this ribbon cable (Compl. p. 25).	¶¶63-64	col. 2:1-8
wherein the first and second electrical conductors are configured to couple the electronics module to the first temple to constrain the electronics module.	The complaint alleges that the manner in which the ribbon cables connect with the electrical components serves to constrain those components within the temples.	¶¶66-68	col. 2:9-12

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on the meaning of the functional limitation "configured to... constrain the electronics module." This raises the question of whether the ribbon cables in the accused products were designed for the purpose of constraining the module, or if their primary function is electrical, with any physical constraint being merely incidental to their connection and the overall product assembly.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the ribbon cable's connection actively "constrains" the electronics module? The complaint asserts that "the manner in which the ribbon cables connect... constrains those electrical components" (Compl. ¶68), but this is a conclusory statement that will require technical evidence to prove the constraining function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• The Term: "sealed moisture resistant module"
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the infringement analysis depends on whether the accused products' level of water resistance (alleged as "resistant to water splashes") meets the claim's "sealed" requirement. A narrow construction requiring a hermetic or near-hermetic seal could present a challenge for the plaintiff's case, while a broader construction covering general moisture resistance would be more favorable.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the module as "substantially water resistant, sweat resistant, water proof, and/or wear resistant" (’483 Patent, col. 10:15-18). The use of "and/or" suggests that meeting any one of these conditions, such as being "water resistant," may be sufficient, potentially broadening the scope beyond a strict definition of "sealed."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly uses the word "sealed," which typically implies a higher degree of protection than mere "resistance." The abstract also describes a "sealed moisture resistant module," suggesting that the seal is a key aspect of the invention's solution to protecting sensitive electronics from the environment (’483 Patent, Abstract).

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

• The Term: "configured to ... constrain the electronics module"
• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it recites a function, not just a structure. The infringement question will be whether the accused ribbon cable was designed with the purpose of constraining the module, or if that is merely an incidental result of its primary electrical function. Proving intended function can be more complex than proving the existence of a physical structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the conductors are "configured to couple the electronics module to the first temple to constrain the electronics module" (’174 Patent, col. 2:9-12). The language suggests that constraining is a method of coupling, and therefore any conductor design that results in a coupling that also constrains could be argued to fall within the claim.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where the electronics module is held in place by the cavity of the temple itself or by fasteners (’174 Patent, col. 11:49-54). A defendant might argue that these other structures perform the primary constraining function, and the electrical conductors are not "configured" for that purpose, even if they contribute incidentally to the module's stability.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants encourage and instruct customers on the infringing use of the products through user manuals, marketing materials, and their websites (e.g., Compl. ¶¶46-48, 77-79). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶50, 81).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents and infringement from a letter sent on October 25, 2023, and at a minimum, post-suit knowledge following the filing and service of the original complaint on October 26 and October 31, 2023, respectively (e.g., Compl. ¶¶54-55, 85-86).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "sealed" ('483 Patent) and "conformal layer" ('355 Patent) be construed to cover the "splash resistance" and internal layering of the accused products, or do the patents require a more robust, potentially hermetic, level of environmental protection?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional purpose: do the accused products' internal ribbon cables perform the specific dual function of providing a conductive path and being "configured to constrain" the electronics module as required by the '174 Patent, or is their designed purpose purely electrical, with any physical constraint being incidental?
• A third central question will involve the system-level claims: do the accused products, when operating with the "Hey Facebook" voice assistant and communicating with an external device, practice the specific combination of elements recited in the '960 Patent's claim for a voice-interactive eyewear system?