Flick Intelligence LLC v. Eon Reality Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: EON Reality, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 8:24-cv-00841, C.D. Cal., 04/16/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality (AR) applications, developed using Apple's ARKit for use on various Apple devices, infringe a patent related to systems for interactive, bidirectional communication and data sharing between a handheld device and a display.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for using a handheld device to select and retrieve information about specific elements displayed in video content, a foundational concept for interactive media and augmented reality systems.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The complaint identifies the Plaintiff as a non-practicing entity. No other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-09-27	’237 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2018-05-08	’237 Patent Issue Date
2024-04-16	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,965,237 - “Methods, systems and processor-readable media for bidirectional communications and data sharing,” issued May 8, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for viewers of video content to obtain information about specific elements (e.g., actors, products, locations) within a scene, noting that existing solutions were too general and did not allow for the selection of a specific element to retrieve targeted information. (’237 Patent, col. 1:50-68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user can aim a wireless handheld device (HHD), such as a smartphone, at a multimedia display showing video content. A cursor, synchronized with the HHD's aimpoint, appears on the display, allowing the user to select an on-screen element. Upon selection, the system provides supplemental data about that specific element to the HHD or another display, enabling interactive data retrieval from otherwise passive content. (’237 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-34; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for granular, user-driven interaction with video content, allowing viewers to bridge the gap between passively watching media and actively accessing information about specific elements within it in real-time. (’237 Patent, col. 1:63-68).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-16. (’237 Patent, col. 27:46–col. 30:26; Compl. ¶8).
• Independent claim 1 is directed to an augmented reality device and recites, among other elements:
  • A local display;
  • A scene alignment module that locates a display position in the local display from at least one marker, which is used to map points on the local display to points on a second display;
  • An annotation data receiver that generates annotation selection data that is downloaded into the device;
  • The annotation selection data includes cursor coordinates and specifies at least one "selectable zone" comprising selectable areas and time periods; and
  • The coordinates are specified as a series of discrete coordinates.
• The complaint notes that claims 1-16 are asserted literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a wide range of Apple devices, including various models of the iPhone and iPad, and "related systems." (Compl. ¶8). The infringement allegation is tied to Defendant "developing AR application using Apple ARKit allowing a user to identify real objects in the surroundings via a device." (Compl. ¶10). The accused instrumentality is therefore EON Reality's AR applications operating on the listed hardware.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused AR applications allow users to identify real objects in their surroundings via a device. (Compl. ¶10). Plaintiff contends this functionality performs the methods claimed in the ’237 patent. (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that Defendant put the patented inventions into service and derived "monetary and commercial benefit from it." (Compl. ¶8). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit. (Compl. ¶9). The complaint's narrative allegations are not detailed enough to construct a complete claim chart. The core theory appears to be that EON Reality's AR applications, which use a device's camera to identify real-world objects and provide related information, infringe the '237 patent’s claims. (Compl. ¶10). This theory raises several potential points of contention.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 1 is directed to an "augmented reality device" that maps points on its "local display" to points on a "second display." A central question will be whether this limitation can be met by a single-device AR application that overlays data onto its own camera feed, or if it requires a system with two physically distinct screens (e.g., a smartphone pointing at a television). The patent's figures and description frequently depict a handheld device interacting with a separate multimedia display. (’237 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 4, Fig. 15).
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused AR applications use technology corresponding to the patent's specific claim elements. For example, does the accused system use a "scene alignment module" that locates a display position from a "marker" as required by claim 1? Further, does it use "annotation selection data" that is "downloaded" into the device, as the claim recites, or does it rely on real-time, on-device object recognition without downloading pre-defined annotation data? The complaint does not provide evidence on these technical points.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "second display"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1, which requires the augmented reality device's "scene alignment module" to map points from its local display to a "second display." The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether a single AR device's screen showing a camera feed can be interpreted to satisfy both the "local display" and "second display" limitations, or if two separate physical devices are required.
• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the live camera feed rendered on the screen constitutes the "second display" (i.e., the view of the world), while the user interface and overlaid data constitute the "local display."
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently illustrates systems where the HHD is a distinct device from the "multimedia display" being viewed (e.g., a movie screen or television). (’237 Patent, Fig. 4, Fig. 9, Fig. 15). This intrinsic evidence may support a construction requiring two physically separate screens.

The Term: "annotation selection data that is downloaded"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the "annotation data receiver" to generate "annotation selection data that is downloaded into said augmented reality device ahead of time or on-demand." The interpretation of this phrase is critical for determining whether the accused AR applications, which may perform real-time object recognition, practice the claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to describe a system reliant on pre-existing, retrievable data rather than on-the-fly analysis.
• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue that "downloaded... on-demand" is broad enough to cover the retrieval of model weights or other data used by a real-time object recognition engine just prior to its use.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes annotation data as specifying "the times and screen locations at which certain scene elements... are displayed," which suggests pre-defined data tied to specific video content rather than a general-purpose object recognition model. (’237 Patent, col. 8:35-37). This may support a narrower construction limited to systems that retrieve explicit annotation files for specific content.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "actively encourag[ing] or instruct[ing] others (e.g., its customers...)" to use its AR applications. (Compl. ¶10). A parallel allegation is made for contributory infringement using nearly identical language. (Compl. ¶11).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent "from at least the date of the filing of the lawsuit," supporting only a theory of post-filing willfulness. (Compl. ¶10, n.1). Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered. (Compl. p.5, n.1).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claims of the '237 patent, which describe a system for interacting with annotated "video content" on a "second display", be construed to cover a modern AR application that overlays data on a live camera feed of the real world within a "single device"? The construction of terms like "second display" will be dispositive.
• A second key issue will be one of technical evidence: what proof can Plaintiff provide that the accused AR applications practice the specific technical limitations of the claims, such as using a "marker"-based "scene alignment module" or relying on "downloaded" "annotation selection data," as opposed to using distinct, real-time object recognition techniques? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations on these points suggests discovery will be central to testing the infringement theory.