DCT

3:17-cv-05806

Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. HTC America Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-05806, N.D. Cal., 10/10/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant maintains a place of business and transacts business in the Northern District of California, including the allegedly infringing activities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HTC Vive line of virtual reality systems infringes a patent related to determining the position and orientation of a wearable article using external light sources.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns absolute position and orientation (pose) tracking for objects in three-dimensional space, a foundational capability for creating immersive virtual and augmented reality experiences.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit via multiple written notices. It further notes that Defendant filed an unsuccessful petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the patent, a procedural event where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to institute a review of the patent's validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-03-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,553,935 Priority Date
2016-01-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,235,934 Issued
Early 2016 Accused VIVE Products Launch
2016-03-11 Plaintiff's counsel sends notice letter to Defendant's counsel (Ex. 1)
2016-03-14 Plaintiff's counsel sends notice letter to Defendant's co-developer, Valve Corp. (Ex. 4)
2019-09-25 Plaintiff's counsel sends email notice with claim chart to Defendant's counsel (Ex. 2)
2019-10-10 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,235,934, titled "Computer Interface Employing a Wearable Article with an Absolute Pose Detection Component", issued on January 12, 2016 (the "’934 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for an efficient, accurate, and low-cost method for determining the absolute pose (position and orientation) of a manipulated object, such as a virtual reality headset, in a three-dimensional environment. The background notes the high cost and complexity of prior art solutions, such as those requiring multiple calibrated cameras or complex projection apparatuses. (’934 Patent, col. 2:10-21, referenced via parent U.S. Patent No. 8,553,935 specification).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a wearable article, such as a pair of glasses, is equipped with one or more photodetectors. These photodetectors detect light from a plurality of external light sources (beacons) arranged in a known pattern in the environment. A controller then processes the data from the photodetector to determine the wearable article's position and orientation relative to the beacons. This "inside-out" tracking approach, illustrated in Figure 23 where glasses (952B) detect light from an array of beacons (960), is designed to provide robust pose data. (’934 Patent, Abstract; ’934 Patent, Fig. 23, col. 39:45-51, referenced via parent U.S. Patent No. 8,553,935 specification).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a potential solution for robust six-degree-of-freedom tracking essential for immersive VR, aiming to reduce the cost and calibration complexity associated with multi-camera "outside-in" systems prevalent at the time. (’934 Patent, col. 3:33-50, referenced via parent U.S. Patent No. 8,553,935 specification).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 5, and 6. (Compl. ¶4).
  • Independent Claim 1 Elements:
    • A wearable article cooperating with a first plurality of predetermined light sources disposed in a known pattern, said wearable article comprising:
    • a) a photodetector configured to detect said first plurality of predetermined light sources and generate photodetector data representative of the positions of said first plurality of predetermined light sources; and
    • b) a controller configured to identify a derivative pattern of said first plurality of predetermined light sources from said photodetector data, wherein said derivative pattern is indicative of the position of said photodetector.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Defendant’s VIVE virtual reality systems, specifically including the VIVE PRE, VIVE, VIVE PRO, VIVE PRO EYE, and VIVE PRO HMD models. The VIVE COSMOS model is expressly excluded from the allegations. (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused VIVE system consists of a Head Mounted Display (HMD), which is worn by the user, and two Base Stations placed in the room. The complaint alleges that the HMD is a "wearable article," the Base Stations provide a "plurality of infrared light sources" (including IR LEDs and sweeping laser beams) in a known, factory-set pattern, and the HMD is equipped with multiple photodetectors on its outer surface to detect the light from the Base Stations. (Compl. ¶8; Ex. 3, p. 1). An on-board Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) in the HMD allegedly functions as the claimed "controller" to process the photodetector data and determine the HMD's position and orientation. (Compl. ¶8; Ex. 3, p. 1). The complaint includes an image of a user wearing the VIVE headset in a room with the two Base Stations, illustrating the operative environment of the accused system. (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 16). Another image provides a teardown view of an accused device, showing the array of photodetectors on its surface. (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

  • The complaint provides a claim chart in Exhibit 3, which is incorporated by reference. (Compl. ¶8). The central allegations for claim 1 are summarized below.

’934 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A wearable article... The Vive Head Mounted Display (HMD) is a wearable article worn by the user. ¶8; Ex. 3, p. 1 col. 40:3-5
...cooperating with a first plurality of predetermined light sources disposed in a known pattern, The HMD cooperates with two Vive Base Stations, each providing infrared LEDs and two infrared laser beams. The LEDs and laser apertures are disposed in a known, factory-set pattern. ¶8; Ex. 3, p. 1 col. 6:9-11
a) a photodetector configured to detect said first plurality of predetermined light sources and generate photodetector data representative of the positions of said first plurality of predetermined light sources; The HMD has multiple photodetectors on its surface configured to receive infrared light from the Base Stations. Each photodetector generates an electrical signal representing the photodetector data. ¶8; Ex. 3, p. 1 col. 6:11-15
b) a controller configured to identify a derivative pattern of said first plurality of predetermined light sources from said photodetector data, An internal ASIC mounted on the HMD is a controller that processes the photodetector data and identifies a derivative pattern of the relative vertical and horizontal angular positions of the laser apertures. ¶8; Ex. 3, p. 1 col. 6:15-18
wherein said derivative pattern is indicative of the position of said photodetector. The identified derivative pattern is indicative of a positional mapping of the laser apertures from the photodetector's viewpoint and is indicative of the photodetector's position relative to the Base Station. ¶8; Ex. 3, p. 1 col. 6:24-25

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The definition of "derivative pattern" may become a central point of contention. The complaint alleges the accused system identifies a pattern of "relative vertical and horizontal angular positions" derived from laser sweeps. A question for the court may be whether this term, described in the patent in the context of geometric transformations of discrete light source arrays (e.g., perspective distortion), can be construed to encompass the temporal data generated by the timed laser sweeps of the accused VIVE system.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question may be how the accused VIVE system's ASIC technically operates. The complaint alleges it "identifies a derivative pattern." The analysis may explore what evidence shows that the ASIC identifies a "pattern" from the photodetector data, as required by the claim, versus performing a series of timing-based trigonometric calculations that may not constitute identifying a "pattern" in the sense disclosed in the patent. An included visual from an explanatory video alleges that the system's internal ASIC processes the photodiode outputs to determine location and orientation. (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 19).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "derivative pattern"
  • Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the patented invention's method for determining pose. The case may turn on whether the accused system's method of using timed laser sweeps falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether the VIVE system's time-domain tracking method infringes a claim rooted in the transformation of spatial patterns.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that as the photodetector's pose changes, the source pattern "undergoes a well-understood transformation (i.e., perspective distortion...)." It further states, "Knowledge of this transformation enables one to correlate the... pattern to the derivative pattern and obtain information about the pose." (’934 Patent, col. 6:18-25, referenced via parent U.S. Patent No. 8,553,935 specification). This language could support an interpretation where any predictable transformation of the source pattern as captured by the detector, including a temporal one, constitutes a "derivative pattern."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides concrete examples of a derivative pattern as being "indicative of the asymmetric and generally linear patterns of groups... of IR LEDs... along edges". (’934 Patent, col. 50:1-4, referenced via parent U.S. Patent No. 8,553,935 specification). This could support a narrower construction limited to geometric patterns of discrete light sources, as opposed to timing data from a continuous laser sweep.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on Defendant providing its VIVE products along with specific instructions and user guides (e.g., "VIVE PRE User Guide" and "VIVE PRO User Guide") that allegedly instruct end-users to operate the devices in a manner that directly infringes the ’934 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶9, 11).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts pre-suit knowledge based on multiple written notices sent to Defendant and its co-developer Valve Corporation. (Compl. ¶¶6, 13; Exs. 1, 2, 4). It further alleges that Defendant's "unsuccessful petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the Patent" and its general corporate practice of conducting "freedom to operate" searches provided it with intimate knowledge of the patent and the allegedly infringing nature of its products. (Compl. ¶6, p. 3 ¶1, p. 6 ¶1).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "derivative pattern," which is described in the patent specification primarily through the lens of geometric transformations of discrete light source arrays, be construed to cover the temporal sequence of sensor data generated by the accused VIVE system's timed laser-sweep tracking technology?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: does the evidence show that the accused VIVE system's internal ASIC performs the specific claimed step of "identify[ing] a derivative pattern... from said photodetector data," or will the technical facts demonstrate that it employs a fundamentally different method based on timing calculations that falls outside the patent's claimed process?