DCT
3:18-cv-00510
FullView Inc v. Polycom Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: FullView, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Polycom, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hausfeld LLP
- Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00510, N.D. Cal., 07/02/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Polycom may be found in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the complaint occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s panoramic videoconferencing systems infringe two patents related to methods and apparatuses for creating 360-degree composite images from multiple cameras and reflective surfaces.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves multi-camera systems, typically using a mirrored pyramid, to capture and electronically stitch together a seamless panoramic view for applications like telepresence and videoconferencing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex history between the parties, including a prior patent license agreement that was terminated. Following the termination, Defendant Polycom is alleged to have initiated an Inter Partes Reexamination (IPX) of the ’711 Patent and an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the ’143 Patent. The complaint states that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) confirmed the validity of all asserted claims of the ’711 Patent in the IPX, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and denied institution of the IPR for the ’143 Patent. The complaint also references prior litigation against Microsoft involving the same technology, which allegedly resulted in Microsoft taking a license.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-11-30 | Earliest Priority Date for ’711 and ’143 Patents |
| 2000-10-03 | ’143 Patent Issued |
| 2004-03-02 | ’711 Patent Issued |
| 2007-10-01 | Microsoft RoundTable product launched (approximate date) |
| 2008-04-29 | FullView filed complaint against Microsoft |
| 2008-06-25 | Microsoft settled and became a licensee of FullView |
| 2009-03-30 | Microsoft and Polycom announced Polycom would distribute RoundTable |
| 2011-04-01 | Polycom-FullView Intellectual Property Agreement (IPA) became effective |
| 2012-01-26 | Polycom requested IPX of the ’711 Patent |
| 2012-10-01 | Polycom-FullView IPA terminated (effective date) |
| 2012-01-01 | Polycom allegedly began selling unlicensed Successor Products (approximate start) |
| 2017-01-04 | PTAB affirmed validity of all claims of the ’711 Patent in IPX |
| 2018-01-23 | Original Complaint Filed |
| 2019-01-31 | Polycom filed IPR petition against the ’143 Patent |
| 2019-04-29 | CAFC affirmed PTAB’s IPX decision for the ’711 Patent |
| 2019-09-10 | PTAB denied Polycom’s Rehearing Request in ’143 Patent IPR |
| 2020-07-02 | Second Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,700,711 - “Panoramic viewing system with a composite field of view”, Issued March 2, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art multi-camera panoramic systems as suffering from image artifacts, particularly where the views from different cameras are joined together. These artifacts can arise from parallax between cameras or from imperfections at the physical edges of mirrors used to redirect the cameras' views (ʼ711 Patent, col. 2:3-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using multiple sensors (e.g., cameras) and a reflective area (e.g., a mirrored pyramid) to create a composite image. The key insight is to arrange the sensors such that their virtual optical centers are intentionally "offset." This configuration creates narrow "blind regions" in the composite view that are designed to encompass the problematic mirror edges. By electronically merging the images while disregarding the data from these blind regions, the system can produce a seamless panoramic image without the edge artifacts of prior systems ('711 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:42-65, Fig. 14).
- Technical Importance: This technique offered a way to electronically construct high-quality, 360-degree images that avoid the visual distortions commonly found at the seams between different fields of view in earlier multi-camera systems (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and apparatus claim 16, among others (Compl. ¶33, ¶34).
- Independent Claim 1 requires a method comprising the steps of:
- For at least one of a plurality of sensors, redirecting at least a portion of its individual field of view with a reflective area; and
- Merging images from the individual fields of view to produce a composite image, where portions of the merged images have substantially similar viewing directions; and
- Wherein the viewing directions appear to originate from points that are "offset" from one another.
- The complaint notes that to simplify proceedings, it asserts 18 of the 39 total claims (Compl. ¶34).
U.S. Patent No. 6,128,143 - “Panoramic viewing system with support stand”, Issued October 3, 2000
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: While the ’711 patent family addresses the optical geometry of panoramic imaging, this patent addresses the physical construction. The complaint suggests this invention provides for easier and more precise assembly and calibration, thereby reducing manufacturing cost (Compl. ¶13).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus comprising a plurality of image processing devices, a pyramid-shaped reflective element, and a central "support member" that intersects the pyramid's inner volume. Critically, both the pyramid element and the image processing devices are "secured to the support member," creating an integrated and stable physical structure for the panoramic viewing system ('143 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:52-65, Fig. 17).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a practical and robust mechanical design for manufacturing compact, non-intrusive panoramic camera systems (Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent apparatus claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16, but simplifies its allegations to focus on claims 10-12 for the purpose of the complaint (Compl. ¶44, ¶47).
- Independent Claim 10 requires an apparatus comprising:
- A plurality of image processing devices;
- A pyramid-shaped element with reflective side facets; and
- A support member intersecting an inner volume of the pyramid, with both the pyramid and the image processing devices being secured to the support member.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names the "CX5000 Successor Products," including the Polycom CX5000 HD, CX5100, CX5500, CX8000 360°, and RealPresence Centro (Compl. ¶31). The infringement allegations center on the design of the Microsoft RoundTable, which Plaintiff alleges is identical to the Polycom CX5000 and forms the basis for the successor products (Compl. ¶15, ¶35).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are 360-degree videoconferencing stations. They are alleged to operate using a camera-and-mirror arrangement that includes five cameras pointing upwards towards a five-sided mirrored pyramid (Compl. ¶36). These cameras capture individual fields of view that are then electronically merged to create a panoramic video stream for meeting participants (Compl. ¶36). The complaint alleges that these products are central to Polycom's business and were sold worldwide (Compl. ¶31, ¶32). Exhibit G provides images comparing Plaintiff's prototype to the accused Polycom CX5000 and RealPresence Centro products (Compl. Ex. G).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’711 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of producing a composite image with a plurality of sensors each having an individual field of view, comprising the steps of: | The accused RoundTable product operates as a system using five cameras ("sensors") to produce a composite 360-degree video image. | ¶36 | col. 6:42-45 |
| for at least one of the plurality of sensors, redirecting at least a portion of its individual field of view with a reflective area; and | The RoundTable product uses a five-sided mirrored pyramid ("reflective area") to redirect the field of view of each of its five cameras. | ¶36 | col. 6:46-48 |
| merging images corresponding to the individual fields of view to produce the composite image... wherein each one of at least two fields of view corresponding to images that are merged has a portion, where the images are merged, that has viewing directions that are substantially similar to the viewing directions of the other portion, | The system electronically merges the images from the cameras. The complaint alleges "substantial geometric image continuity" across the merged portions, which implies substantially similar viewing directions. | ¶36, ¶40(ii) | col. 6:53-58 |
| and wherein the viewing directions within each one of such two portions appear to originate substantially from a point that is offset from the point for the other one of such two portions. | The complaint alleges that the apparent apertures of the camera lenses, when viewed in the mirrors, are offset side-by-side rather than coincident. Exhibit C, a photograph of the assembled camera head, is presented as evidence of this offset. | ¶37(i), ¶38, ¶40(iii) | col. 6:58-62 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the specific geometry of the accused RoundTable system creates an "offset" within the meaning of the patent. The analysis will likely focus on the interpretation of the phrase "appear to originate substantially from a point that is offset," and whether the accused device's configuration meets this limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the "offset" viewpoints create "blind regions" that encompass mirror edges, a key feature of the patented invention (Compl. ¶37(ii)). Exhibit D, containing video stills of a yardstick held near a mirror edge, is offered to show a missing portion of the image, which is alleged to be the claimed "blind region" (Compl. ¶39). A technical dispute may arise over whether this observed gap in the image is the specific, intentionally created "blind region" as taught by the patent, or merely a stitching artifact of a different nature.
’143 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A panoramic viewing apparatus, comprising: [a] plurality of image processing devices, each having an optical center and a field of view; | The accused RoundTable product contains five cameras ("image processing devices") mounted on a circuit board. | ¶36, ¶45 | col. 7:55-56 |
| a pyramid shaped element having a plurality of reflective side facets...; and | The accused product includes a five-sided mirrored pyramid. Exhibit C provides a photograph of this component. | ¶36, ¶45 | col. 7:57-58 |
| a support member intersecting an inner volume of the pyramid shaped element, | The complaint points to a "hollow" "support member" in the accused product's design that intersects the pyramid's inner volume. Exhibit C includes a photograph of the disassembled device showing this central post. | ¶45 | col. 7:61-62 |
| the pyramid shaped element being secured to the support member and the plurality of image processing devices being secured to the support member. | The complaint alleges that both the cameras and the pyramid are "secured" to this central support member, citing the disassembled photograph in Exhibit C as evidence. | ¶45 | col. 6:62-65 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for this patent may turn on the construction of the terms "support member" and "secured to." The court may need to determine if the specific assembly method of the accused products—with a central post, a camera circuit board, and a pyramid element—meets the structural relationships required by the claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a point that is offset" (from ’711 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the '711 Patent's method. The definition of "offset" directly impacts whether the geometric arrangement of the accused products infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint explicitly identifies it as a key point of dispute in the prior IPX proceeding (Compl. ¶37).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes moving virtual optical centers (e.g., 500, 502, 504, 506) away from a common central point (90), suggesting "offset" means non-coincident ('711 Patent, col. 6:42-55, Fig. 14). The complaint equates the offset point to a "viewpoint" (Compl. ¶37(i)).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue the term requires a specific type or degree of offset sufficient to create the non-expanding "blind regions" discussed in the specification, not just any de minimis separation ('711 Patent, col. 6:11-16).
The Term: "support member" (from ’143 Patent, Claim 10)
- Context and Importance: This structural element is the core of the claimed apparatus in the '143 Patent. Its definition is critical to determining if the physical build of the accused products infringes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the pyramids being "mounted to a post that passes through their vertices," supporting a broad reading of any central structural post as the "support member" ('143 Patent, Abstract). The complaint points to the "hollow" member shown in Exhibit C (Compl. ¶45).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures, such as Figure 17, show a specific embodiment with a hollow tube (804), angle brackets (808), and a clamp/belt (812) to secure the cameras ('143 Patent, Fig. 17). A party could argue the term should be limited to a structure with similar characteristics or functions.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint includes allegations of active inducement and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and § 271(c), respectively. The pleading asserts that Polycom's actions, such as providing and selling goods designed for practicing the patent claims, were done with knowledge and constitute these forms of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶62, ¶63).
Willful Infringement
The complaint makes extensive allegations to support willfulness. It alleges Polycom had pre-suit knowledge of the patents through multiple channels, including: (1) a prior license (the IPA) to the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶14); (2) direct communications from FullView regarding the patents and licensing (Compl. ¶29, ¶30); and (3) Polycom's own actions in initiating USPTO proceedings to challenge the validity of both patents (Compl. ¶18, ¶24). The complaint further alleges that infringement continued after the original complaint was filed, constituting post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶1).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and geometry: Can the term "offset," which is central to the ’711 Patent and was a focus of prior validity challenges, be construed to read on the specific geometric arrangement of cameras and mirrors in the accused Polycom products? The case may turn on whether the accused system's method of image merging is technically equivalent to the patented method of creating and using "blind regions" to eliminate mirror-edge artifacts.
- A second issue will be one of structural interpretation: Does the physical assembly of the accused products, particularly the central post to which the cameras and pyramid are affixed, meet the definition of a "support member" to which the other components are "secured" as claimed in the ’143 Patent?
- Finally, a significant question for damages will be one of intent and willfulness. Given the detailed history alleged in the complaint—including a prior licensing relationship, direct notice, and multiple adversarial proceedings at the USPTO initiated by the Defendant—the court will likely face the question of whether the alleged infringement was willful, which could expose the Defendant to enhanced damages.