Flick Intelligence LLC v. Niantic Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Niantic, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:23-cv-02219, N.D. Cal., 05/05/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and methods for displaying additional information about a point of interest infringe a patent related to obtaining and displaying supplemental data for content on a display.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to "second screen" systems, where a user can interact with content on a primary display (e.g., a television) using a secondary device (e.g., a smartphone) to retrieve information about specific on-screen elements.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-12-31	'451 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2016-10-11	'451 Patent - Issue Date
2023-05-05	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,465,451 - "Method, System And Computer Program Product For Obtaining And Displaying Supplemental Data About A Displayed Movie, Show, Event, Or Video Game"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,465,451, "Method, System And Computer Program Product For Obtaining And Displaying Supplemental Data About A Displayed Movie, Show, Event, Or Video Game," issued October 11, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge faced by viewers of video content who wish to obtain information about specific on-screen elements (e.g., an actor, a product) but find existing database solutions to be too general and not specific to the item of interest ('451 Patent, col. 2:3-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user can employ a device, such as a wireless Hand Held Device (HHD), to select a specific "point of interest" or region within a video frame being shown on a primary display ('451 Patent, Abstract). In response to the selection, the system retrieves and presents supplemental information about that specific element, often on a secondary display, such as the HHD itself ('451 Patent, col. 4:8-16, Fig. 3). A key component is the synchronization between the video playback and the data annotation to ensure selections are accurate over time ('451 Patent, col. 10:8-12).
• Technical Importance: The technology facilitates an interactive "second screen" experience, allowing users to move beyond passive viewing and engage directly with on-screen content for immediate information retrieval.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-14 ('451 Patent, col. 31:31-32:67; Compl. ¶9). The asserted independent claims are 1, 8, and 14.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • A method for displaying additional information about a scene element in video content on a display.
  • Determining the location of the display relative to an augmented reality (AR) device.
  • Detecting a user's selection of the scene element by looking through the AR device and pointing at the display.
  • Displaying the additional information to the viewer on a secondary display in response to the selection.
• Independent Claim 8 (System):
  • A system with a memory and a processor configured to perform a method.
  • The method includes determining a display's location relative to an AR device, detecting a selection of a scene element on the display using the AR device, and displaying supplemental information on a secondary display.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert all claims of the patent, which includes dependent claims ('451 Patent, col. 31:31-32:67; Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific product, service, or application. It broadly accuses Defendant’s "systems and methods that displaying additional information about a displayed point of interest" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Niantic "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that infringe the '451 Patent (Compl. ¶9). It further alleges that Defendant's actions caused the claimed inventions to be put into service, from which Defendant procured "monetary and commercial benefit" (Compl. ¶¶18-23). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the accused systems operate or any information regarding their market position. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the '451 Patent but does not provide a claim chart or specific, element-by-element evidence of infringement for any claim (Compl. ¶10). It states that support for the allegations "may be found in the preliminary table attached as Exhibit B," but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. The narrative theory of infringement is limited to the general assertion that Defendant's systems for "displaying additional information about a displayed point of interest" practice the claimed invention (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart-based analysis of the infringement allegations.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: A primary question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that Defendant's systems perform the specific steps of the asserted claims. The complaint's general allegations will require detailed factual support during discovery to substantiate the infringement theory.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will concern the architecture of the accused systems. The infringement analysis will depend on whether Defendant's technology involves the use of an "augmented reality device" to select content from a separate primary "display" presenting "video content," as recited in the claims, or if it operates in a different technical paradigm (e.g., overlaying information onto a live camera feed of the physical world on a single device screen).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a scene element displayed in a frame of video content being presented on a display" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this phrase is critical, as it may determine whether the patent applies to modern AR applications. The case may turn on whether a virtual object overlaid on a live camera feed of the real world (a common feature in Niantic's products) constitutes a "scene element" in "video content" on "a display" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit "video content" to pre-recorded media or "a display" to a specific type of screen, which could support an argument that it covers a live camera feed on a smartphone.
  • Intrinsic evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s title, abstract, and detailed description repeatedly reference contexts such as a "movie, show, event, or video game," and depict systems where a user interacts with a primary screen like a movie screen or television ('451 Patent, Title, col. 12:22-26, Fig. 9). This context may support a narrower construction limited to interacting with passively-viewed content on a distinct primary display.
• The Term: "augmented reality device" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction will define the scope of the user device covered by the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if a standard smartphone running AR software meets the patent's definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is broad and could be argued to read on any device that overlays computer-generated imagery onto a view of the real world.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the AR device in a specific functional role: a tool used by a viewer to "look[] through" to "view the display" and "point at and select the scene element" on that separate, primary display ('451 Patent, col. 31:41-44, Fig. 4). This could support an interpretation that limits the term to devices used in such a two-screen configuration, rather than a standalone device displaying an AR view of its immediate surroundings.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It asserts that Niantic actively encourages and instructs others on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner and that there are no substantial non-infringing uses for those products and services (Compl. ¶¶11-12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. p. 5, ¶e). The allegation of knowledge is based on Defendant having known of the '451 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," indicating a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶11-12 & fns. 1-2).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim phrase "a scene element displayed in a frame of video content being presented on a display," which the patent illustrates in the context of a second-screen interaction with a television or movie, be construed to cover a virtual object overlaid on a live camera feed of the real world within a single AR device?
2. A second central issue will relate to the accused configuration: does the accused Niantic technology actually practice the claimed method of using an "augmented reality device" to point at and select content from a separate, primary display, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation between the patent's two-screen architecture and the single-device architecture of modern AR applications?
3. A key evidentiary question will be what specific facts Plaintiff can establish to support its infringement theory. The complaint's high-level allegations will require substantial factual development to demonstrate that the accused systems perform each limitation of the asserted claims.