Flick Intelligence LLC v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Google, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: Flick Intelligence, LLC v. Google, LLC, 6:23-cv-00051, W.D. Tex., 01/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has 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 Google ARCore software development platform and related systems infringe two patents related to methods for using a device to select an element within displayed media content and retrieve supplemental information.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to interactive video and augmented reality, enabling users to obtain information about specific objects or people displayed on a screen by pointing a secondary device at them.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-12-22	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 9,465,451
2011-09-27	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 9,965,237
2016-10-11	U.S. Patent 9,465,451 Issues
2018-05-08	U.S. Patent 9,965,237 Issues
2023-01-26	Complaint Filed

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," Issued October 11, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for systems that allow a viewer to obtain information about a specific element within a scene (e.g., an actor, a product) rather than receiving only general information about the entire scene (’451 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where a viewer uses an augmented reality (AR) device to interact with a primary display (e.g., a movie screen). The AR device determines its location relative to the primary display using markers, detects the user pointing at and selecting a scene element, and then displays supplemental information about that specific element on a secondary display, which can be the AR device itself (’451 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-16). Figure 4 illustrates a system where an AR device (161) views a main display (121) and presents supplemental information on its own local display (129) (’451 Patent, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The technology enables real-time, interactive experiences with video content, allowing for functions like direct-from-screen information retrieval or commerce. (’451 Patent, col. 2:5-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-14 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent claim 1 recites the key elements of the method:
  • determining a location of the display in relation to an augmented reality device wherein a plurality of markers is used to determine the location of the display
  • detecting a selection of the scene element wherein a viewer looks through the augmented reality device to view the display and utilizes the augmented reality device to point at and select the scene element
  • displaying the additional information to the viewer on the secondary display, in response to the selection

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: Similar to the ’451 Patent, this patent addresses the challenge of enabling viewers to get information about specific, individual elements appearing in video content (’237 Patent, col. 1:51-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention focuses on the architecture of the augmented reality device itself. It claims an AR device comprising a scene alignment module to locate its position relative to a main display, and an "annotation data receiver" to obtain data that defines selectable zones within the video content. This allows the device to process user selections and retrieve corresponding supplemental information (’237 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-46).
• Technical Importance: This patent describes a self-contained AR system that can create an interactive overlay on top of standard video, shifting the interactive logic to the user's personal device. (’237 Patent, col. 2:36-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-16 (Compl. ¶15).
• Independent claim 1 recites the key elements of the device:
  • a local display
  • a scene alignment module that locates a display position in said local display from at least one marker
  • an annotation data receiver that generates annotation selection data that is downloaded into said augmented reality device ahead of time or on-demand
  • wherein said annotation selection data includes cursor coordinates that yield an element identifier and specifies at least one selectable zone

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies "Google ARCore and related systems" and "the AR application developed using Google ARCore" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶8, 15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Google ARCore is a platform used to develop AR applications that provide "question and answer services across the Internet" to enable infringement of the patents (Compl. ¶10, 17). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the operation of ARCore or its market position, focusing instead on its alleged role in enabling infringing applications. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D but does not include them in the filed document (Compl. ¶9, 16). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Google ARCore and applications built with it constitute the systems and devices claimed in the patents-in-suit. For the ’451 Patent, the complaint alleges that Google's products perform the claimed method of displaying supplemental data (Compl. ¶8). For the ’237 Patent, the complaint alleges that AR applications developed with Google ARCore are the infringing "augmented reality device" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not, however, map specific features of Google ARCore to specific claim limitations in the body of the complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether "Google ARCore," a software development kit (SDK), can meet the definitions of a "system" (’451 Patent) or an "augmented reality device" (’237 Patent). The court may need to determine if the claims read on a software platform itself, or if liability can only attach to a complete end-user application or physical device that incorporates the SDK.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are general. This raises the question of what evidence supports the presence of specific claimed features. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused systems use a "plurality of markers" for display location as required by claim 1 of the ’451 patent, or that they contain a distinct "annotation data receiver" for structured, time-based zone data as required by claim 1 of the ’237 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "augmented reality device" (’451 Patent, Claim 1; ’237 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to both patents. Plaintiff's case appears to depend on this term being construed broadly enough to cover a software platform like Google ARCore and the applications built with it. Defendant may argue the term requires a specific piece of integrated hardware. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of both direct and indirect infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’451 Patent suggests the "device" could be a general-purpose "user's cell phone" or "Smartphone," implying the inventive aspect lies in the software functionality rather than specific hardware (’451 Patent, col. 12:21-22, col. 12:48-49).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures in both patents consistently depict a physical, handheld apparatus, element 161, which includes a camera and a local display, suggesting a self-contained piece of hardware (’451 Patent, Fig. 4; ’237 Patent, Fig. 4).

The Term: "annotation data" (’237 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 of the ’237 patent requires an "annotation data receiver" and defines "annotation data" as specifying "selectable zones" with time-based properties. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether the data processed by Google ARCore has this specific, claimed structure, or if it is more generic metadata.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to encompass any data that annotates video content with supplemental information.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "annotation data" with significant particularity, stating that a "selectable zone has coordinates in both space and time" and can be specified as a "series of temporal extents (time periods) and areal extents (bounding polygons or closed curves)" (’451 Patent, col. 10:15-22). This detailed definition may support a narrower construction limited to a specific data structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Google induces and contributes to infringement by "actively encouraged or instructed others" (e.g., its customers) on how to use Google ARCore to create applications that allegedly perform the patented methods (Compl. ¶10, 11, 17, 18).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge of the patents "from at least the date of the filing of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10, 17). The complaint reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered, indicating the current claim is limited to post-filing conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can "Google ARCore," a software development kit, be construed as the infringing "system" or "augmented reality device" recited in the claims? The case may turn on whether the patents cover a software platform that enables infringement or are limited to a complete end-user product that directly performs all claimed steps.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual sufficiency: can the Plaintiff provide sufficient factual evidence to demonstrate that the accused ARCore platform, or applications built with it, practice specific technical limitations of the claims, such as the use of a "plurality of markers" for positioning ('451 Patent) or the receipt of highly structured, time-and-space based "annotation data" ('237 Patent)?