DCT
3:24-cv-06514
Mielikuva Solutions LLC v. Rokid Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mielikuva Solutions, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Rokid, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BRADFORD BLACK P.C.
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-06514, N.D. Cal., 09/17/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the District, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the District, and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality glasses infringe a patent related to methods for transitioning a head-mounted display between transparent, opaque, and intermediate viewing states to improve user experience.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses fundamental usability challenges in head-mounted displays by creating a system that can fluidly switch between an immersive, opaque information view and a transparent, see-through augmented reality view.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendant on August 5, 2024, providing notice of the patent and its alleged infringement, which may form the basis for a subsequent claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-09 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,619,005 |
| 2013-12-31 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,619,005 |
| 2024-08-05 | Plaintiff's counsel allegedly sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2024-09-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,619,005 - Switchable Head-Mounted Display Transition
- Issued: December 31, 2013 (the ’005 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies shortcomings in prior art head-mounted displays (HMDs). Immersive (opaque) displays can cause motion sickness when the displayed image movement lags behind the user’s head movement (Compl. ¶11; ’005 Patent, col. 2:38-53). Conversely, see-through augmented reality displays often provide poor quality images because competing light from the real-world environment degrades contrast (Compl. ¶13; ’005 Patent, col. 2:53-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a switchable HMD that can transition between three states: a fully transparent state (for viewing the real world), an opaque “information” state (for viewing high-quality digital content), and an "intermediate" state that combines elements of both (Compl. ¶17; ’005 Patent, Abstract). This intermediate state is designed to smooth the transition between the other two modes, for example by panning digital content out of view as a user turns their head, which can mitigate the jarring effects that cause motion sickness (’005 Patent, col. 7:8-14; Figs. 4A-4E). The transition can be triggered by a stimulus, such as the user’s head movement (Compl. ¶20; ’005 Patent, col. 6:57-60).
- Technical Importance: The technology sought to provide a single device that could offer both high-quality, immersive visuals and real-world, augmented-reality awareness, addressing key usability issues that were barriers to the adoption of HMDs (Compl. ¶14; ’005 Patent, col. 4:32-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts apparatus claims 19 and 22 (Compl. ¶35). The infringement allegations map primarily to independent apparatus claim 21, on which claim 22 depends.
- The essential elements of independent claim 21 include:
- A head-mounted display with a switchable viewing area composed of independently controllable portions.
- The viewing area can be switched between a “transparent viewing state” (allowing the user to see the outside world) and an “information viewing state” that is “opaque” (for viewing digital information).
- A controller that switches the viewing area to an “intermediate state” by “successively switching spatially adjacent independently controllable portions.”
- The intermediate state is defined as a state where one portion of the viewing area is in the information state while a different portion is in the transparent state, and where information is displayed over a smaller area than in the full information state.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Rokid AR Lite glasses and associated hardware and software (the "Rokid Accused Products") (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Rokid AR Lite as a "lightweight spatial computing pair of glasses" with "see-through lenses" that feature "independently controllable portions" (Compl. ¶29). This image from the complaint shows the product's marketing as a "Spatial Multi-screen" device, intended for multitasking and immersive experiences (Compl. p. 8).
- Functionally, the device is alleged to allow a user to view digital content, such as application windows, while simultaneously viewing their physical surroundings through the lenses (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges that when a user moves their head while viewing digital content, the device switches to an "intermediate viewing state" where the user sees more of the outside world and less of the digital content (Compl. ¶33). The complaint identifies a "Qualcomm Snapdragon processor" as the controller that performs this switching (Compl. ¶32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’005 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a head-mounted display, the head-mounted display including a switchable viewing area having independently controllable portions that is switched between a transparent viewing state and an information viewing state... | The Rokid AR Lite is a head-mounted display with "a pair of see-through lenses which feature independently controllable portions that are switched between a transparent viewing state and an information viewing state." | ¶29 | col. 5:57-60 |
| i) the transparent viewing state is transparent so that a user of the head-mounted display views a portion of the scene outside the head-mounted display in the user's line of sight; | When viewing digital content, "the remainder of the viewing area displays a portion of the user's surroundings in the user's line of sight that is not obscured by the digital content." | ¶30 | col. 5:35-40 |
| ii) the information viewing state is opaque and the user views information displayed in the switchable viewing area; | "The portion of the switchable viewing area displaying the digital content is opaque when the user views the information in this portion of the switchable viewing area." This YouTube screenshot is provided as evidence (Compl. p. 9). | ¶31 | col. 5:30-32 |
| a controller for switching the viewing state to an intermediate state... by successively switching spatially adjacent independently controllable portions... | The Rokid AR Lite "uses a Qualcomm Snapdragon processor for switching viewing states." It allegedly switches to an intermediate state "by successively switching spatially adjacent independently controllable portions." This image from a Kickstarter page shows the processor (Compl. p. 10). | ¶¶32, 33 | col. 9:5-17 |
| wherein the intermediate state is a state in which a portion of the switchable viewing area is in the information viewing state and a different portion... is in the transparent viewing state and in which information is displayed... over a smaller spatial area... | The intermediate state is described as one where "a portion of the screen is displaying digital content (i.e., in the information viewing state) while another portion... is thus displaying the portion of the scene outside" and information is displayed over a smaller spatial area. This screenshot is provided to illustrate the alleged intermediate state (Compl. p. 11). | ¶34 | col. 7:31-38 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused AR glasses, which are fundamentally see-through, can meet the claim limitation of an "opaque" information viewing state. The interpretation of "opaque" will be critical.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused product achieves an intermediate state by "successively switching spatially adjacent independently controllable portions." A key technical question is whether the Rokid AR Lite's processor actually performs this specific switching method, or if it achieves a similar visual effect (e.g., fading or shrinking a window) through a different, non-infringing software technique such as alpha blending. The evidence provided in the complaint consists of marketing materials and product reviews, which may not detail the underlying technical implementation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Key Term: "opaque"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of claim 21 requires the "information viewing state" to be "opaque." Defendant will likely argue that its see-through AR glasses are never opaque. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue for a functional definition, where the display is effectively opaque because the brightness of the digital image obscures the real world, consistent with the patent's goal of enabling the viewing of "high-quality images" without interference from the external scene (’005 Patent, col. 2:53-59).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific, quantitative definition, stating an opaque state is one "having an absorption of greater than 70%, greater than 80%, or greater than 90%, or 100%" (’005 Patent, col. 5:49-52). Defendant may argue this express definition must be applied, which could present a high bar for Plaintiff to prove infringement by a see-through device.
Key Term: "intermediate state"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core inventive concept of a transitional mode. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product's behavior upon a user's head turn constitutes the specific, structurally-defined "intermediate state" of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes various embodiments of transitions, including spatially compressing an image or reducing its resolution, which a plaintiff could argue supports a broader concept of any state between fully on and fully off (’005 Patent, col. 7:15-29).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 21 defines the intermediate state with specificity: a combination of information and transparent portions, with information displayed over a "smaller spatial area," achieved by "successively switching spatially adjacent independently controllable portions" (’005 Patent, col. 15:1-10). A defendant could argue this requires a specific hardware-level switching mechanism, not just a high-level software effect like window scaling.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Rokid intended for its customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner and was aware that such normal use would constitute infringement (Compl. ¶37). The factual support for this allegation is not detailed beyond general statements of intent.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It specifically pleads that Rokid was put on notice of the ’005 Patent and its alleged infringement via a letter from Mielikuva’s counsel dated August 5, 2024 (Compl. ¶36). This allegation establishes a date from which Defendant’s alleged infringement could be considered willful.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "opaque", which the patent specification defines with specific light-absorption percentages, be construed to read on a see-through augmented reality lens that is displaying a bright digital image?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused Rokid AR Lite's "spatial computing" feature, which alters the display when a user turns their head, operate by "successively switching spatially adjacent independently controllable portions" as required by the claim, or does it rely on a different software-based method to create a visually similar, but technically distinct, effect?