DCT

3:22-cv-00547

Infinity Cube Ltd v. James Blake

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:22-cv-00547, S.D. Cal., 04/20/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' business activities, including selling and offering to sell the accused product within the Southern District of California, and on Defendant James Blake’s residence within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "SwingVision" smartphone application for tennis ball tracking infringes a patent related to mobile device-based object tracking and feedback generation.
  • Technical Context: The technology enables automated sports officiating and performance analysis, such as line-calling in tennis, using the camera and processing power of standard mobile devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff notified Defendant Mangolytics of the alleged infringement via a letter on November 12, 2021. After subsequent discussions, Defendant allegedly rejected an amicable resolution in March 2022, preceding the filing of this suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-12-17 '478 Patent Priority Date
2019-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,467,478 Issued
2021-11-12 Plaintiff sends infringement notice letter
2022-03-01 Defendant allegedly rejects amicable resolution
2022-04-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,467,478 - "System and Method for Mobile Feedback Generation Using Video Processing and Object Tracking"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,467,478, "System and Method for Mobile Feedback Generation Using Video Processing and Object Tracking," issued November 5, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the challenge of making accurate positional determinations for fast-moving objects in sports, such as a tennis ball relative to a boundary line, noting the limitations and potential for human error, especially in recreational games not professionally televised. (’478 Patent, col. 1:28-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where one or more mobile devices with cameras are used to generate images of a real space, such as a tennis court. (’478 Patent, col. 1:44-48). A "control device" then tracks the object's position based on those images, monitors it for an "event" (e.g., a ball bounce) that conforms to a pre-set rule (e.g., whether the bounce was in- or out-of-bounds), and generates feedback for the user. (’478 Patent, col. 1:48-53). Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment with two mobile devices (120) positioned to view a tennis court (110) and communicating with a control device (160). (’478 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The described technology aims to make automated officiating and player-feedback systems accessible and portable for recreational players by leveraging ubiquitous hardware like smartphones, as opposed to expensive, specialized systems used in professional tournaments. (’478 Patent, col. 1:35-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Generating, with a mobile device comprising a camera, images of a real space containing an object.
    • Tracking, at a control device, the object's position based on images received from the mobile device.
    • Monitoring, at the control device, the object's position for an event conforming to a rule.
    • Generating, at the control device or a client device, an indication that the event has been detected.
    • Transmitting, from the mobile device to the control device upon receipt of a transmit command, a buffered plurality of images captured during a buffer time.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 10, and 11 and reserves the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶¶19-20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the "SwingVision" application, described as a "ball tracking smartphone application." (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants produce, distribute, offer, and market the SwingVision smartphone application throughout the United States via a website. (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The product's function is described as ball tracking. (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that James Blake, a former professional tennis player and investor in Mangolytics, uses and provides testimonials for the product. (Compl. ¶¶4, 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" to detail its infringement theory for representative claim 1; however, this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint. (Compl. ¶22). In lieu of a table, the narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that Defendants' SwingVision product directly infringes, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 of the ’478 patent. (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The core of the infringement allegation is that the SwingVision application, when used on a smartphone, performs the patented method. This purportedly includes using the smartphone's camera to capture images of a tennis ball in play, processing those images to track the ball's position, monitoring that position to determine rule-based events (such as whether a ball landed in or out of bounds), and providing feedback to the user. (Compl. ¶¶13, 19). The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations mapping the operation of the SwingVision product to each limitation of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The claims recite a "mobile device" that generates images and a "control device" that receives those images to perform tracking and monitoring. A potential dispute may arise over whether a single smartphone running the SwingVision app can constitute both the "mobile device" and the "control device" as architecturally distinct entities. The claim language "images received from the mobile device" at the "control device" may suggest a required transmission between two components, raising the question of whether an internal data pathway within a single device meets this limitation. (’478 Patent, col. 35:4-7).
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 concludes with a specific functional step: "transmitting, from the mobile device to the control device upon receipt of a transmit command, a buffered plurality of images." (’478 Patent, col. 35:14-19). A key technical question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused SwingVision product performs this exact "transmit-on-command" function, which the patent specification appears to associate with a "challenge" or review feature. (See ’478 Patent, Claim 10). The complaint does not provide facts describing this functionality in the accused product.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "control device"
  • Context and Importance: The relationship between the "mobile device" and the "control device" is central to the claimed method. The construction of "control device" will be critical to determining whether a single smartphone running an application can infringe, or if the claims require a system of at least two distinct hardware or software components.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "control device" can be, for example, a "laptop computer, tablet, [or] smartphone." (’478 Patent, col. 8:57-59). It also notes that the processing server, which performs analysis, can be "the computer in the mobile device 120 itself." (’478 Patent, col. 11:3-5). This may support an interpretation where a single device can embody both the "mobile device" and "control device" roles.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the "control device" to track the object based on "images received from the mobile device," which implies a transfer of information. (’478 Patent, col. 35:4-7). Further, figures such as Figure 1 and Figure 24 consistently depict the "mobile device (120)" and "control device (160)" as separate physical units, which could support a narrower construction requiring distinct components.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants indirectly infringe by "encouraging end users" to use the Accused Product in a manner that infringes the ’478 patent. (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not specify the alleged acts of encouragement, such as instructions or marketing materials.
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’478 patent. The complaint claims this knowledge arose "at least as early as Nov. 12, 2021, when Defendants received Infinity Cube’s letter," and that Defendants continued their allegedly infringing conduct thereafter without a license. (Compl. ¶¶25, 31).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural scope: can the claim language distinguishing between a "mobile device" that generates images and a "control device" that receives them for tracking be construed to read on a single smartphone running an integrated application, or does the claim require a system with at least two distinct, communicating components?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: what evidence will show that the accused SwingVision product performs the final step of Claim 1—transmitting buffered images "upon receipt of a transmit command"—a specific function that the patent links to event-review or challenge features? The absence of detailed factual allegations on this point in the complaint makes it a critical area for discovery.