Virtual Immersion Tech LLC v. Altspacevr Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtual Immersion Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: AltspaceVR Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00838, D. Del., 06/27/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, AltspaceVR Inc., is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s virtual reality platform infringes a patent related to interactive virtual reality systems that combine live performers with a participant-controlled experience.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to multi-user virtual reality (VR) environments where participants can interact with each other and with live performers who are integrated into the virtual space.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the inventors’ technology received industry awards in November 2000 and 2002, and has been used in live theater attractions for over ten years.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,409,599 - "Interactive Virtual Reality Performance Theater Entertainment System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,409,599, "Interactive Virtual Reality Performance Theater Entertainment System", issued June 25, 2002.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art virtual reality systems as focusing on user interaction with computer-generated objects, not live performers. It also notes that existing entertainment systems with live performers lacked immersive qualities and two-way voice communication between the audience and the performer (’599 Patent, col. 2:5-25, col. 2:41-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "three-way interactive communication" system between participants, live performers, and an immersive VR environment (’599 Patent, col. 3:15-18). The system captures a live performer's video and audio, mixes it with a graphical VR world, and presents this composite view to participants, who can then use input devices to interact with and partially control the experience (’599 Patent, col. 4:5-21, col. 4:22-38). The patent's Figure 1 illustrates this three-way flow of information between actors, participants, and the immersive environment.
• Technical Importance: The invention sought to create a more spontaneous and engaging experience by blending the unpredictability of a live performance with the immersion of a virtual reality world (’599 Patent, col. 14:14-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 9.
• Independent Claim 1 (System):
  • an immersive virtual reality environment;
  • at least one performer input device;
  • at least one participant input device;
  • at least one performer output device;
  • at least one participant output device;
  • wherein the environment includes a live or prerecorded video image of the performer and audio communication between the performer and participant;
  • wherein the participant interacts with the performer and environment, resulting in an experience "in part controlled" by the participant via the input device.
• Independent Claim 8 (System): A system similar to claim 1, adding a network connecting the devices "across the Internet."
• Independent Claim 9 (Method): A method of providing interactive communications by:
  • providing an immersive VR environment and associated input/output devices;
  • having a live performer interact with a participant by including a live/prerecorded image and audio communication;
  • having the participant interact with the performer, producing an experience controlled by the participant.
• The complaint asserts dependent claims 2 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as an "interactive, real time, virtual reality system" provided by Defendant AltspaceVR Inc. (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that AltspaceVR provides a virtual reality platform that allows users to interact in a virtual environment in real time with live performers and other participants (Compl. ¶14). The complaint cites several examples of this functionality, including partnerships with NBC News for events like the "virtual democracy plaza" featuring avatars of journalists such as Al Roker and Chuck Todd (Compl. ¶22, ¶24, ¶26). These events are presented as instances where users, through their avatars, interact with live performers within the accused VR environment (Compl. ¶21).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart exhibit. The following table summarizes the allegations for the lead independent claim based on the complaint's narrative.

U.S. Patent No. 6,409,599 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be the definition of "live performer." The complaint points to events with news personalities (Compl. ¶22), but the accused platform also allows for general user-to-user interaction. The case may turn on whether any user presenting to others qualifies as a "performer" under the patent's definition, or if the term requires a more structured, host-and-audience relationship as described in the specification (’599 Patent, col. 4:26-38).
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the experience is "partially controlled" by the participant (Compl. ¶21), mirroring the claim language. A key factual question will be what level of "control" the accused system actually affords participants beyond simple avatar movement and communication, and whether that functionality meets the threshold contemplated by the patent, which describes participants influencing the "content and outcome of the performance" (’599 Patent, col. 4:22-26).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "immersive virtual reality environment"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in all independent claims and is foundational to the invention. The scope of "immersive" will be critical for infringement. A narrow definition could exclude systems that do not meet specific technical thresholds, while a broader one could cover a wider range of VR experiences.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an explicit definition: "one in which a greater than 25 degree diagonal field of view is provided no more than 10 feet from the viewer" (’599 Patent, col. 4:60-63). It further provides a specific example of a 14-inch display viewed from 31.6 inches qualifying as "immersive" (’599 Patent, col. 6:43-48, Fig. 2). A party could argue this specific, numerical definition should control the claim's scope.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not recite the specific numerical field-of-view or distance limitations. A party might argue that "immersive" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the context of VR at the time, and that the specification's definition is merely a preferred embodiment, not a limiting definition for all claims.

The Term: "live performer"

• Context and Importance: The distinction between a "live performer" and a mere "participant" is central to the patent's claimed architecture. The infringement analysis, particularly for inducement, will depend on whether AltspaceVR's system is used for interactions that meet this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification often describes the performer in a host-like role, residing in a "presenter enclosure" (’599 Patent, col. 7:23-26), following a script or performing impromptu actions to query the audience (’599 Patent, col. 4:26-33), and being distinct from the "participants" or "audience" (’599 Patent, col. 3:5-8). This suggests a structured, one-to-many or few-to-many performance model.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "performer" without these structural limitations. The abstract refers to "live and/or pre-recorded performers" being mixed into the environment, and the patent discusses applications like stand-up comedy and teaching (’599 Patent, col. 5:18-26), which could be interpreted more broadly. A party may argue that any user actively presenting to others within the VR space could be considered a "live performer."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant has specific intent or willful blindness and aids infringement by providing the Accused Instrumentalities along with "instruction materials, training, and services" (Compl. ¶31-32). It is alleged that Defendant's knowledge dates from at least the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶32). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused platform is a material component "especially made or adapted" for infringement and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶33).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's infringement "since the filing of the Complaint" (Compl. ¶34).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "live performer", which the patent often describes in a structured, host-and-audience context, be construed to cover the more generalized user interactions and celebrity avatar appearances hosted on the accused AltspaceVR platform?
2. A second key issue will be one of technical specificity: will the term "immersive", as used in the claims, be limited by the patent’s explicit definition of a "greater than 25 degree diagonal field of view," and can Plaintiff provide evidence that the accused system meets this specific geometric requirement?
3. A central evidentiary question will be one of participant control: does the accused platform provide users with the ability to "in part control" the "content and outcome of the performance" in the manner claimed by the patent, or is the interaction limited to more conventional avatar communication and movement, creating a potential mismatch in technical operation?