Dodocase Inc v. DGL Group LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DODOcase, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: DGL Group LLC (Delaware) and DGL Group LTD. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'KELLY, ERNST & JOYCE LLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01188, D. Del., 08/23/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant DGL Group LLC is a Delaware corporation, and Defendant DGL Group LTD. is alleged to be its alter ego.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s virtual reality headsets for smartphones infringe two patents related to electro-mechanical input mechanisms that allow a user to interact with a concealed touchscreen.
• Technical Context: The technology provides a low-cost, device-agnostic method for providing input to a smartphone that is enclosed within a simple virtual reality viewer housing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the '075 Patent and its potential infringement via an email on November 28, 2016, and a follow-up letter on February 27, 2017. This history may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,420,075 - "Virtual Reality Viewer and Input Mechanism" (issued Aug. 16, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of interacting with a smartphone's touchscreen when it is concealed inside a virtual reality (VR) viewer housing. Existing input methods, such as using magnets that interact with a phone's magnetometer or employing complex wireless controllers, were described as either incompatible with many devices or cumbersome ('075 Patent, col. 2:56-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a VR viewer with an integrated electro-mechanical input mechanism. A user can actuate a lever or button on the exterior of the viewer, which causes an internal component—an "electrical shield"—to move and make physical contact with the smartphone's touchscreen, thereby inducing a touch event ('075 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:11-20). This design allows for a simple, universally compatible input system that does not require its own electronics or device-specific sensors.
• Technical Importance: This approach enabled the production of inexpensive, passive VR viewers that could work with a wide variety of commercially available smartphones ('075 Patent, col. 2:11-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('075 Patent, Compl. ¶28).
• Claim 1 Essential Elements:
  • A housing configured to receive and hold a mobile electronic device with its touchscreen generally centered.
  • An input mechanism accessible from the exterior of the housing and moveable between a first position and an extended position.
  • The input mechanism comprises an "electrical shield" with a surface.
  • "Only a portion" of the electrical shield's surface is configured to contact a "central region" of the touchscreen when the mechanism is in the extended position.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-9 and 17 (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 9,723,117 - "Virtual Reality Viewer and Input Mechanism" (issued Aug. 1, 2017)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application for the '075 Patent, the '117 Patent addresses the same technical problem of providing user input to a concealed smartphone in a VR viewer ('117 Patent, col. 1:56-61).
• The Patented Solution: The '117 Patent similarly describes a mechanical input system. Its claims are structured differently, focusing on the conductive coupling between an external user input and an internal "touchscreen input" that makes physical contact with the screen ('117 Patent, Claim 12; col. 6:55-6:67).
• Technical Importance: The invention described provides a low-cost, mechanical solution for user interaction in the emerging smartphone-based VR market ('117 Patent, col. 2:11-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 12 ('117 Patent, Compl. ¶42).
• Claim 12 Essential Elements:
  • A first and second lens spaced horizontally.
  • A housing to hold a mobile device where the touchscreen is viewable through the lenses.
  • A user input accessible from the exterior with a first and second position.
  • A "touchscreen input" that is "conductively coupled" to the user input and is generally centered.
  • The touchscreen input is in physical contact with the touchscreen when the user input is in the second position.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 13-15 and 20 (Compl. ¶48).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Hype I-FX brand" Virtual Reality Headsets, specifically including model numbers HY-VBT and HY-VRWS (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are described as virtual reality viewers designed to hold a smartphone (Compl. ¶18). They feature an input mechanism called an "interactive gaming button" or "touchscreen button" which is accessible from the exterior of the headset (Compl. ¶¶21, 22). When pressed, this button allegedly causes an internal component comprising a "capacitive material" to contact the smartphone's screen, which allows a user to "execute [sic] an action in certain Apps" (Compl. ¶¶22-24).
• The complaint alleges that price pressure from infringing imported products, like the Accused Products, forced the Plaintiff to largely exit the consumer VR market, suggesting a direct competitive relationship (Compl. ¶5).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'075 Patent Infringement Allegations

'117 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the '075 Patent may focus on the scope of "central region" and "only a portion of the surface." The court may need to determine the precise physical meaning of the "central region" of the touchscreen as defined by the patent's specification and whether the accused button's contact area satisfies the "only a portion" limitation.
• Technical Questions: For the '117 Patent, a key question may be the nature of the "conductively coupled" limitation. The dispute could center on whether a purely mechanical linkage between the external button and the internal capacitive tip satisfies this requirement, or if the claim requires some form of electrical conductivity between the user's finger and the contact point, as described in some embodiments of the patent (e.g., '117 Patent, col. 5:41-50).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "electrical shield" ('075 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the operative internal component of the invention. The complaint alleges that a "capacitive material" meets this limitation (Compl. ¶24). The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused button's internal mechanism falls within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists numerous materials that can comprise the shield, including "metallized textile/fabric or films," "conductive polymers," and "flexographic inks," suggesting the term is not limited to a specific material but to a functional component capable of inducing a touch event ( '075 Patent, col. 7:26-35).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the term should be limited by the detailed embodiments showing a specific lever-and-coupling mechanism (e.g., Fig. 7A-7F) that moves the shield, potentially excluding other mechanical arrangements.

The Term: "central region" ('075 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term spatially limits where the "electrical shield" must contact the screen. Infringement will depend on whether the accused button's contact point falls within this defined area. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a clear potential point of non-infringement if the accused button touches the screen elsewhere.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the central portion of the display as the area that is "not viewable by either the left or right eye due to the view divider... and, in addition or alternatively, due to the optical characteristics of the lenses" ('075 Patent, col. 3:46-51). This functional definition could be construed broadly.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 2 and 5 show a "central portion 14" physically located between the left and right viewing areas, defined by a "view divider 20." This could support an argument that the term is limited to the physical area occluded by the nose bridge divider.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint primarily alleges direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶28, 42). However, it pleads facts that could potentially support a future claim for induced infringement by noting that Defendant's user manuals instruct users on how to operate the infringing feature: "Simply press the button once to use execute [sic] an action in certain Apps" (Compl. ¶22).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '075 Patent and its infringement as of November 28, 2016, from a notice letter sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶12, 35). For the '117 Patent, willfulness is alleged based on notice from the filing of the complaint and Defendant's prior knowledge of the related '075 Patent (Compl. ¶49).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the term "electrical shield," as described in the '075 patent with specific material examples and mechanical embodiments, be construed to read on the "capacitive material" allegedly used in the accused button? Similarly, does the accused mechanism satisfy the "conductively coupled" limitation of the '117 patent?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement mapping: does the accused button's internal mechanism make contact with the "central region" of a smartphone's touchscreen as required by claim 1 of the '075 patent, and can Plaintiff provide evidence to support this specific locational requirement?
• A third central issue will be willfulness: given the allegation that Plaintiff provided specific pre-suit notice of the '075 patent, the court will have to consider whether Defendant's continued sales after that date created an objectively high likelihood of infringement that warrants enhanced damages.