DCT
1:18-cv-01569
Matterport Inc v. Geocv Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Matterport, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: GeoCV, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01569, D. Del., 10/11/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant GeoCV, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and therefore "resides" in the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 3D modeling product, the "Virtual Home Tour," infringes six patents related to the capture, alignment, processing, and navigation of three-dimensional models of real-world spaces.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the creation of immersive 3D and virtual reality (VR) models from scans of physical locations, a market with significant applications in real estate, construction, and virtual tourism.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was given notice of the asserted patents via a letter on September 25, 2018, less than three weeks prior to the filing of the lawsuit. This notice serves as the basis for the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-06-29 | Earliest Priority Date for ’840, ’410, ’405, ’828 Patents |
| 2014-06-06 | Priority Date for ’111 Patent |
| 2014-10-14 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,861,840 |
| 2014-11-04 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,879,828 |
| 2015-10-20 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,165,410 |
| 2015-10-27 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,171,405 |
| 2016-07-29 | Priority Date for ’979 Patent |
| 2018-04-24 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,953,111 |
| 2018-07-24 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,030,979 |
| 2018-09-25 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant |
| 2018-10-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,861,840 - "Identifying and Filling Holes Across Multiple Aligned Three-Dimensional Scenes" (issued Oct. 14, 2014)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: When a user creates a 3D model of a space by taking multiple scans, parts of the scene may be missed or captured with insufficient quality, resulting in "holes" or low-quality data in the final model (’840 Patent, col. 2:6-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that automatically aligns the multiple 3D scans and then identifies these "holes." It can either fill the holes algorithmically using assumptions based on surrounding data or visually present the area around a hole to a user, guiding them to capture a new 3D scene to fill the gap (’840 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This technology provides a guided, semi-automated method for ensuring the completeness and quality of 3D reconstructions, which is a critical step for producing commercially viable virtual models.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Receiving three-dimensional data comprising a plurality of three-dimensional scenes.
- Aligning the data to create a three-dimensional composite scene, which comprises generating, evaluating, and selecting possible alignment schemes based on shape and visual appearance metrics.
- Filling a hole identified in the three-dimensional composite scene.
U.S. Patent No. 9,165,410 - "Building a three-dimensional composite scene" (issued Oct. 20, 2015)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Combining multiple 3D scans using simple rigid alignment can be difficult because capture devices often produce low-spatial-frequency noise or distortions, making a perfect overlap impossible (’410 Patent, col. 6:57-61).
- The Patented Solution: After determining an initial alignment between two or more 3D data sets, the invention determines and applies a "spatial distortion" to at least one of the data sets. This non-rigid adjustment is intended to "optimize the alignment" by compensating for sensor inaccuracies, resulting in a more seamless and visually coherent composite model (’410 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:57-67).
- Technical Importance: This method allows for the creation of higher-quality composite 3D models from capture devices that may have inherent optical or sensor distortions, potentially enabling the use of less expensive hardware.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Receiving two or more sets of three-dimensional data from different capture positions.
- Determining an alignment between the two or more sets.
- Determining a spatial distortion to be applied to at least one set based on the alignment to optimize the alignment.
U.S. Patent No. 9,171,405 - "Identifying and filling holes across multiple aligned three-dimensional scenes" (issued Oct. 27, 2015)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for building a 3D model by first aligning two or more sets of 3D data based on their "three dimensional feature information." After generating a 3D representation based on this alignment, the system then fills a "hole" identified in that representation (Compl. ¶36).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentality infringes by aligning 3D scans and then filling in "missing depth data in the final three-dimensional rendering" (Compl. ¶36, p.10).
U.S. Patent No. 8,879,828 - "Capturing and aligning multiple 3-dimensional scenes" (issued Nov. 4, 2014)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses specifically on the process of aligning multiple 3D scenes. The claimed method involves generating a plurality of possible alignment schemes, evaluating them based on the "quality of alignment," and selecting the scheme associated with a "higher quality of alignment" compared to the others (Compl. ¶45).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
- Accused Features: The Accused Instrumentality's process of aligning 3D scans is alleged to infringe by generating, evaluating, and selecting alignment schemes to find a high-quality match (Compl. ¶45, p.13).
U.S. Patent No. 9,953,111 - "Semantic understanding of 3D data" (issued Apr. 24, 2018)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses a more context-aware method of data completion. The system identifies a "flat surface of an architectural element" (e.g., a floor or wall) within a 3D model, identifies missing data associated with that surface, and generates new 3D data to fill the gap "based on other data related to the portion of the captured 3D data associated with the flat surface" (Compl. ¶54).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
- Accused Features: The Accused Instrumentality is alleged to infringe by identifying flat architectural surfaces like floors or walls and filling in missing depth data related to them (Compl. ¶54, p.16).
U.S. Patent No. 10,030,979 - "Determining and/or generating a navigation path through a captured three-dimensional model rendered on a device" (issued Jul. 24, 2018)
- Technology Synopsis: This invention relates to user navigation within a completed 3D model. It describes a system that determines "waypoint locations" within the model, calculates a path between two locations based on those waypoints, and transmits visual data to a client device to simulate virtual navigation along that path (Compl. ¶63).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
- Accused Features: The Accused Instrumentality's navigation feature is alleged to infringe by using "waypoint locations" to determine and render a navigation path for a user (Compl. ¶63, p.18). The complaint provides an image of the accused product's user interface showing a waypoint, described as an "opaque white dot surrounded by a circle" (Compl. ¶63, p.18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
GeoCV's Virtual Home Tour (the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Instrumentality is described as an end-to-end system for creating and viewing 3D models of real-world spaces (Compl. ¶5, 20). The system functions by receiving panoramic images and 3D scans captured from various positions within a physical space (Compl. ¶19). It then uses a cloud-based server to align this data and construct a 3D rendering (Compl. ¶19, 28). The final model allows for virtual navigation, which the complaint alleges is accomplished by determining and following a path between waypoints (Compl. ¶63). The complaint positions the Accused Instrumentality as a direct competitor and "alternative to Matterport" (Compl. ¶7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,861,840 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving three-dimensional data captured via one or more three-dimensional capture devices, the three-dimensional data comprising a plurality of three-dimensional scenes | The Accused Instrumentality receives panoramic images and three-dimensional scans to construct its renderings. | ¶19 | col. 6:50-53 |
| aligning the three-dimensional data to create a three-dimensional composite scene, wherein the aligning comprises: generating possible alignment schemes..., evaluating the possible alignment schemes..., selecting an alignment scheme..., and creating the three-dimensional composite scene... | The Accused Instrumentality aligns the 3D scans; Plaintiff alleges on belief that this process includes generating and evaluating possible alignment schemes. | ¶19 | col. 6:54-67 |
| and filling a hole identified in the three-dimensional composite scene. | Plaintiff alleges on belief that the Accused Instrumentality "fills in missing depth data in the final three-dimensional rendering." | ¶19 | col. 10:1-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the specific sub-steps of the "aligning" limitation (generating, evaluating, and selecting alignment schemes) are based on "belie[f]" pending discovery of "non-publicly available source code" (Compl. ¶19). A central technical question will be what evidence shows that the Accused Instrumentality's alignment algorithm performs these specific functions, rather than a different alignment method.
- Scope Questions: The definition of "filling a hole" may be disputed. The question arises whether the alleged "fill[ing] in missing depth data" by the accused product is the same as the more structured process of identifying and filling a discrete "hole" as contemplated by the patent.
U.S. Patent No. 9,165,410 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, by a system comprising a processor, two or more sets of three-dimensional data...associated with different capture positions | The Accused Instrumentality receives panoramic images and three-dimensional scans from different capture positions within a space. The complaint includes a screenshot from a product demo showing dots that represent captures at different positions (Compl. ¶28, p.8). | ¶28 | col. 7:1-12 |
| determining, by the system, an alignment between the two or more sets | The server of the Accused Instrumentality aligns the received data by relying on geometry and texture. | ¶28 | col. 7:13-14 |
| and determining, by the system, a spatial distortion to be applied to at least one set of the two or more sets based on the alignment to optimize the alignment. | Plaintiff alleges on belief, pending discovery of source code, that the Accused Instrumentality determines and applies a spatial distortion to create a photorealistic rendering. | ¶28 | col. 7:15-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The allegation of applying a "spatial distortion" is the central point of contention for this patent. The complaint explicitly premises this allegation on belief, stating it expects discovery will provide evidentiary support (Compl. ¶28). The key technical question is whether the Accused Instrumentality performs any non-rigid transformation to optimize its alignments, or if it relies solely on rigid alignment techniques.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "hole" (’840 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining infringement of the ’840 and ’405 patents. The dispute may center on whether a "hole" is limited to a complete absence of data or if it can also encompass areas of low-quality or insufficient data, and whether the accused product's alleged "fill[ing] in missing depth data" meets the claim's requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "'Holes' are inclusive of areas not seen by the 3D capture device...[and] are likewise inclusive of areas present in captured scene data, but that are of insufficient resolution or quality for a particular purpose" (’840 Patent, col. 2:9-14).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a process of identifying holes by finding "Loops of connected boundary points" (’840 Patent, col. 10:22-25). A party could argue this implies a "hole" must be a discrete, bounded void rather than a general region of poor data quality.
The Term: "spatial distortion" (’410 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the core inventive concept of the ’410 Patent. As the complaint's allegation of this element is based on belief pending discovery, the construction of this term will be paramount. The dispute will likely focus on what kind of data manipulation qualifies as a "spatial distortion" intended to "optimize the alignment."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the problem being addressed as "low-spatial-frequency noise or distortions" from capture devices (’410 Patent, col. 6:57-59). The solution allows "points or regions from a given 3D scene...to vary in distance from the sensor," suggesting a non-rigid adjustment (’410 Patent, col. 8:64-65).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term is limited by the specific implementation details described, such as the use of a "cost function" that penalizes movement of points (’410 Patent, col. 7:1-12), potentially excluding simpler data filtering or smoothing techniques.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The theory is that Defendant offers to sell and sells the Accused Instrumentality, which includes software designed to run on a customer's device, and that this software is a "material part of the invention" and "is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing uses" (Compl. ¶20, 37, 46, 55).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful since at least September 25, 2018, the date on which Plaintiff allegedly sent a letter to Defendant’s CEO providing notice of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶23, 31, 40, 49, 58, 66).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Several of the complaint’s core technical allegations—particularly the application of "spatial distortion" (’410 Patent) and the specific method of "evaluating...alignment schemes" (’840 and ’828 Patents)—are explicitly based on belief pending inspection of non-public source code. A key question is whether discovery will yield direct evidence that GeoCV's proprietary cloud-based algorithms perform these specific, claimed functions.
- The case will also turn on claim construction: The scope of key terms like "hole" (’840 and ’405 Patents) and "spatial distortion" (’410 Patent) will be heavily disputed. The outcome may depend on whether the court construes these terms broadly to cover general data completion and adjustment techniques, or narrowly to require the specific, structured methods detailed in the patent specifications.
- A third question relates to system functionality and control: The complaint expresses uncertainty as to whether certain infringing acts are performed on Defendant's cloud-based server or on the end-user's device. This raises a question of where the alleged infringement occurs within a distributed system, which may impact theories of direct and indirect infringement.