Virtual Immersion Tech LLC v. Coca Cola Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtual Immersion Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: The Coca-Cola Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00430, D. Del., 03/01/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district for purposes of patent venue.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of augmented reality systems for supply chain management and maintenance infringes a patent related to an interactive virtual reality entertainment system.
• Technical Context: The technology involves interactive systems where remote individuals ("performers") are visually and audibly integrated into a virtual or augmented environment for local users ("participants") to interact with.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Virtual Immersion Technologies LLC acquired the patent-in-suit on or around February 24, 2016. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

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

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 asserts that prior art virtual reality systems were limited. They either focused on a participant's interaction with computer-generated objects rather than live human performers, or they involved passive entertainment (like television) without immersion or true interactivity, particularly lacking two-way audio communication between participants and performers (’599 Patent, col. 1:57-67; col. 2:15-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this by creating a system for "three-way immersive interactive communication" between participants, one or more live performers, and an immersive virtual environment (’599 Patent, col. 2:55-57). In this system, a video image of the live performer is superimposed into the graphical environment viewed by the participants, who can then interact with the performer and the environment using input devices and voice communication, thereby influencing the outcome of the "performance" (’599 Patent, col. 4:5-12; Abstract). The system architecture is detailed in a block diagram showing the interplay of control computers, video/audio processors, and network connections that enable this experience (’599 Patent, Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: The patent suggests this combination of a live performer within an immersive environment, coupled with participant control, creates a "synergistic effect" and a novel entertainment and educational experience not previously possible (’599 Patent, col. 3:17-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 9, and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶48).
• Independent Claim 1 (System): A virtual reality system comprising:
  • an immersive virtual reality environment
  • performer and participant input and output devices in electronic communication with the environment
  • the environment includes a video image of a live performer and audio communication between the performer and participant
  • a participant interacts with the live performer and environment, resulting in an experience partially controlled by the participant's input device
• Independent Claim 8 (System): A system similar to claim 1 which further recites specific components (processing device, network) and adds a limitation that the network connects the environment and participant devices "across the Internet."
• Independent Claim 9 (Method): A method of providing interactive communications between participants and performers with steps that largely mirror the system components of claim 1.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional claims, but notes that its infringement theories may be modified as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶76).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Instrumentalities" are described as "interactive, real time, virtual reality systems" that use augmented reality for industrial applications within The Coca-Cola Company (Compl. ¶48).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Coca-Cola uses augmented reality systems "to reduce costs, improve quality control and drive efficiencies throughout the Coca-Cola supply chain" (Compl. ¶12). The system is used by maintenance workers and engineers, allowing them to interact with remote experts who are visually and audibly present in the worker's field of view via an augmented reality device (Compl. ¶¶61, 62, 66).
• The functionality is framed as creating an "immersive virtual reality environment where participants and live performers can interact" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint cites sources stating the technology "reduces technician travel, decreases plant downtime and produces higher quality outcomes" (Compl. ¶12).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include its referenced claim chart exhibit. The following summary is based on the narrative allegations.

’599 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the patent's claims, which are described in the context of a "Performance Theater Entertainment System" (’599 Patent, Title), can be construed to cover an industrial augmented reality system for supply chain maintenance. This raises the question of whether a "remote expert" (Compl. ¶49) constitutes a "live performer" and whether a "maintenance worker" (Compl. ¶61) constitutes a "participant" within the meaning of the claims.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused system uses "augmented reality" (Compl. ¶12), while the patent claims an "immersive virtual reality environment." A key technical question will be whether the accused AR system, which overlays information onto a user's view of the real world, meets the patent's definition of an "immersive" environment, which it defines as providing "a greater than 25 degree diagonal field of view... no more than 10 feet from the viewer" (’599 Patent, col. 4:61-64).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "live performer"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to the dispute. The complaint equates a remote expert technician with a "live performer" (Compl. ¶¶12-13, 53). The defense may argue the term is limited to an entertainer, given the patent's title ("Performance Theater Entertainment System") and repeated references to entertainment and performance applications.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit "performer" to an entertainment context, potentially allowing for a plain meaning of one who performs a task.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, and specification repeatedly frame the invention as an "entertainment and/or educational" system (’599 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:19-21). The specification provides examples such as "stand-up comedy" and "dramatic presentations" (’599 Patent, col. 5:21-23), which may support a narrower construction limited to an entertainment context.

The Term: "immersive virtual reality environment"

• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that Coca-Cola's "augmented reality" system (Compl. ¶12) constitutes an "immersive virtual reality environment" (Compl. ¶13). The distinction between augmented reality (overlaying digital information on the real world) and virtual reality (a fully simulated world) will be critical.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "immersive" based on field-of-view and distance criteria (’599 Patent, col. 4:61-64), which could potentially be met by certain AR devices without requiring a fully synthetic world.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the environment as a "computer generated graphical environment wherein a participant is 'immersed' within the environment so as to provide to the user a sensation of being physically located within the graphical environment" (’599 Patent, col. 1:36-41). This language, along with descriptions of superimposing a live performer within a graphical environment, suggests a fully simulated space, which may not describe an AR system that maintains the user's view of the real world.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Coca-Cola encourages infringement by its partners and customers by providing the accused systems, instruction materials, and training (Compl. ¶¶63-64). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused systems are a material component "especially made or adapted for use in an infringement" and are not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶¶71-72).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continued infringement after having been made aware of the patent and the alleged infringement by the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶73-74).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "live performer" and "participant", which are rooted in the patent's explicit context of a "Performance Theater Entertainment System," be construed broadly enough to cover a remote expert technician and an on-site maintenance worker in an industrial setting?
• A key technical and legal question will be one of environmental classification: does the accused "augmented reality" system, which overlays data onto the real world, meet the claim limitation of an "immersive virtual reality environment," particularly in light of specification language describing a "sensation of being physically located within the graphical environment"?
• An underlying evidentiary question will be one of functionality: assuming the definitional hurdles are cleared, the court will need to determine if the specific components and operations of Coca-Cola's system map onto the functional requirements of the asserted claims, such as the specific input/output device configurations and the nature of the participant's control over the experience.