Virtual Immersion Tech LLC v. STERIS PLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtual Immersion Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: STERIS plc (England and Wales)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00433, D. Del., 03/01/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and because Defendant sells products and services in the District of Delaware, introducing infringing technology into the stream of commerce.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s virtual showroom system, used to demonstrate medical equipment, infringes a patent related to interactive virtual reality theater systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that allow multiple participants to interact with live human performers within a shared, immersive virtual reality environment.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was assigned to Plaintiff Virtual Immersion Technologies LLC on February 24, 2016, with the assignment recorded at the PTO on August 26, 2016.

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, 2022 (the “’599 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in prior art virtual reality and entertainment systems, which lacked the capability for three-way, immersive, interactive communication simultaneously between participants, live human performers, and the virtual environment itself (’599 Patent, col. 2:55-57). Traditional VR focused on participant-object interaction, and live performances lacked true immersion and bidirectional communication (’599 Patent, col. 1:57-67, col. 2:15-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method where a live performer’s video image is superimposed into a graphical VR environment viewed by participants, who wear devices like head-mounted displays (’599 Patent, col. 4:5-9). This allows participants and performers, who may be in different physical locations, to see, hear, and interact with each other within the same shared virtual space, with participants able to influence the experience through input devices (’599 Patent, col. 3:10-22, col. 4:22-35). Figure 7 provides a system-level block diagram illustrating the interconnection of control computers, video/audio processors, and input/output devices for both performers and participants.
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to merge live performance with immersive VR, creating a new medium for entertainment and education that was more spontaneous and engaging than pre-recorded or purely software-driven experiences (’599 Patent, col. 3:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 9 (a method claim).
• Independent Claim 1 (System):
  • An immersive virtual reality environment
  • At least one performer input device and one performer output device in electronic communication with the environment
  • At least one participant input device and one participant output device in electronic communication with the environment
  • The environment includes a live or prerecorded video image of the live performer and audio communication between performer and participant
  • A participant interacts with the live performer and the environment, resulting in an experience partially controlled by the participant's input device
• Independent Claim 9 (Method):
  • Providing an immersive virtual reality environment
  • Providing performer and participant input/output devices
  • Having a live performer interact with a participant and the environment (including a video image and audio communication)
  • Having the participant interact with the live performer, producing an experience controlled by the participant's input
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2 and 8, and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶48).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are STERIS’s “interactive, real time, virtual reality systems” used as a “virtual showroom” (Compl. ¶¶12, 48).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that STERIS uses an interactive system where its sales professionals (“performers”) lead potential customers (“participants”) through an examination of medical equipment layouts in an immersive virtual environment (Compl. ¶12).
• This system allegedly uses large 3D immersive displays and VR glasses, allowing participants and performers to interact with each other and the virtual environment through various input and output devices (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges this system is used to reduce costs and enhance sales presentations (Compl. ¶49).
• The complaint alleges the system functions as a virtual showroom for medical equipment, citing an online case study with images of the system in use (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’599 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)

’599 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 9)

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether a "sales professional" demonstrating a product in a "virtual showroom" falls within the scope of a "live performer" as contemplated by the patent, which repeatedly frames the invention in the context of entertainment, theater, and performance arts (’599 Patent, col. 1:16-17, col. 3:10-11).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused system is "immersive" (Compl. ¶12), but the patent provides a specific technical definition requiring, for example, "a greater than 25 degree diagonal field of view" (’599 Patent, col. 4:61-64). A key question will be whether the accused system meets this or other technical requirements of the claims, an evidentiary point for which the complaint does not provide specific data.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "live performer"

• Context and Importance: This term is central because the infringement theory recasts a "sales professional" as a "live performer" (Compl. ¶12). The patent's specification is replete with references to entertainment, theater, and performers in a creative or artistic sense. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the patent's scope can extend from the arts and entertainment context to commercial and industrial sales applications.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not limit "performer" to an entertainment context, simply requiring a "live performer" who interacts with participants (’599 Patent, cl. 1). The specification also mentions "educational systems" and "business applications such as... teaching and lecturing" as potential uses, which could support a broader definition beyond entertainment (’599 Patent, col. 1:20-22, col. 5:21-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled “Interactive Virtual Reality Performance Theater Entertainment System.” The summary of the invention repeatedly refers to a "virtual reality performance theater" (’599 Patent, col. 3:10), and the background discusses shortcomings of prior art entertainment systems (’599 Patent, col. 2:15-18). This context may suggest a narrower construction tied to performance for an audience.

• The Term: "immersive virtual reality environment"

• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges the accused system is "immersive" but provides no technical details (Compl. ¶12). The patent, however, provides an explicit definition. The dispute will likely involve a factual comparison of the accused system's technical capabilities against the definition established during claim construction.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: While a specific definition is provided, the term is used more generally throughout the patent, suggesting it could be understood by its plain and ordinary meaning in the art at the time, potentially encompassing any system that provides a user with a "sensation of being physically located within the graphical environment" (’599 Patent, col. 1:35-39).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines an "immersive environment" as 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. 4:61-64). This explicit definition, presented as the inventors' own, could be used to argue for a narrow, limiting construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that STERIS encourages its customers and independent sales agents to use the accused systems (Compl. ¶63). The alleged inducing acts include providing the systems, instruction materials, training, and support services with the specific intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶¶64-65).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge of the ’599 patent acquired "since at least the date Defendant received notice by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶74). This is a post-suit willfulness allegation.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "live performer," which is described in the patent primarily in the context of an "entertainment system" and "performance theater," be construed to cover a "sales professional" conducting a product demonstration in a "virtual showroom"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical compliance: does the accused STERIS system meet the specific, quantified definition of an "immersive virtual reality environment" provided in the patent's specification (e.g., a >25-degree field of view), or will a broader, more functional definition of "immersion" apply?
• A third question concerns the nature of the interaction: does the interaction in the accused sales demonstration, which is oriented toward examining "medical equipment layouts and options," constitute the type of partially participant-controlled "experience" claimed by the patent, which describes interactive branching narratives and game-like challenges?