DCT
1:19-cv-00436
Virtual Immersion Tech LLC v. General Electric Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Virtual Immersion Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: General Electric Company (New York), along with numerous named subsidiary corporations.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00436, D. Del., 03/01/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant General Electric Company (GEC) maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and the numerous other named defendants are organized under the laws of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote expert augmented reality systems, used across its various business units, infringe a patent related to interactive virtual reality systems that facilitate communication between "participants" and "performers."
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves shared, immersive virtual or augmented reality environments designed to enable real-time, interactive collaboration between remote and local users.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it acquired full ownership of the patent-in-suit on or around February 24, 2016. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-07-19 | '599 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-06-25 | '599 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-02-24 | Plaintiff acquired the '599 Patent |
| 2019-03-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- 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 asserts that prior art virtual reality (VR) systems were limited. They primarily focused on a single participant's interaction with computer-generated objects and lacked capabilities for robust, two-way communication between participants and a live performer, or among participants themselves within an immersive environment (Compl. ¶62; ’599 Patent, col. 2:15-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system that creates a novel "three-way immersive interactive communication" platform connecting participants, live (or pre-recorded) performers, and a shared virtual environment (’599 Patent, col. 3:10-17). The system captures a live performer's video and audio and superimposes it into the graphical VR world viewed by participants, who can then interact with the performer and the environment using input devices and voice communication (’599 Patent, col. 4:5-12, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The patent posits that this combination of a shared immersive space with live performer interaction creates a "synergistic effect" and a more compelling entertainment or educational experience than was previously possible (’599 Patent, col. 3:18-22).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 9, and dependent claim 2 (’599 Patent, col. 16:6-22, 16:39-46, 17:10-18:8, 18:9-19:11).
- Independent Claim 1 (System): Essential elements include (1) an immersive virtual reality environment; (2) input and output devices for at least one performer; (3) input and output devices for at least one participant; (4) the environment includes a video image of a live performer and audio communication between the parties; and (5) the participant interacts with the performer and environment, resulting in an experience partially controlled by the participant.
- Independent Claim 8 (System): Recites a similar system but adds limitations requiring the environment to include a processing device and a network connecting the various components "across the Internet."
- Independent Claim 9 (Method): Recites the steps of providing the system components of Claim 1 and having the parties interact to produce a participant-controlled experience.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶109).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "remote expert augmented reality systems" used by GEC and its subsidiaries (Compl. ¶45). The complaint specifically references a GEC publication about its use of augmented reality, which is associated with the "Skylight" platform from Upskill, a company later acquired by TeamViewer (Compl. ¶¶45, 99).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that these systems are used across "almost every GE business" to allow a remote expert (the "performer") to see what an on-site technician (the "participant") sees and provide interactive, real-time guidance through an augmented reality interface (Compl. ¶45). This functionality is allegedly used to "attract and maintain customers" by offering augmented reality services for post-sale support of GE merchandise (Compl. ¶83).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Claim Chart Summary: The following table summarizes the allegations for the lead independent claim, based on the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint.
'599 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an immersive virtual reality environment | Each Defendant allegedly provides virtual reality systems that include an immersive reality environment for participants and performers. | ¶85 | col. 16:9-10 |
| at least one performer input device [and] at least one performer output device in electronic communication with said immersive virtual reality environment | The accused systems allegedly include one or more performer input and output devices, used by the remote expert, in electronic communication with the environment. | ¶86 | col. 16:11-14 |
| at least one participant input device [and] at least one participant output device in electronic communication with said immersive virtual reality environment | The accused systems allegedly include one or more participant input and output devices, used by the on-site technician, in electronic communication with the environment. | ¶86 | col. 16:15-18 |
| wherein said immersive virtual reality environment includes a live or prerecorded video image of said at least one live performer and audio communication between said at least one live performer and said at least one participant... | The accused systems allegedly provide a virtual environment that includes a video image of the remote expert with audio communication between the expert and the on-site technician. | ¶87 | col. 16:23-29 |
| wherein said at least one participant interacts with said at least one live performer and said immersive virtual reality environment, thereby resulting in an experience which is in part controlled by said at least one participant and said at least one participant input device. | The on-site technician allegedly interacts with the remote expert and the virtual environment, resulting in an experience partially controlled by the technician's use of an input device. | ¶88 | col. 16:32-38 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue may be the mismatch between the patent's explicit focus on an "Entertainment System" and "Performance Theater" and the accused product's industrial application as a "remote expert" tool. This raises the question of whether a remote GEC expert constitutes a "performer" and an on-site technician a "participant" within the meaning of the patent.
- Technical Questions: The patent provides a specific definition for "immersive," requiring either a head-mounted display (HMD) or a display providing a ">25 degree diagonal field of view" from no more than 10 feet away (’599 Patent, col. 4:61-65). A key factual question will be whether the specific hardware used in GEC's accused systems (e.g., specific models of smart glasses or tablets) meets this claimed definition.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "performer"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. The complaint alleges that a remote industrial expert is a "performer" (Compl. ¶¶85-88). However, the patent's title, abstract, and specification consistently use the term in the context of an "entertainment" or "educational" performance (’599 Patent, Title; col. 3:10-14). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patent's scope is limited to entertainment applications or can extend to the industrial context of the accused systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not explicitly limit a "performer" to an entertainer, referring generally to a "live performer" who interacts within the system (’599 Patent, col. 16:23).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Interactive Virtual Reality Performance Theater Entertainment System," and the specification repeatedly frames the invention as a tool for "entertainment and/or educational" experiences, suggesting a narrower role for the "performer" (’599 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 2:19-22).
The Term: "immersive virtual reality environment"
- Context and Importance: This term is a cornerstone of the claimed invention. The patentee acted as its own lexicographer, providing an explicit definition. Whether the accused systems meet this definition is a central infringement question.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the general understanding of "immersive" should apply, but this position may be weakened by the patent's specific definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines an "immersive environment" as one providing "a greater than 25 degree diagonal field of view... no more than 10 feet from the viewer" or by using an HMD (’599 Patent, col. 4:61-65). This language provides strong evidence that the term carries a specific, limited meaning that the accused systems must satisfy.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing "instruction materials, training, and services" to partners and customers, thereby encouraging them to use the accused systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶98, 102). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused systems are a "material component" specifically made for infringement and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶105).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' continued infringement after having been made aware of the patent by the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶106-107).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "performer" and "participant", which are rooted in the patent’s explicit context of an "entertainment performance theater," be construed broadly enough to cover the roles of a remote industrial expert and an on-site technician in the accused augmented reality system?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical satisfaction: does the hardware of the accused "Skylight" system, as used by GEC, meet the specific, narrow definition of an "immersive... environment" that the patent provides in its specification, and does its architecture map to the three-way communication structure required by the claims?