DCT
1:19-cv-00900
Optimization Strategies LLC v. Vuzix Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Optimization Strategies, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: Vuzix Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.; Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00900, D. Del., 05/14/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s M100 smart glasses infringe a patent related to a head-mountable device that uses two distinct light sources.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves wearable light-emitting devices, such as smart glasses or headlamps, which incorporate specific types of light to affect a user's biological state in addition to providing external illumination.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-07-29 | ’952 Patent Priority Date |
| c. 2015 | Vuzix began shipping M100 smart glasses |
| 2016-07-12 | ’952 Patent Issued |
| 2019-05-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,388,952 - "HEAD-MOUNTABLE LIGHT DEVICE"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of user tiredness and sleepiness when performing activities in low-light or dark environments for prolonged periods, such as trekking, mining, or deep-sea diving (Compl., Ex. A, ’952 Patent, col. 3:12-28). Such fatigue can impair cognitive abilities and reaction times, creating safety risks in hazardous activities (’952 Patent, col. 3:31-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a head-mountable device that combines two light sources with distinct functions and directions. A first, conventional white light source is directed away from the user to illuminate the external environment, similar to a standard head torch (’952 Patent, col. 3:51-56). A second, separate blue light source is directed towards the user’s eyes to suppress the body’s production of melatonin, which can adjust the user's circadian rhythm and thereby increase alertness (’952 Patent, col. 4:16-26, 6:5-11). Figure 1 of the patent depicts a side view of a head-mounted device with a forward-facing light (11) and a downward/inward-facing light (12) (’952 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention seeks to integrate a known biological mechanism—the effect of blue light on circadian rhythms—directly into a piece of equipment commonly used in environments where fatigue poses a significant risk, offering a non-chemical means of enhancing user alertness and safety (’952 Patent, col. 3:43-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A head-mountable portable device comprising:
- a first light source configured to emit a beam of white light in a first direction that is away from a head of a user; and
- a second light source configured to emit a beam of blue light in a second direction that is towards the head of the user and is different to the first direction.
- The complaint states that infringement of "at least Claim 1" is present, reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Vuzix M100 smart glasses (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
The Vuzix M100 is described as a wearable device featuring a monocular, full-color display built into a headset, an onboard processor, and wireless connectivity (Compl. ¶9-10). The complaint presents a photograph showing the device worn on a user's head, resembling a pair of glasses with an attached display and processing unit (Compl. p. 4). The product is marketed for enterprise applications and priced between $999 and $1499 (Compl. ¶5, ¶10). The specific features accused of infringement are a white LED "battery indicator" light and the "full color display" that emits light toward the user's eye (Compl. ¶17, ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’952 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A head-mountable portable device comprising: | The Vuzix M100 smart glasses, which the complaint alleges are head-mountable and portable. This is supported by a photograph showing the device worn on a person's head. | ¶14, p. 4 | col. 1:19-21 |
| a first light source configured to emit a beam of white light in a first direction that is away from a head of a user; | The M100 is alleged to include a battery indicator with a white LED that emits white light away from the user's head. The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison photo showing this LED turned on. | ¶17, p. 5 | col. 3:51-56 |
| and a second light source configured to emit a beam of blue light in a second direction that is towards the head of the user and is different to the first direction. | The M100 is alleged to have a "full color display" that emits light, including blue light, "onto the user's eyes," which is a direction toward the user's head. A diagram identifies the location of this display. | ¶20-21, p. 6 | col. 4:58-62 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the accused components meet the functional context implied by the patent. The complaint identifies a "battery indicator" as the "first light source," whereas the patent specification describes this source as a "conventional torch that allows a user to see objects" (’952 Patent, col. 4:38-41). This raises the question of whether a non-illumination status light can satisfy a claim limitation described in the patent as being for environmental illumination.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a "full color display" meets the "second light source configured to emit a beam of blue light" limitation. This may raise the question of whether a general-purpose display that can incidentally produce blue light is equivalent to a light source specifically "configured to emit" blue light for the biological purpose of circadian rhythm modulation, as detailed throughout the patent's specification (’952 Patent, col. 4:16-26).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "first light source configured to emit a beam of white light"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the accused feature is a "battery indicator," not a primary illumination lamp (Compl. ¶17). The viability of the infringement theory for this element depends on whether the term is construed broadly to cover any white light source, or narrowly to mean a light source intended for illuminating the user's surroundings.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 does not specify a purpose or minimum brightness for the "white light," only its color and direction ("away from a head of a user") (’952 Patent, col. 8:1-3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention as an improvement upon "head torches" and describes the first light source as one that "can function as a conventional torch that allows a user to see objects in low/no light conditions" (’952 Patent, col. 3:23-28, col. 4:38-41). This may support an argument that the term implies a primary illumination function.
The Term: "second light source configured to emit a beam of blue light"
- Context and Importance: The accused feature is a "full color display" (Compl. ¶20). Practitioners may focus on this term because the case will likely turn on whether a general-purpose visual display that can generate blue as one of many colors satisfies the "configured to" requirement, which the patent specification links to a specific biological purpose.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that the source be "configured to emit" blue light, a technical capability that a full-color display possesses.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides extensive detail linking this light source to the specific function of "shifting the circadian cycle of a user" by suppressing melatonin, even specifying ideal wavelength ranges (e.g., 446-477 nm) to achieve this biological effect (’952 Patent, col. 4:16-26, col. 4:65-68). This context may suggest the term requires more than incidental capability and implies a configuration for a specific purpose.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on claim construction, focusing on the purpose and function of the claimed elements compared to the accused features. Key questions for the court include:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "first light source", described in the patent’s specification in the context of a "head torch" for environmental illumination, be construed to cover a small, outward-facing "battery indicator" LED on a pair of smart glasses?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional configuration: does a general-purpose "full color display", which is capable of emitting blue light as part of displaying an image, satisfy the "second light source configured to emit a beam of blue light" limitation, when the patent specification consistently describes that source as being for the specific biological purpose of modulating a user’s circadian rhythm?