DCT

1:24-cv-00706

Pointwise Ventures LLC v. eBay Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: [Pointwise Ventures LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/pointwise-ventures-llc) v. eBay Inc, 1:24-cv-00706, D. Del., 06/17/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant has an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services offered by Defendant infringe a patent related to a device for pointing at and identifying objects in the real world or on a screen.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that use a camera and an aiming mechanism to identify a real-world or screen-based object and link it to digital information.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit with all rights to enforce it. No other prior litigation, licensing, or prosecution history is mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-09-23 '812 Patent Priority Date
2013-06-25 '812 Patent Issue Date
2024-06-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812 - "Pointing and identification device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812, "Pointing and identification device," issued June 25, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of conventional computer mice, which can only detect relative motion and are confined to interacting with a computer screen. It notes that no existing solution provided a way to point directly at, select, and identify a "distant absolute location" on a TV screen or in the real world (’812 Patent, col. 1:11-33; col. 2:29-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a pointing and identification device (PID) that includes a digital camera and an aiming mechanism, such as a laser pointer or a reticle in a viewfinder (’812 Patent, Abstract). The user points the device at an object, and the camera captures an image; this image is then transmitted to a computer or network for processing, which can include recognizing the object or its location in a "frame" of a show or other media (’812 Patent, col. 5:7-22). Figure 1A provides a block diagram of the pointing and identification device, showing a digital camera, a laser pointer, and a communication component connected to the Internet (’812 Patent, Fig. 1A).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aims to bridge the physical and digital worlds by allowing a user to interact directly with objects outside a computer's graphical user interface and connect them to relevant online information or actions (’812 Patent, col. 2:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead incorporating by reference an unprovided claim chart exhibit (Exhibit 2) (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16). Therefore, an analysis of asserted claims is not possible based on the provided documents.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in an incorporated but unprovided exhibit (Exhibit 2) (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any description of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits to support its infringement allegations, but these exhibits were not included with the provided document (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16-17). The narrative infringement theory is presented at a high level. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly infringes one or more unspecified claims of the ’812 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint asserts that these unidentified products "practice the technology claimed by the '812 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '812 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without the identification of asserted claims or accused products, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms, as no specific claims from the '812 Patent are asserted in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that since the service of the complaint, Defendant has knowingly and intentionally induced its customers to infringe by selling the accused products for end-user use in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’812 Patent (Compl. ¶15). The complaint also references "product literature and website materials" that allegedly direct end users to commit infringement (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that the filing of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringing activities are performed despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). This forms a basis for potential allegations of post-suit willful infringement.

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

Given the complaint's reliance on unprovided exhibits, the initial phase of the litigation will likely focus on establishing the fundamental basis of the claims.

  • Evidentiary Substantiation: A primary issue is what specific products, claims, and evidence Plaintiff will advance to support its currently conclusory allegations. The resolution of this question will depend on the content of the infringement contentions and the claim charts referenced but not provided in the complaint.
  • Technological Application: A central question will be whether the patent’s claims, once identified, can be read to cover the accused instrumentalities. The ’812 patent, with a 2005 priority date, is grounded in the concept of a physical "pointing and identification device." A key point of contention may be whether modern e-commerce software features, which lack a physical pointing component, perform the functions required by the claims.
  • Definitional Scope: The dispute may turn on claim construction, specifically how terms rooted in the patent's physical device embodiment (e.g., "pointing," "digital camera," "spot on a displayed image") are interpreted in the context of a software-based e-commerce platform.