Virtuo Convert LLC v. Dreamworld USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtuo-Convert LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Dreamworld USA Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01578, D. Del., 12/31/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to methods for controlling a computer by using hand gestures detected by an image sensor to emulate mouse clicks.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of human-computer interaction, specifically gesture-based control systems that replace or supplement traditional input devices like a physical mouse or touchpad.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-12-18	’223 Patent Priority Date
2019-08-06	’223 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-31	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,372,223 - "Method for providing user commands to an electronic processor and related processor program and electronic circuit"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,372,223, “Method for providing user commands to an electronic processor and related processor program and electronic circuit,” issued August 6, 2019 (’223 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies shortcomings with conventional graphic user interface devices like a mouse or touchpad, noting they can be unsatisfactory where, for example, there is no adequate surface to operate a mouse, a touchpad is too small, or a user is wearing gloves (’223 Patent, col. 1:36-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to emulate the functions of a computer mouse using an image detection device, such as a webcam, to monitor a user's hand gestures (’223 Patent, col. 2:58-61). Specifically, the system detects the "pinching" movement of a thumb and another finger to generate a "mouse press" command and detects the subsequent "spreading" of those same fingers to generate a "mouse release" command, thereby simulating a click without physical contact with an input device (’223 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:24-37).
• Technical Importance: The described solution aims to provide a reliable and intuitive alternative for computer control in environments where traditional input devices are impractical, leveraging advancements in image detection and processing (’223 Patent, col. 1:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A) identifying a hand of said person with an image detection device...
  • B) detecting movement of said hand corresponding to pinching of a pad of a thumb... and of a pad of a first predetermined other finger...
  • C) generating said first user command [mouse press] and sending said first command to said electronic processor,
  • D) detecting movement of said hand corresponding to spreading of the pad of the thumb... and of the pad of said first predetermined other finger...
  • E) generating said second user command [mouse release] and sending said second user command to said electronic processor.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "Exemplary '223 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11, 16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '223 Patent" but provides no specific details about their functionality, operation, or market position (Compl. ¶16). The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" that purportedly identify the products and their infringing functionality, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶14, 16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an unfiled "Exhibit 2" and does not contain specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint’s narrative infringement theory is limited to the conclusory statement that the "Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '223 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Due to the absence of the referenced exhibit, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s claims and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions for the court.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be how the court construes the term "detecting movement... corresponding to pinching." The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused products' specific gesture-recognition algorithms, whatever they may be, fall within the scope of this claim language as defined by the patent's specification.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence regarding how the accused products' systems operate. A key factual question will be what technical mechanism, if any, the accused products use to identify hand gestures and translate them into computer commands, and whether this mechanism performs the specific sequence of detecting a "pinch" to generate a first command and a "spread" to generate a second command, as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "detecting movement of said hand corresponding to pinching"
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention, defining the specific action that triggers the emulated "mouse press." Its construction will likely be dispositive of infringement, as the dispute will turn on whether the accused system's method for recognizing a "click" gesture meets this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the method concentrates on "operation of the buttons" through "visual detection of gestures of the hand, in particular movements of the fingers" (’223 Patent, col. 2:5-7). Parties advocating for a broader scope may argue this language supports any visual finger-movement detection that results in a command.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed embodiment where detection involves tracking the distance "d" and pinch speed "v" between the finger pads, comparing them to thresholds "DTH" and "VTH" (’223 Patent, col. 4:11-58; Figs. 6-7). Parties advocating for a narrower scope may argue that the term requires these specific analytical steps of tracking distance and/or speed between two specific points on the fingers.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating on information and belief that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’223 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge. It asserts that the filing of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" and that any continued infringement from that point forward is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

The analysis of this dispute, based on the initial complaint, will likely center on the following open questions for the court:

1. A Foundational Evidentiary Question: What specific products are accused of infringement, and what technical evidence will be offered to demonstrate that they perform the claimed method of detecting a "pinching" gesture to generate a first command (e.g., a mouse press) and a "spreading" gesture to generate a second command (e.g., a mouse release)?
2. A Core Claim Construction Question: How will the term "detecting movement... corresponding to pinching" be construed? Will it be limited to the detailed process of tracking finger-pad distance and speed as described in the specification, or can it be read more broadly to cover other algorithmic methods of gesture recognition that achieve a similar result?