PanoVision LLC v. Matterport LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PanoVision LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Matterport, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00029, D. Del., 01/12/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services, which facilitate the creation and viewing of virtual 3D property tours, infringe a patent related to methods for visualizing products and properties in an immersive three-dimensional scene.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves generating interactive, navigable 3D models of real-world spaces, a market central to the real estate, construction, and hospitality industries for virtual tours and property management.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-10-15	’267 Patent Priority Date
2012-01-31	’267 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-12	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,108,267 - *Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service*

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the conventional processes for selling real estate and remodeling property as inefficient, time-consuming, and burdensome for both buyers and sellers (U.S. Patent No. 8,108,267, col. 1:11-28, 1:53-62). For remodeling, customers cannot visualize the final result until after costly construction is complete; for real estate, buyers must physically visit numerous properties, while sellers endure significant invasions of privacy (’267 Patent, col. 1:18-28, 2:10-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a user to view an "immersive three-dimensional image of a scene" that resembles a real property on an electronic display (’267 Patent, Abstract). The system allows a user to select products (e.g., furniture, cabinets) or entire properties and visualize them in the 3D scene, navigating the space from any vantage point "just as if the user were walking around" by adjusting a "virtual camera" (’267 Patent, col. 2:48-54; col. 4:40-50). This enables users to realistically preview changes or tour properties remotely.
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to solve the "try before you buy" problem for high-cost, high-commitment transactions in real estate and construction by providing a realistic, interactive, and editable virtual preview (’267 Patent, col. 2:50-col. 3:9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’267 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary ’267 Patent Claims" detailed in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Independent Claim 1 is representative of the patent’s core method:
  • enabling a user of a computing device to select a real property from a plurality of real properties being offered for sale;
  • displaying, on an electronic display, an immersive three-dimensional image of a first one of a plurality of rooms of the real property that has been selected, and seamlessly changing a view on the electronic display in order to display an immersive three-dimensional image of a second one of the plurality of rooms of the real property on the display; and
  • enabling the user of the computing device to remove, add, and/or modify a feature shown in an image selected from the group consisting of the image of the first one of the plurality of rooms of the real property that has been selected and the image of the second one of the plurality of rooms of the real property that has been selected.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products," which are detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11). The complaint itself does not name or describe any specific Matterport products, services, or features.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products and has its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶11-12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an unprovided exhibit (Exhibit 2) and does not contain narrative infringement allegations mapping specific product features to claim limitations (Compl. ¶16-17). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of the asserted patent and the known business of the Defendant in the 3D virtual tour space, several points of contention may arise.

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant’s platform, which primarily captures and displays an as-is representation of a property, performs the claimed step of "enabling the user of the computing device to remove, add, and/or modify a feature" as required by Claim 1. The dispute may turn on whether features like digital annotations or measurement tools constitute "modifying a feature" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which describes changing walls, furnishings, and other structural or decorative elements (’267 Patent, col. 10:20-29).
• Technical Questions: The meaning of "seamlessly changing a view" between different rooms, as recited in Claim 1, may be disputed. The analysis may focus on whether the accused products’ transitions meet a particular technical standard for fluidity and speed implied by the term, or if any loading or buffering artifacts create a non-seamless experience that falls outside the claim’s scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "immersive three-dimensional image"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and body of Claim 1 and is fundamental to the invention. Its construction is critical because it will define the type of user experience required to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it covers navigable 2D representations of 3D spaces common on websites, or if it requires a more specific technology like stereoscopic 3D.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the "immersive" experience can be achieved on a standard 2D screen, stating that the system can display "three-dimensional images by representing three-dimensional objects in two dimensions" using techniques like "axonometric projections" (’267 Patent, col. 4:13-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a more specific embodiment that "more closely resembles a real-life situation" by using "stereographic images that trick the brain of the user or viewer into seeing actual three-dimensional images," for example, via glasses with separate display screens for each eye (’267 Patent, col. 4:25-34). This language could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to stereoscopic or virtual reality-type displays.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use its products in a manner that infringes the ’267 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the ’267 Patent. It asserts that service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant’s continued infringement despite this knowledge supports a finding of willfulness (Compl. ¶13-14). This frames the willfulness allegation as being based on post-suit conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "immersive three-dimensional image," which the patent describes in the context of both standard 2D displays and specialized stereoscopic hardware, be construed to read on the navigable virtual tour technology allegedly offered by the Defendant?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional capability: does the accused platform provide the claimed functionality of enabling a user to "remove, add, and/or modify a feature" within the virtual scene, or is its primary function limited to capturing and displaying a static, uneditable representation of a real-world space?