DCT

6:20-cv-01699

D3D Tech Inc v. Microsoft Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-01699, M.D. Fla., 04/05/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant’s established places of business in the district, including a corporate sales office and multiple retail stores, as well as its regular hosting of conferences, advertising to residents, and partnerships with local companies.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HoloLens 1 and HoloLens 2 augmented reality headsets infringe five patents related to the generation, stereoscopic display, and interactive manipulation of three-dimensional images.
  • Technical Context: The patents concern technologies for creating immersive 3D visualizations from 2D data slices, a foundational capability for augmented and mixed reality applications in fields such as medicine, military training, and industrial design.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patents and alleged infringement on multiple occasions prior to the lawsuit. These events include an October 2016 email to a Microsoft executive referencing the '771 and '183 patents, an August 2017 in-person meeting where infringement of patented features was allegedly discussed and the '771 patent was shown, and a May 2019 email identifying the '771, '183, '766, and '691 patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-12-28 Earliest Priority Date ('771, '183, '766, '691, '457 Patents)
2013-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,384,771 Issued
2016-05-24 U.S. Patent No. 9,349,183 Issued
2016-10-05 Plaintiff alleges first pre-suit notice to Microsoft
2016-10-18 U.S. Patent No. 9,473,766 Issued
2017-08-28 Plaintiff alleges in-person meeting with Microsoft personnel
2018-05-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,980,691 Issued
2019-05-07 Plaintiff alleges second written pre-suit notice to Microsoft
2020-10-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,795,457 Issued
2021-04-05 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,384,771 - “Method and Apparatus for Three Dimensional Viewing of Images”

  • Issued: February 26, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty and time-consuming nature of mentally constructing a holistic, three-dimensional view from a series of two-dimensional medical image slices (e.g., from a CT scan), noting the lack of depth perception in conventional 2D displays (’771 Patent, col. 2:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to create a true three-dimensional stereoscopic image by combining 2D slices into a "volume of interest," generating distinct left-eye and right-eye viewpoints of that volume, and displaying them in a head display unit (HDU). The solution also includes a method for filtering the image by subtracting selected items (e.g., tissues) to allow for unobstructed viewing of a region of interest (’771 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-65).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for converting standard 2D medical scan data into an interactive 3D model for stereoscopic headsets, which could enhance a professional's ability to diagnose and analyze complex anatomical structures (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 8 (non-transitory computer readable medium), and 15 (computer system) (Compl. ¶43-45).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • selecting a volume of interest from a collection of image slices;
    • arranging the slices corresponding to the volume of interest;
    • selecting different first and second viewpoints for a left eye and a right eye;
    • displaying, in a head display unit (HDU), a first image for the left eye and a second image for the right eye based on their respective viewpoints to produce a three-dimensional image; and
    • selecting items of the image to be filtered by subtracting them to produce a filtered image for display in the HDU.
  • The complaint explicitly states it will rely on dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 9,349,183 - “Method and Apparatus for Three Dimensional Viewing of Images”

  • Issued: May 24, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same foundational problem as the '771 Patent: the limitations of viewing and interpreting complex anatomy from 2D cross-sections (’183 Patent, col. 1:21-col. 2:51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention enhances the system of the '771 Patent by adding dynamic user control over the 3D perspective. It introduces shifting a "convergence point" of the left- and right-eye images and selecting an "alternate viewing angle," which involves reorienting the volume of interest. This allows a user to more intuitively rotate, zoom, and change perspective on the 3D object being viewed (’183 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3B).
  • Technical Importance: This solution added the ability for users to dynamically navigate and explore the 3D model, a crucial feature for making augmented reality systems useful for detailed analysis and interaction (Compl. ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 7 (non-transitory computer readable medium), and 13 (computer system) (Compl. ¶81-83).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • The core steps of generating and displaying a stereoscopic 3D image as in the '771 Patent.
    • Shifting a convergence point of the left and right eye images to provide a different perspective of the volume of interest to the user.
    • Selecting an alternate viewing angle, which comprises reorienting the volume of interest and displaying new left and right eye images based on this alternate angle.
  • The complaint explicitly states it will rely on dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 (Compl. ¶84).

U.S. Patent No. 9,473,766 - “Method and Apparatus for Three Dimensional Viewing of Images”

  • Issued: October 18, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the optical methods for creating a stereoscopic 3D image. It claims a system that passes left and right eye imagery through filters with different orientations—such as linear polarizers at ninety degrees, circular polarizers of opposite handedness, or anaglyph color filters—which are then viewed by a user with corresponding polarized glasses to produce the 3D effect (Compl. ¶119).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are asserted, among others (Compl. ¶117, ¶119-121).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the optical components and display system of the HoloLens 2 infringe this patent (Compl. ¶115).

U.S. Patent No. 9,980,691 - “Method and Apparatus for Three Dimensional Viewing of Images”

  • Issued: May 29, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to user interaction with a 3D image, claiming a method of using a three-dimensional cursor with a non-zero volume. The user can move this volumetric cursor within the 3D image space and use it to select a portion of the image for further processing, such as delineating a volume of interest or constructing a custom object (Compl. ¶157-158).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claims 1 and 20 are asserted, among others (Compl. ¶155, ¶157-158).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the HoloLens 2's user interface, which allows for selection and manipulation of 3D objects, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶153).

U.S. Patent No. 10,795,457 - “Interactive 3D Cursor”

  • Issued: October 6, 2020.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an apparatus with a human-machine interface featuring a three-dimensional cursor having a non-zero volume. The interface is configured to select a volume designated by the cursor and to display related information, such as orthogonal cross-sectional imaging slices marked with the cursor's boundary ('457 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶189).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent apparatus claims 70 and 89 are asserted, among others (Compl. ¶187, ¶189-190).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the HoloLens 2 apparatus, with its interactive 3D cursor capabilities, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶185).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant’s Microsoft HoloLens 1 and HoloLens 2 augmented reality products (Compl. ¶39).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The HoloLens products are self-contained, holographic computers worn as headsets that blend digital content with the physical world (Compl. ¶39, p. 18). They utilize "see-through holographic lenses (waveguides)" and sensors to project interactive 3D images, or "holograms," into the user's field of view, allowing them to be "pinned to the real world" (Compl. ¶39, p. 18-19). The complaint highlights their use in medical applications, providing a visual of the HoloLens 2 being used to inspect a 3D model of a human spine (Compl. p. 20, Source). Microsoft markets the HoloLens platform for enterprise, developer, and business use through extensive partner and reseller programs (Compl. ¶56c, ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As the complaint refers to infringement claim charts in external exhibits not provided, a narrative summary of the infringement theories is presented in lieu of a claim chart table.

'771 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the HoloLens 1 and 2 systems perform the claimed method by processing 3D data from applications, arranging this data into a "volume of interest," and generating separate images for the left and right eyes through the device's optical waveguides (the "HDU") to produce a stereoscopic 3D image for the user (Compl. ¶43, ¶47). The complaint further alleges that HoloLens software allows users to manipulate the 3D holograms, including removing or hiding certain parts, which is alleged to meet the claim limitation of "selecting items of said image to be subtracted...to produce a filtered image" (Compl. ¶43).

'183 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The infringement theory for the ’183 Patent incorporates the allegations for the '771 Patent and adds that the HoloLens systems meet the patent’s novel limitations regarding dynamic viewpoint control (Compl. ¶81). It is alleged that when a user moves their head or changes their focal point, the HoloLens alters the perspective of the hologram by "shifting a convergence point" of the stereoscopic images and "reorienting said volume of interest" to create an "alternate viewing angle," thereby allowing the user to inspect the 3D object from different perspectives (Compl. ¶81, ¶86).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "selecting a volume of interest from a collection of image slices," which is described in the patents' specification in the context of stacked medical scans, can be construed to read on the HoloLens's general-purpose rendering of 3D models that may originate from sources other than discrete 2D slices (e.g., polygonal models from a game engine or CAD program).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may raise the question of what technical evidence supports the allegation that the HoloLens's rendering process, which adjusts for user head position and eye tracking, performs the specific function of "shifting a convergence point" as defined and contemplated by the '183 Patent. A related question is whether the user experience of "walking around" a hologram is technically equivalent to the claimed step of "reorienting said volume of interest."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"selecting a volume of interest from a collection of image slices"

(from '771 Claim 1 and '183 Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the core function of both lead patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patents' scope is limited to the medical imaging context of the specification or is broad enough to cover the general-purpose 3D data processing allegedly performed by the HoloLens.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not expressly limited to a medical source. Parties arguing for a broad construction may assert that any 3D data set that can be represented or processed as a series of 2D data layers constitutes a "collection of image slices."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specifications of both the ’771 and ’183 Patents are heavily focused on medical imaging applications like CT and MRI scans as the source of the "image slices" (’771 Patent, col. 1:15-59; ’183 Patent, col. 1:17-col. 2:51). Language in the background and detailed description sections may be cited to argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the term in this more limited context.

"convergence point"

(from '183 Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a key inventive concept of the '183 Patent. The dispute may turn on whether the HoloLens's method for adjusting stereoscopic images based on user gaze and position technically constitutes shifting a "convergence point."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the purpose of shifting the convergence point is "to provide a different perspective of the volume of interest to said user" (’183 Patent, cl. 1). This functional language could support a broader definition that covers any technique for adjusting stereoscopic parallax to alter the user's perceived point of focus in 3D space.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3B of the ’183 Patent illustrates the convergence point as a specific geometric location "C" where the center theta-alpha rays from the left and right viewpoints intersect. This explicit depiction may support a narrower construction tied to this specific geometric model of stereoscopic vision.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing developer kits, support documentation, and marketing materials that actively encourage and instruct end-users and developers to use the HoloLens products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶55-56). It further alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the HoloLens products are especially made for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶60).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness allegations are based on claims of extensive pre-suit knowledge. The complaint details an October 2016 email to a Microsoft executive and a May 2019 email that together explicitly identified the '771, '183, '766, and '691 patents (Compl. ¶27, ¶32). Crucially, it also describes an August 2017 in-person meeting where Plaintiff's inventor allegedly demonstrated the HoloLens, explained how it performed patented features, and physically showed the '771 patent to Microsoft personnel (Compl. ¶29). The complaint includes a photograph taken by a Microsoft employee at this meeting, showing the inventor wearing the accused device (Compl. p. 16, ¶30).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms like "selecting a volume of interest from a collection of image slices," which are rooted in the patents' specification context of processing stacked 2D medical scans, be construed broadly enough to cover the general-purpose holographic rendering of diverse 3D data models performed by the accused HoloLens systems?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the HoloLens's method of adjusting its holographic display based on user head and eye tracking constitute the specific functions of "shifting a convergence point" and "selecting an alternate viewing angle" as claimed in the '183 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  • Given the detailed allegations of direct pre-suit communications, a central question for damages will be willfulness: what evidence confirms that Microsoft had knowledge of the asserted patents and their alleged relevance to the HoloLens technology prior to the lawsuit, and was its conduct in light of this alleged knowledge objectively reckless?