DCT
0:20-cv-60399
Pillar Vision, Inc. v RSPCT Sports Tech, Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Pillar Vision, Inc., d/b/a NOAH BASKETBALL (California)
- Defendant: RSPCT Sports Tech, Inc. (Delaware/Florida) and RSPCT Basketball Technologies, Ltd. (Israel)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
- Case Identification: 0:20-cv-60399, S.D. Fla., 07/27/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant RSPCT Sports Tech, Inc. maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Southern District of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s basketball shot tracking and analysis systems infringe three U.S. patents related to trajectory detection, performance feedback, and data normalization.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue operates within the sports analytics sector, providing tools for athletes and coaches to measure, analyze, and improve basketball shooting performance through sensor-based data capture and software analysis.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement for two of the patents-in-suit on August 21, 2017, and for the third patent-in-suit on February 24, 2020, which may form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-09-12 | Earliest Priority Date for ’164 and ’669 Patents |
| 2006-08-22 | U.S. Patent No. 7,094,164 Issues |
| 2010-12-21 | U.S. Patent No. 7,854,669 Issues |
| 2016-08-23 | Priority Date for ’015 Patent |
| 2017 | Accused Product Launch Alleged |
| 2017-08-21 | Plaintiff Allegedly Notifies Defendant of ’164 & ’669 Patents |
| 2019-07-09 | U.S. Patent No. 10,343,015 Issues |
| 2020-02-24 | Plaintiff Allegedly Notifies Defendant of ’015 Patent |
| 2020-07-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,094,164 - "Trajectory Detection and Feedback System"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for sports training devices that are non-intrusive and provide objective, immediate feedback to a player in an environment that approximates actual playing conditions, which existing devices failed to do (’164 Patent, col. 1:53-2:26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a non-intrusive machine vision system that uses one or more sensors to detect the trajectory of a launched object, such as a basketball. A logic device analyzes this data to generate trajectory parameters (e.g., entry angle) and provides immediate feedback to the player, allowing for real-time performance evaluation and skill improvement (’164 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-50).
- Technical Importance: This technology enabled data-driven coaching and player development by providing objective, quantitative feedback on shooting mechanics without interfering with a player's natural training routine (’164 Patent, col. 2:11-26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A device for analyzing a basketball's trajectory.
- One or more cameras for recording video frame data to characterize the trajectory.
- A logic device configured to (i) receive the video data, (ii) generate trajectory parameters, and (iii) generate feedback information using those parameters.
- One or more feedback output mechanisms that provide feedback related to either (1) the trajectory's angle relative to the hoop's plane or (2) a point on the trajectory relative to a fixed point within the hoop's plane.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶41).
U.S. Patent No. 7,854,669 - "Trajectory Detection and Feedback System"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Beyond single-shot analysis, a key element of athletic skill is consistency. The patent addresses the need for a system that can evaluate a player's ability to consistently reproduce a desired trajectory over multiple attempts (’669 Patent, Abstract).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses cameras to capture multiple trajectories and a logic device to apply a "curve-fit" to the video data for each shot. From these curve-fits, the system derives trajectory parameters and generates feedback allowing a player to evaluate their skill at reproducing a particular trajectory. Crucially, the system determines and outputs a measure of the player's consistency across multiple shots (’669 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The invention shifted the focus of analysis from individual shot mechanics to the statistical measurement of consistency, providing a more advanced metric for skill assessment and improvement (’669 Patent, col. 14:1-13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 30 (Compl. ¶73).
- Essential elements of claim 30 include:
- A sports device with one or more cameras to record video of a sports object launched by a person attempting to reproduce a particular trajectory, where parameters are derived from a "curve-fit."
- A logic device configured to (i) receive video data, (ii) recognize the object, (iii) determine a curve-fit for the trajectory, (iv) determine parameters from the curve-fit, and (v) generate immediate feedback for evaluating skill at reproduction.
- The logic device is further configured to use the curve-fits to (1) determine a measure of consistency in reproducing the trajectory and (2) output that measure.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶70).
U.S. Patent No. 10,343,015 - "Systems and Methods for Tracking Basketball Player Performance"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty of accurately assessing a shooter's performance when shots are taken from different court locations, which results in different shot angles relative to the hoop. The patented solution is a system that "normalizes" shot placement data by first determining a "base point" on the hoop closest to the shooter's location and then computationally rotating the shot placement data as if all shots were taken from a common, predefined direction. This normalization allows for a more meaningful aggregation and evaluation of a player's shooting tendencies across an entire practice session (’015 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:45-2:2).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶104).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Product's processor is configured to select a base point for a shot, determine shot placement, generate a map of shot placements, and normalize the shot placement data to allow for aggregated consistency analysis regardless of shot origin (Compl. ¶¶110-112).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "RSPCT System Equipment" (the "Accused Product"), which includes "Basket Kits" containing a sensor, a computer, cables, and mounts, as well as associated software and applications (Compl. ¶¶32, 34-35).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Product is a system for tracking, measuring, and evaluating basketball shooting performance (Compl. ¶26). It utilizes a sensor, identified as an Intel RealSense Depth Camera, installed on or behind a basketball backboard to record video data of a basketball's trajectory (Compl. ¶47). A computing device processes this data to generate shooting parameters such as "shot arc, shot grade, whether the shot was made or missed, and the point of entry into the basket" (Compl. ¶49).
- This information is provided to the user as feedback through a detailed user interface on devices like smartphones or laptops (Compl. ¶¶36, 50). This interface includes visual representations of performance, such as scatter plots showing where shots land relative to the rim (Compl. ¶52, ¶111). A screenshot in the complaint depicts a representative user interface showing a scatter plot of shot locations relative to the hoop. (Compl. p. 12). The system is also alleged to provide a "consistency" rating to evaluate a player's ability to reproduce a particular trajectory (Compl. ¶76). The complaint alleges the product is used by over ten NBA teams (Compl. ¶31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 7,094,164 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A device for analyzing a trajectory of a basketball... | The Accused Product is a device that tracks the arc of basketball shots and analyzes shooting performance. | ¶46 | col. 2:35-40 |
| one or more cameras for recording video frame data used to characterize a trajectory of a basketball shot by a human | The Accused Product includes an Intel RealSense Depth Camera, installed on a backboard, to capture 3D imagery of a basketball's trajectory. | ¶47 | col. 2:60-65 |
| a logic device designed or configured to i) receive the video frame data, ii) generate trajectory parameters that characterize one or more states of the basketball along its trajectory and iii) generate feedback information using the trajectory parameters | The Accused Product includes a computing device (e.g., laptop) that receives data from the camera and generates parameters like shot arc, shot grade, and point of entry, which are used to create feedback for the user interface. | ¶¶48-50 | col. 2:66-col. 3:1 |
| one or more feedback output mechanisms for providing the feedback information... wherein the feedback information is related to... a point on the trajectory relative to a fixed point within the plane of the basketball hoop when the basketball is proximate to the basketball hoop. | The Accused Product includes applications for user devices (e.g., smartphone, desktop) that display feedback, including a scatter plot showing the point where the basketball hits the plane of the hoop. A representative scatter plot is provided as a visual example. (Compl. p. 13). | ¶¶51-52 | col. 3:1-3, col. 4:15-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused scatter plot, which shows where a ball lands relative to the rim, meets the claim limitation of feedback on "a point on the trajectory... when the basketball is proximate to the basketball hoop." A dispute could arise over whether the termination point where the ball crosses the hoop's plane is considered a point "on the trajectory" (the path of flight) or the result of the trajectory.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's generated parameters, such as "shot grade," are derived from "one or more states of the basketball along its trajectory" as required, versus being calculated from a single end-state (i.e., make or miss)?
U.S. Patent No. 7,854,669 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 30) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| one or more cameras for recording video frame data... wherein the person is attempting to reproduce a particular trajectory... and wherein one or more trajectory parameters... are derived from a curve-fit of the particular trajectory | The Accused Product uses a camera to record shot data and provides a "consistency" rating when a person attempts to reproduce a particular trajectory. A visual shows this consistency data. (Compl. p. 18). | ¶76 | col. 1:12-19 |
| a logic device configured for... a plurality of different trajectories... to... iii) determine a curve-fit for the trajectory... iv) determine one or more trajectory parameters that are derived from the curve-fit... and v)... generate immediate feedback information that allows the person to evaluate their skill at reproducing the particular trajectory | The Accused Product's computing device analyzes the ball's trajectory to extract speed and arc data, tracks parameters like entry point and angle, and aggregates the data to show trends in a user's shot history. | ¶¶77-81 | col. 2:40-54 |
| wherein based upon the curve-fits... the logic device is configured to 1) determine a measure of how consistently the person reproduces the particular trajectory and 2) output the determined measure. | The Accused Product is alleged to give a "consistency" rating and to track the consistency of a shooter's arc and horizontal/vertical shot location, and outputs this data to the user. | ¶¶82-83 | col. 2:55-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on the definition of "curve-fit." Does this term require a specific mathematical technique (e.g., least-squares regression), or can it be construed more broadly to cover any algorithm that models a trajectory from discrete data points?
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the Accused Product's "consistency" rating is technically derived "based upon the curve-fits" of multiple trajectories, as the claim requires, versus being calculated through an alternative statistical method that does not rely on curve-fitting?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "curve-fit" (’669 Patent, Claim 30)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific technical mechanism required to derive the trajectory parameters used for the consistency analysis. The infringement case for the ’669 Patent hinges on whether the Accused Product's underlying algorithm performs a "curve-fit" or uses a different, non-infringing method to analyze trajectory data.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the related ’164 Patent, which is part of the same patent family, describes generating a "parabolic curve-fit... using a least squares curve-fit or other curve-fitting algorithm" (’164 Patent, col. 6:40-44). This language suggests that "curve-fit" is not limited to a single algorithm but encompasses a class of modeling techniques.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses on modeling a parabolic arc (’164 Patent, col. 6:40-44). A defendant may argue that "curve-fit" should be limited to algorithms that generate a continuous mathematical function representing the trajectory, and that their system's method (e.g., discrete point-to-point analysis) does not meet this definition.
The Term: "normalize the shot placement... by rotating the shot placement" (’015 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core inventive concept of the ’015 Patent: adjusting shot data from different angles to a common reference point. Plaintiff alleges Defendant's system performs this function to aggregate consistency data (Compl. ¶112), so the construction of "normalize... by rotating" will be central to infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the system is configured to "normalize" placements so they can be evaluated with the same criteria (’015 Patent, Abstract). This purpose-driven language could support interpreting "rotating" to cover any computational adjustment that achieves this normalization, not just a literal geometric rotation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly recites the mechanism as "rotating the shot placement by an amount based on the selected base point" (’015 Patent, col. 31:23-26). This specific language may support a narrower construction requiring a literal angular adjustment of the shot data coordinates, which a defendant might argue its system does not perform.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. Inducement is based on allegations that RSPCT provides products with instructions and encourages users (e.g., via marketing and user manuals) to operate the system in an infringing manner, such as by placing the sensor on a backboard to track trajectories (Compl. ¶¶57, 88, 118). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that components of the Accused Product, such as its specialized software and applications, have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶62, 93, 123).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges RSPCT had actual knowledge of the ’164 and ’669 Patents since at least August 21, 2017, and of the ’015 Patent since at least February 24, 2020 (Compl. ¶¶65, 96, 126).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: does the accused system's method for calculating shooting consistency rely on a mathematical "curve-fit" as expressly required by the ’669 patent, or does it employ a fundamentally different, non-infringing algorithm to achieve a similar outcome?
- A key question of claim scope will be whether the accused product's visual feedback, which displays a scatter plot of where a basketball lands relative to the rim, satisfies the ’164 patent's requirement for feedback on "a point on the trajectory," or if a landing point is legally distinct from the in-flight path itself.
- For the most recent patent, a central evidentiary question will be whether the accused system's aggregation of performance data from various shot locations necessarily performs the claimed "normalization... by rotating the shot placement," or if it achieves this aggregation through an alternative, unclaimed computational method.