PanoVision LLC v. Di Loreto Homes Of Nevada

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PanoVision LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Di Loreto Homes of Nevada (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Private Wealth Law, Inc.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00181, D. Nev., 01/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having an established place of business in the District of Nevada and allegedly committing acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a home builder, infringes a patent related to methods for facilitating sales by allowing users to visualize products within an immersive three-dimensional scene representing a real property.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves computer-generated, navigable 3D environments used for marketing and sales, particularly in the real estate and home improvement sectors, allowing potential buyers to visualize properties and customizations virtually.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,108,267, "Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service," issued January 31, 2012 (’267 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the conventional process of selling real estate and remodeling services as inefficient and burdensome for both buyers and sellers Compl. Ex. 1, '267 Patent, col. 1:10-14 For buyers, it involves time-consuming property visits and uncertainty about how a finished or remodeled property will actually look; for sellers, it involves privacy invasions and high transaction costs ’267 Patent, col. 1:30-39, col. 2:10-24
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method that allows a user to view and interact with an "immersive three-dimensional image of a scene" that resembles an actual property ’267 Patent, Abstract The system enables a user to navigate the 3D scene from any vantage point, as if "walking around the actual property," and to visualize how selected products (e.g., kitchen cabinets, faucets) or modifications would appear in that space ’267 Patent, col. 2:48-61 This virtual experience is intended to give the user a "realistic impression" of the final result without the cost and time of physical construction or property visits ’267 Patent, col. 3:4-10
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to solve a key marketing problem in the real estate and construction industries by providing a more engaging and informative virtual alternative to static blueprints, photographs, or basic 3D models.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '267 Patent Claims" identified in an attached but un-provided Exhibit 2 Compl. ¶10 Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's scope and includes the following essential elements:
  • Enabling a user to select a real property from a plurality of properties for sale.
  • Displaying an immersive three-dimensional image of a first room in the selected property.
  • Seamlessly changing the view to display an immersive three-dimensional image of a second room in the property.
  • Enabling the user to remove, add, or modify a feature within the displayed image of either room.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name Compl. ¶¶7, 10 It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in a non-provided Exhibit 2 Compl. ¶¶7, 15

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant, Di Loreto Homes of Nevada, is a home builder that makes, uses, sells, or offers for sale products that infringe the ’267 Patent Compl. ¶¶2, 10 Based on the defendant's industry, the accused instrumentality is likely a software system, website feature, or service that allows prospective home buyers to virtually tour, configure, or customize home models. The complaint provides no specific details about the functionality or market position of any such system.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct and induced infringement but bases its allegations entirely on claim charts in "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the complaint Compl. ¶¶15-16 The narrative allegations are conclusory, stating that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '267 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '267 Patent Claims" Compl. ¶15 The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific infringement theories.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "immersive three-dimensional image"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's core concept. Its construction will likely determine whether the accused system's visualization technology falls within the patent's scope. The dispute may focus on whether a simple 3D model viewer is "immersive" or if the term requires more advanced features like first-person navigation or stereoscopic display.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the immersive quality as enabling a user to "view the scene from any vantage point and at any angle just as if the user were moving around inside or outside the actual property" ’267 Patent, col. 2:51-54 This could support a broad definition focused on the user's ability to freely change their viewpoint.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes specific implementations, such as using "a three-dimensional virtual camera" to create the images and using "stereographic images that trick the brain of the user" to represent objects ’267 Patent, col. 4:25-30, col. 5:20-22 This language may support a narrower construction requiring a specific technological means of achieving the immersive effect.

• The Term: "seamlessly changing a view"

• Context and Importance: This limitation (from claim 1) describes the transition between viewing different rooms. Its definition is critical for determining whether the navigation method in an accused system infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes between a fluid, continuous user experience and a more disjointed one.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument that any direct transition between viewing two 3D scenes without reloading a webpage or application qualifies as "seamless."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes how a user can "seamlessly move from room to room," simulating the view one "would obtain if the user were walking through one room... and into another room" ’267 Patent, col. 6:55-60 This may support a narrower construction requiring a continuous, first-person "walk-through" style of navigation, rather than simply loading a new, separate scene.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" ’267 Patent, Compl. ¶13 The specific factual basis for this allegation is referenced as being in the non-provided Exhibit 2 Compl. ¶13
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful." It alleges that the service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is intentional Compl. ¶¶12-14 This forms a basis for post-filing willfulness but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary question is whether the complaint, which relies entirely on a non-provided exhibit for all substantive infringement allegations, can survive a motion to dismiss. The case will depend on the factual details presented in that exhibit and developed during discovery to substantiate the conclusory allegations.
2. Definitional Scope: A core technical issue will be the construction of "immersive three-dimensional image." The case may turn on whether the accused system provides a user-controlled, "virtual camera" experience as described in the patent's preferred embodiments, or if it employs more conventional web-based 3D viewers that Plaintiff argues are sufficient to meet the claim limitation.
3. Functional Equivalence: A key point of contention will likely be the meaning of "seamlessly changing a view." The dispute will question whether the accused product's method for navigating between different virtual rooms creates the fluid, "walk-through" simulation contemplated by the patent's specification or if it uses a functionally distinct, non-infringing method of transitioning between scenes.