DCT
1:17-cv-05817
Tour Technology Software Inc v. RTV Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tour Technology Software, Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: RTV, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Handal & Morofsky, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-05817, E.D.N.Y., 10/04/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant transacts business and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 360° virtual tour software and services infringe a patent related to a method for creating, processing, and visualizing omni-directional images.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the creation of immersive virtual tours from panoramic photographs, a widely used tool in the real estate, hospitality, and marketing industries.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,754,400, survived an ex parte reexamination proceeding initiated in 2011. In 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of several key claims as amended and allowing numerous new claims. The survival of a reexamination may be presented by the plaintiff to suggest the patent's validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-02-06 | '400 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2004-06-22 | '400 Patent Issued |
| 2011-11-21 | Ex Parte Reexamination Request Filed |
| 2013-09-17 | Reexamination Certificate for '400 Patent Issued |
| 2017-10-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,754,400 - System and Method for Creation, Processing and Visualization of Omni-Directional Images
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses limitations in prior art imaging systems for creating three-dimensional perspective views. These systems were described as having distortions, high computational requirements, and often being limited to simple horizontal rotation. (’400 Patent, col. 1:13-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a specific workflow to create a seamless, navigable 360-degree environment. The method involves capturing images (e.g., two 180-degree fisheye images), digitally assembling them to form a complete spherical image, and then projecting the data from that sphere onto the six inner faces of a cube. (’400 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:48-52). A user can then navigate the scene by viewing rendered portions of these cube faces, which is intended to create a realistic and computationally efficient visualization of the space. (’400 Patent, col. 1:50-57).
- Technical Importance: The use of a cubical projection ("cube mapping") was an established technique in computer graphics for simulating reflections, but the patent applies it to the specific problem of rendering navigable virtual tours from photographic source images to improve realism and reduce distortions. (’400 Patent, col. 1:39-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" that were confirmed as patentable in a 2013 ex parte reexamination (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 34). Independent claim 1, as amended by the reexamination, is central.
- Independent Claim 1 (as amended):
- A method for digitally rendering omni-directional images comprising the steps of:
- capturing images surrounding an origin point in at least two hemispheres surrounding the origin point;
- assembling the images in a digital format to create a complete spherical image surrounding the origin point;
- projecting the spherical image onto faces of a cube surrounding the spherical image;
- storing images projected on the faces of the cube to provide an omni-directional image; and
- displaying at least a portion of the image projected on the cube,
- wherein the step of displaying includes the step of resealing the image projected on the cube to provide a visualized image that creates a sensation of rectilinear movement in the horizontal and vertical directions in the visualized image. (’400 Reexam. Cert., col. 2:27-42).
The complaint does not specify which, if any, dependent claims are asserted.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant RTV’s business of “presenting, producing, and/or hosting 360° virtual tour content” for clients and its “virtual tour software which utilizes spherical projection technology.” (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant provides virtual tour services and software to clients including real estate agents, hotels, and other businesses. (Compl. ¶30).
- The accused functionality allows end-users to view these tours on a website, where they can “vary their direction of view by moving to the left and right of images and also by moving to look up and look down at different portions of the image and thus simulate movement.” (Compl. ¶36). The complaint contains a visual reference to images from an RTV virtual tour, which are described as being printed from Defendant's website. (Compl. ¶36, Exhibits H and I).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'400 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| capturing images surrounding an origin point in at least two hemispheres... | The complaint alleges RTV produces and hosts virtual tours, which implies an initial image capture step, though the details of RTV's capture process are not specified. | ¶30 | col. 12:10-12 |
| assembling the images in a digital format to create a complete spherical image... | The complaint alleges that the accused tours are based on a "spherical image" that was "generated by the combination of multiple images." | ¶36 | col. 12:13-16 |
| projecting the spherical image onto faces of a cube... | The complaint alleges that the images in the accused tours "are generated by the projection of a spherical image onto faces of a cube or a process equivalent thereto." | ¶36 | col. 12:17-20 |
| storing images projected on the faces of the cube... | The allegation that Defendant hosts 360° virtual tour content for its clients implies the storage of the processed image data. | ¶30 | col. 12:21-23 |
| displaying at least a portion of the image projected on the cube... | Defendant makes virtual tours available to persons visiting its website, thereby displaying portions of the image. The complaint references "collections of images from a virtual tour printed off the website of RTV" as visual evidence. | ¶¶30, 36 | col. 12:43-45 |
| wherein the step of displaying includes the step of resealing the image... to provide a visualized image that creates a sensation of rectilinear movement... | The complaint alleges that the accused tours allow users to "simulate movement" by looking left, right, up, and down. | ¶36 | col. 12:46-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be the interpretation of "a sensation of rectilinear movement," a limitation added during reexamination. The dispute may center on whether the rotational "looking around" functionality alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶36) is sufficient to meet this limitation, or if the claim requires a form of translational movement (e.g., "walking" forward or backward) not explicitly detailed in the complaint's infringement theory.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the accused tours are generated via projection onto a cube. (Compl. ¶36). A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that RTV's software uses this specific projection method, as opposed to other panoramic imaging techniques like equirectangular or cylindrical projection.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "rectilinear movement"
Context and Importance: This term was added to independent claim 1 during reexamination, likely to distinguish the invention from prior art and overcome a rejection. The definition of this term will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it may define the specific type of user interaction required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether standard "pan-and-scan" viewing constitutes infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers generally to creating an "impression of ... rectilinear movement in virtual space." (’400 Patent, col. 1:51-52). A party might argue this language covers any user-controlled action that simulates linear motion, such as zooming, which creates the impression of moving closer to an object.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description distinguishes between rotational viewing and moving to new locations, such as when a user "can also move into other rooms or areas" or realizes "the effect of getting nearer or moving away from the visualized image." (’400 Patent, col. 10:2-6). A party could argue this requires a translational "walk-through" capability, distinct from merely rotating the viewpoint or zooming from a fixed position.
The Term: "projecting the spherical image onto faces of a... cube"
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core technical process of the invention. The infringement case rests on whether the accused system performs this specific step or an equivalent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that other rendering methods that map a spherical view onto a set of planar surfaces for processing are functionally equivalent to the claimed "projection onto faces of a... cube." The complaint itself broadens the allegation to include "a process equivalent thereto." (Compl. ¶36).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly and specifically describes projecting a spherical image onto a cube, illustrating the geometry in Figures 4 and 5. A party could argue that the claim is limited to this explicit mapping process and does not cover other panoramic projection techniques that do not involve a defined cube. (’400 Patent, col. 8:11-23).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contribution infringement, asserting that Defendant is "operating, controlling, using and/or benefiting from" infringing activities, including "the furnishing of information via a website." (Compl. ¶32).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based "upon information and belief" that Defendant "is and has been aware of the '400 Patent." (Compl. ¶35). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent or the alleged infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "sensation of rectilinear movement," added during reexamination, be construed to cover the panning and tilting ("looking around") functionality described in the complaint, or does it require a translational "walk-through" capability?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what proof will be offered to show that the accused RTV system performs the specific method of "projecting the spherical image onto faces of a... cube," as opposed to utilizing an alternative and potentially non-infringing panoramic rendering technology?