DCT
1:23-cv-01232
Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. Kichler Lighting LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Kichler Lighting LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01232, N.D. Ohio, 06/22/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Ohio and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality feature for visualizing lighting products infringes patents related to determining an object's position and orientation (pose) in a three-dimensional environment using on-board optical sensors.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue enables tracking the absolute pose of a handheld device, which is a foundational capability for modern augmented reality applications used in e-commerce and interactive entertainment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-03-08 | Priority Date for ’559 and ’641 Patents |
| 2010-11-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 Issues |
| 2019-01-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 Issues |
| 2023-06-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 - "Computer Interface For Manipulated Objects With An Absolute Pose Detection Component"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559, "Computer Interface For Manipulated Objects With An Absolute Pose Detection Component," issued January 29, 2019. (Compl. ¶7).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a need for an efficient, accurate, and low-cost system for determining the "absolute pose" (position and orientation) of a hand-held object, noting that prior art systems for one-to-one motion mapping between the real world and "cyberspace" were often inadequate. (’559 Patent, col. 2:21-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "manipulated object," such as a phone, equipped with an on-board photodetector. This photodetector detects "high optical contrast features" in the surrounding environment and generates data. A controller analyzes this data to identify a "derivative pattern" of the features, which is indicative of the photodetector's position, and this data can be supplemented by auxiliary motion sensors like an inertial device. (’559 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:26-44).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for enabling robust 3D user interfaces and augmented reality on common consumer devices by leveraging environmental features to determine absolute position and orientation. (’559 Patent, Abstract).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶9).
- Essential elements of Claim 1:
- A manipulated object cooperating with a first plurality of high optical contrast features disposed in a real three-dimensional environment, said manipulated object comprising:
- a) a photodetector configured to detect said first plurality of high optical contrast features and generate photodetector data representative of the positions of said first plurality of high optical contrast features;
- b) a controller configured to identify a derivative pattern of said first plurality of high optical contrast features from said photodetector data, wherein said derivative pattern is indicative of the position of said photodetector; and
- c) at least one component selected from the group consisting of an auxiliary motion detection component, an active illumination component and a scanning component.
- The complaint also asserts dependent Claims 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 19, 24, and 25. (Compl. ¶12).
U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 - "Apparatus And Method For Determining An Absolute Pose Of A Manipulated Object In A Real Three-Dimensional Environment With Invariant Features"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641, "Apparatus And Method For Determining An Absolute Pose Of A Manipulated Object In A Real Three-Dimensional Environment With Invariant Features," issued November 2, 2010. (Compl. ¶13).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of achieving "one-to-one motion mapping between space and cyberspace" without a robust system for determining an object's absolute pose, noting that prior art relative-motion systems are subject to limitations like drift and accumulating error. (’559 Patent, col. 2:59-67, col. 3:1-3).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an apparatus for processing pose data. It comprises an on-board "optical measuring means" (e.g., a camera) to infer the absolute pose of a manipulated object by observing at least one "invariant feature" in the environment. A processor then prepares this pose data, identifies a subset of it, and transmits that subset to an application via a communication link. (’641 Patent, Claim 1, as quoted in Compl. ¶15).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a system architecture for capturing, processing, and transmitting absolute pose data from a handheld device to an application, a fundamental process for enabling interactive augmented reality experiences. (Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶15).
- Essential elements of Claim 1:
- An apparatus for processing absolute pose data derived from an absolute pose of a manipulated object in a real three-dimensional environment, said apparatus comprising:
- a) at least one invariant feature in said real three-dimensional environment;
- b) an optical measuring means for optically inferring said absolute pose from on-board said manipulated object using said at least one invariant feature and expressing said inferred absolute pose with absolute pose data...;
- c) a processor for preparing said absolute pose data and identifying a subset of said absolute pose data; and
- d) a communication link for transmitting said subset to an application.
- The complaint also asserts dependent Claim 29. (Compl. ¶18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" are Defendant's augmented reality (AR) features that allow customers to view its products. (Compl. ¶10). This functionality is used on mobile devices such as an iPhone or Android phone. (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The AR feature enables a user to visualize Defendant's lighting products in their own physical space by using their mobile device's camera. (Compl. ¶10, Image). The complaint alleges that this functionality is initiated by scanning a QR code and that it relies on underlying AR platforms like Apple's ARKit or Google's ARCore. (Compl. ¶¶10-11). These platforms are alleged to work by recognizing "notable features in the scene image, track[ing] differences in the positions of those features across video frames, and compar[ing] that information with motion sensing data" to create a model of the device's position and motion. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint includes a screenshot of a mobile device overlaying a virtual light fixture in a real-world dining room, illustrating the accused functionality. (Compl. ¶11, Image).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'559 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a photodetector configured to detect said first plurality of high optical contrast features and generate photodetector data representative of the positions of said first plurality of high optical contrast features | The camera of an iPhone or Android phone is alleged to be the photodetector that detects high optical contrast features in the user's environment. The complaint provides a screenshot of a phone's camera view being used for this purpose (p. 4). | ¶11 | col. 17:39-41 |
| b) a controller configured to identify a derivative pattern of said first plurality of high optical contrast features from said photodetector data, wherein said derivative pattern is indicative of the position of said photodetector | The processing unit(s) of the iPhone or Android phone, using software like ARKit or ARCore, allegedly identify patterns from notable features in the scene to determine the device's position and motion. | ¶11 | col. 6:28-34 |
| c) at least one component selected from the group consisting of an auxiliary motion detection component, an active illumination component and a scanning component | The iPhone's or Android phone's auxiliary motion detection components, such as an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), are alleged to be used by the ARKit or ARCore software. | ¶11 | col. 1:1-3 (Abstract) |
'641 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) at least one invariant feature in said real three-dimensional environment | Special markings, such as QR codes, are alleged to be the invariant feature. An image from the complaint shows instructions for the AR feature, which state the user should "scan the QR code on your mobile device" (p. 7). | ¶17 | col. 10:37-38 |
| b) an optical measuring means for optically inferring said absolute pose from on-board said manipulated object using said at least one invariant feature and expressing said inferred absolute pose with absolute pose data... | The camera of an iPhone or Android phone is alleged to be the optical measuring means for optically inferring the absolute pose from on-board the device. | ¶17 | col. 10:16-18 |
| c) a processor for preparing said absolute pose data and identifying a subset of said absolute pose data | The processing unit(s) of an iOS or Android device are alleged to be the processor(s) for preparing the absolute pose data and identifying a subset thereof, where the subset can include all the pose data. | ¶17 | col. 10:25-29 |
| d) a communication link for transmitting said subset to an application | An internal communication link within the mobile device is alleged to transmit the subset of pose data to an application, such as a "virtual showroom." | ¶17 | col. 10:32-35 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: For the ’559 Patent, a central question may be whether the general-purpose feature tracking performed by platforms like ARKit/ARCore, which identifies arbitrary points of contrast in an environment, meets the claim limitation of identifying a "derivative pattern." The court may need to determine if this term requires a specific, predefined relationship between features, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover the emergent patterns tracked by modern SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) algorithms.
- Technical Questions: For the ’641 Patent, a factual question is raised regarding the function of the "invariant feature." The complaint identifies a QR code, but the court may need to examine whether the accused system uses this QR code for continuously "inferring said absolute pose" as required by the claim, or if the QR code's role is limited to initiating the AR experience (e.g., loading a 3D model from a URL) while subsequent pose-tracking relies on other environmental features not explicitly identified as "invariant."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "derivative pattern" (’559 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’559 Patent. Whether the feature-tracking methods used in modern AR systems satisfy this limitation will be a primary point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint maps it to the general functionality of ARKit/ARCore, raising the question of its intended technical scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a controller is "configured to identify a derivative pattern of light sources from the photodetector data" and that this "pattern is indicative of the... pose of the photodetector." (’559 Patent, col. 6:30-35). This language could suggest that any pattern derived from sensor data that indicates pose could meet the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same section describes the derivative pattern in the context of a "well-understood transformation (i.e., perspective distortion...)" of an "asymmetric and generally linear pattern" of light sources. (’559 Patent, col. 6:28-40). This may support a narrower construction limited to known geometric transformations of a predefined pattern, as opposed to the tracking of arbitrary, unknown features in an environment.
The Term: "optically inferring said absolute pose... using said at least one invariant feature" (’641 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This phrase links the "invariant feature" to the act of pose determination. The infringement allegation relies on a QR code being this feature. The construction will determine whether a feature used only for initialization, rather than continuous tracking, can satisfy the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "invariant features" to include "special markings," which would facially include a QR code. (’559 Patent, col. 10:37-38). An argument could be made that the initial pose inference upon scanning the code satisfies the "using" requirement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires "inferring said absolute pose... using said at least one invariant feature." The specification states that "Knowledge of the absolute positions of features... allows the optical measuring arrangement 22 to describe the absolute pose of pointer 14." (’559 Patent, col. 12:20-23). This language suggests the system must use knowledge about the invariant feature's position to calculate the object's pose, a process that may not describe the function of a QR code that simply directs a browser to a web resource.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of both the ’559 and ’641 patents by providing end-users with "specific instructions or training" on how to use the Accused Products, which allegedly causes direct infringement by those users. (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 41).
- Willful Infringement: For both the ’559 and ’641 patents, the complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents and its own infringement "since at least the date of the filing of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 35). This asserts willfulness 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 "derivative pattern," which the patent specification links to the perspective distortion of a known arrangement of features, be construed to cover the general-purpose environmental mapping algorithms allegedly used by the accused AR systems?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused product’s use of a QR code satisfy the claim requirement of "optically inferring... absolute pose using said... invariant feature," or is the QR code's function limited to initiating the AR session, with subsequent pose tracking relying on other, arbitrary features in a manner not claimed by the patent?