DCT
3:24-cv-01476
Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. Century Label
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Century Label and CMC Group, Inc. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA; Banie & Ishimoto LLP
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01476, N.D. Ohio, 08/28/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district and having committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality products and services for labels and packaging infringe two patents related to optically determining the absolute position and orientation of a manipulated object in a three-dimensional environment.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue enables tracking the six-degree-of-freedom "pose" of a handheld device, such as a smartphone, by using its camera to observe features in the surrounding environment, a foundational capability for modern augmented reality applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-03-08 | Earliest Priority Date for ’559 Patent and ’641 Patent |
| 2010-11-02 | Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 |
| 2019-01-29 | Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 |
| 2024-08-28 | Complaint Filing Date |
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.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a need for a low-cost, robust, and accurate method for determining the absolute pose (position and orientation) of handheld objects used to interface with computers, noting that prior art systems were often limited to relative motion, computationally expensive, or unsuitable for cluttered, real-world environments (’559 Patent, col. 1:43-59, col. 2:9-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a manipulated object (e.g., a wand, phone, or tablet) equipped with an on-board photodetector that observes "high optical contrast features" in the environment. A controller analyzes the data from the photodetector to determine the object's full six-degree-of-freedom pose, which can be supplemented with data from auxiliary sensors like gyroscopes or accelerometers (’559 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:1-10:13). Figure 1 illustrates a manipulated pointer (14) with an on-board optical arrangement (22) detecting invariant features (32, 34, 36) in the environment to generate pose data (12) (’559 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for achieving one-to-one motion mapping between the physical world and a digital environment, a key enabling technology for immersive gaming, augmented reality, and other 3D user interfaces (’559 Patent, col. 2:20-30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A manipulated object cooperating with a first plurality of high optical contrast features in a real three-dimensional environment.
- A photodetector on the object configured to detect the features and generate data representative of their positions.
- A controller configured to identify a derivative pattern of the features from the photodetector data, where the derivative pattern indicates the photodetector's position.
- At least one component selected from: an auxiliary motion detection component, an active illumination component, or a scanning component.
- The complaint also asserts dependent Claims 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 19, 24, and 25 (Compl. ¶14).
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.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As part of the same patent family, the ’641 Patent addresses a similar problem: the lack of a sufficiently robust and rapid "absolute pose determination system" in prior art interface devices, many of which relied on relative motion capture that is inadequate for one-to-one mapping between real and virtual spaces (’641 Patent, col. 1:43-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an apparatus that optically infers its "absolute pose" using an on-board optical measuring means that observes at least one "invariant feature" in the environment. The apparatus comprises a processor to prepare the absolute pose data and a communication link to transmit a subset of that data to an application (’641 Patent, Abstract). The specification describes using this pose data to, for example, chart the trace of the object's tip (42) or reconstruct its full motion (40) for a motion-capture application (’641 Patent, col. 12:50-13:40).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a self-contained system on a manipulated object for determining its absolute 6-DOF pose, enabling direct and intuitive interaction with 3D digital applications (’641 Patent, col. 2:15-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- An apparatus for processing absolute pose data derived from the absolute pose of a manipulated object.
- At least one invariant feature in the real three-dimensional environment.
- An on-board optical measuring means for optically inferring the absolute pose using the invariant feature and expressing it with specific absolute pose data (representing Euler rotated object coordinates).
- A processor for preparing the absolute pose data and identifying a subset of it.
- A communication link for transmitting the subset to an application.
- The complaint also asserts dependent Claim 29 (Compl. ¶20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s products and services that "incorporate augmented or virtual reality," referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint specifically shows Defendant’s "AR Labels & Packaging" offerings, which use a manipulated mobile device (e.g., an iOS or Android device) to trigger and display AR content from physical items like business cards or product packaging (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products function by using the camera on a smartphone or tablet to recognize a physical object, such as a business card or label, and overlay interactive digital content (Compl. ¶13). The complaint includes a screenshot from a promotional video titled "Bringing Packaging to Life with AR," illustrating how a user holds a mobile device over a product to view an augmented reality experience (Compl. p. 4). Defendant’s marketing materials describe this as a way for brands to "connect with your brand" by bringing "traditional pressure sensitive labels, shrink sleeves or flexible packaging designs to life" (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’559 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A manipulated object cooperating with a first plurality of high optical contrast features disposed in a real three-dimensional environment... | The Accused Products use a mobile device, such as an iOS or Android device, as the manipulated object. The device cooperates with high contrast features in the environment, such as the drawings and markings on an augmented reality business card. | ¶13 | col. 9:14-23 |
| a) a photodetector configured to detect said first plurality of high optical contrast features and generate photodetector data... | The camera of the iOS or Android device serves as the photodetector to detect the high optical contrast features and generate data. | ¶13 | col. 9:24-28 |
| 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 iOS or Android device acts as the controller that identifies the derivative pattern, which is indicative of the position of the camera. | ¶13 | col. 9:29-34 |
| 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 Accused Products use auxiliary motion detection components of the iOS or Android device, such as an inertial device (gyroscope, accelerometer, magnetometer). | ¶13 | col. 9:35-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the drawings and markings on a business card constitute a "plurality of high optical contrast features" (Compl. p. 5). The analysis may question whether a single printed object meets the claim's requirement for a "plurality" of features and how those features are used to form a "derivative pattern."
- Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what constitutes the "derivative pattern" required by claim 1(b). The complaint alleges the device's processor "identifies the derivative pattern," but provides no detail on how the pattern is derived from the photodetector data, or what form that pattern takes. The analysis will hinge on whether the accused software's image recognition process can be shown to perform the specific steps of identifying a pattern that is "derivative" of the detected features in the manner contemplated by the patent.
’641 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus for processing absolute pose data derived from an absolute pose of a manipulated object in a real three-dimensional environment... | The Accused Products use a mobile device, such as an iOS or Android device held by a user, as the apparatus for processing absolute pose data. | ¶19 | col. 9:5-10 |
| a) at least one invariant feature in said real three-dimensional environment; | The Accused Products use an "augmented reality business card positioned in the real three-dimensional environment with its drawings and marking (e.g., QR code)" as the invariant feature. A screenshot of a business card with the Century Label logo is provided as an example (Compl. p. 9). | ¶19 | col. 9:35-42 |
| 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 (φ, θ, ψ, x, y, z)... | The camera of the iOS or Android device serves as the on-board optical measuring means for inferring the absolute pose. | ¶19 | col. 9:11-16 |
| c) a processor for preparing said absolute pose data and identifying a subset of said absolute pose data; | The processing unit(s) of the iOS or Android device acts as the processor for preparing the absolute pose data and identifying a subset thereof. | ¶19 | col. 10:25-33 |
| d) a communication link for transmitting said subset to an application. | The Accused Products use a "communication link internal to the manipulated object" (e.g., internal data buses within the phone) for transmitting the data subset to an application. | ¶19 | col. 10:34-38 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether a printed business card with markings qualifies as an "invariant feature" as that term is used in the patent. The patent describes features like light sources or special markings whose locations in world coordinates are known, enabling the calculation of the object's absolute pose (’641 Patent, col. 9:35-50). The dispute may focus on whether the accused system uses the business card in this specific way to determine a global pose or merely as a relative visual marker to trigger an AR experience.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1(b) requires expressing the inferred pose with specific "absolute pose data (φ, θ, ψ, x, y, z) representing Euler rotated object coordinates." The infringement analysis will raise the evidentiary question of whether the accused device's software actually calculates and expresses pose data in this specific, six-component format relative to a world coordinate system, or if it uses a different internal representation for tracking and rendering.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’559 Patent
- The Term: "derivative pattern"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of claim 1(b) and appears to be the central inventive step distinguishing the claim from simply detecting features. The infringement case will likely depend on whether the accused AR system's method for processing visual data to ascertain its position can be characterized as identifying a "derivative pattern." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations are conclusory on this point.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the controller is configured to "identify a derivative pattern of light sources from the photodetector data. The derivative pattern is indicative of the asymmetric and generally linear pattern." (’559 Patent, col. 6:31-35). This suggests the "derivative pattern" is the transformed view of a known original pattern.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explains that as the photodetector's pose changes, the original pattern "undergoes a well-understood transformation (i.e., perspective distortion...)." The controller uses "knowledge of this transformation" to "correlate the asymmetric and generally linear pattern to the derivative pattern and obtain information about the pose." (’559 Patent, col. 6:35-43). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific process of correlating a distorted pattern (the derivative pattern) with a known, pre-defined source pattern.
’641 Patent
- The Term: "invariant feature"
- Context and Importance: This term from claim 1(a) defines the reference points in the environment that the invention relies upon. The complaint alleges an AR business card is an "invariant feature." The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether this interpretation is correct.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes invariant features broadly as "high optical contrast features such as edges of objects, special markings, or light sources" (’641 Patent, col. 9:37-40). This language could support including a variety of visually distinct objects, like the markings on a business card.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently emphasizes that the absolute pose is determined relative to these features, implying their positions in a world coordinate system must be known. For example, it states "Knowledge of the absolute positions of features 32, 34, 36 in world coordinates (Xo, Yo, Zo) allows the optical measuring arrangement 22 to describe the absolute pose" (’641 Patent, col. 12:20-24). This could support a narrower definition requiring features whose locations are pre-defined in a global coordinate system, not just features on a movable object like a business card whose own position may be unknown.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For both the ’559 and ’641 patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations state that Century Label knowingly induces direct infringement by end-users by providing, selling, or promoting the Accused Products with "specific instructions or training" on how to use them for their intended AR purpose, which allegedly constitutes practice of the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 43).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Century Label's infringement of both patents has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 39). The basis for knowledge is alleged to be "since at least the date of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 37). This suggests the willfulness claim is primarily based on alleged post-suit knowledge rather than pre-suit notice.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "derivative pattern" (’559 Patent) and "invariant feature" (’641 Patent), which are rooted in a technical context of calculating absolute pose from known environmental reference points, be construed to cover the image recognition and tracking functions of a modern smartphone AR system that is triggered by a movable, printed object like a business card?
- A second key issue will be one of technical operation: what evidence will be presented to show that the accused AR software performs the specific functions required by the claims? In particular, does the accused system identify a "derivative pattern" in the manner described by the ’559 Patent, and does it calculate and express "absolute pose data" in the specific Euler-based format required by the ’641 Patent, or does it achieve a similar result through a fundamentally different technical process?