DCT
1:25-cv-00169
Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. A2 Consulting LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: A2 Consulting, LLC (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA; Banie & Ishimoto LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00169, S.D. Ohio, 03/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a limited liability company registered in Ohio with a regular and established place of business in the Southern District of Ohio, where it has allegedly committed acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented and virtual reality development services and resulting products infringe three patents related to determining the absolute position and orientation (pose) of an object in a three-dimensional environment.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using on-board optical sensors, such as cameras in smartphones or headsets, to calculate an object's precise six-degrees-of-freedom pose by observing features in the surrounding environment, a foundational capability for modern augmented and virtual 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 |
|---|---|
| 2004-01-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 Priority Date |
| 2006-03-08 | U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 Priority Date |
| 2006-03-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 Priority Date |
| 2010-11-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 Issued |
| 2016-01-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 Issued |
| 2019-01-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 Issued |
| 2025-03-17 | 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”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a need for an efficient, accurate, and low-cost method for determining the absolute pose (position and orientation) of hand-held objects used to interface with computers, noting that prior art solutions were often resource-intensive or lacked the ability to determine full six-degrees-of-freedom motion. (’559 Patent, col. 2:20-31, col. 2:59-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a manipulated object, such as a phone or tablet, with an on-board photodetector that senses "high optical contrast features" in the real world. A controller then uses data from the photodetector to determine the object's position and/or orientation. This optical data can be supplemented by information from auxiliary motion sensors like an inertial device. (’559 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach enables self-contained pose tracking on a manipulated device, reducing the need for external, calibrated camera systems that were common in earlier motion capture and virtual reality setups. (’559 Patent, col. 3:5-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶11).
- Claim 1 of the ’559 Patent requires:
- A manipulated object cooperating with high optical contrast features in a real three-dimensional environment.
- The object comprises:
- a) a photodetector configured to detect the features and generate data representative of their positions.
- b) a controller configured to identify a derivative pattern from the photodetector data, with the pattern being indicative of the photodetector's position.
- c) at least one component from the group of an auxiliary motion detection component, an active illumination component, or a scanning component.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent Claims 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 19, 24, and 25. (Compl. ¶13).
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”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of determining the full six-degrees-of-freedom absolute pose of a manipulated object with respect to a defined reference location in real space, noting that prior systems often failed to capture the complete motion necessary for a true one-to-one mapping between real space and cyberspace. (’641 Patent, col. 2:59-67, incorporating by reference the specification of the ’559 Patent).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus that processes absolute pose data. It uses an on-board "optical measuring means" to infer the object's pose 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, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This system provides a complete pipeline for not only determining an object's pose but also for processing and delivering that specific pose information to a software application for use as an input. (’641 Patent, col. 8:12-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶17).
- Claim 1 of the ’641 Patent requires:
- An apparatus for processing absolute pose data derived from an absolute pose of a manipulated object.
- The apparatus comprises:
- a) at least one invariant feature in the real three-dimensional environment.
- b) an optical measuring means for optically inferring the absolute pose from the invariant feature and expressing it with absolute pose data (representing Euler rotated object coordinates).
- c) a processor for preparing the absolute pose data and identifying a subset of it.
- d) a communication link for transmitting the subset to an application.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent Claim 29. (Compl. ¶19).
U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 - “Deriving Input From Six Degrees of Freedom Interface”
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses producing a user input based on the absolute pose of an item in a 3D environment. The claimed solution involves an on-board unit receiving "non-collinear optical inputs" from a stationary object to establish a stable frame of reference; processing electronics then use a computer vision algorithm involving a "homography" to recover the item's absolute pose from these inputs. (’540 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint details infringement of independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶25).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Virtual Reality Headsets (VR HMD) or Augmented Reality Glasses (AR HMD), such as the Oculus Quest, infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶25). These devices allegedly use on-board cameras for "inside-out tracking" to receive non-collinear optical inputs from the environment to establish a stable frame. (Compl. ¶25, p. 16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Accused Products are Defendant's services for developing augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) applications, as well as the resulting products and software that incorporate AR or VR. (Compl. ¶¶11, 17, 24). These products are alleged to run on mobile devices such as iOS and Android devices, as well as on dedicated VR/AR headsets. (Compl. ¶¶12, 18, 25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Products use the built-in hardware of devices—such as cameras, processors, and inertial measurement units (IMUs)—to perform "inside-out tracking." (Compl. ¶¶12, 25, p. 16). This functionality allows the device to determine its own position and orientation in real-time by observing the surrounding environment, which is a core requirement for overlaying digital information onto the real world (AR) or creating an immersive virtual experience (VR). (Compl. pp. 3, 6, 15). A screenshot from Defendant's marketing materials shows an AR application overlaying location tags like "Cafe" and "Restaurant" onto a real-world street view captured by a smartphone. (Compl. p. 3). The complaint presents Defendant as a "leading AR app development company in Ohio." (Compl. p. 3).
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, said manipulated object comprising: | The accused mobile device (e.g., iOS or Android) cooperates with high contrast features in the environment, such as real-world features, markings, or QR codes. A video screenshot shows a phone rendering an AR dinosaur that appears to emerge from a physical card on a surface. | ¶12 | col. 10:37-41 |
| 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; | A2 Consulting uses the camera of an iOS or Android device as the photodetector to detect the high optical contrast features and generate representative data. | ¶12 | col. 1:59-62 |
| 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 | A2 Consulting uses the device's processing unit(s) as a controller that allegedly identifies a derivative pattern from the camera data, which is indicative of the camera's position. | ¶12 | col. 1:62-65 |
| c) at least one component selected from the group consisting of an auxiliary motion detection component, an active illumination component and a scanning component. | A2 Consulting uses the iOS or Android device's auxiliary motion detection components, such as an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). | ¶12 | col. 1:65-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether a general-purpose smartphone camera and processor, which are not designed solely for pose detection, meet the specific configurations of "a photodetector configured to detect" and "a controller configured to identify" as required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the controller identifies a "derivative pattern" that is "indicative of the position," but does not specify what this pattern is or how it is derived. (Compl. ¶12). A key technical question will be what evidence exists that the accused processing actually identifies a "derivative pattern" from photodetector data, as opposed to using other known computer vision techniques like SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) that may not involve such a pattern.
’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, said apparatus comprising: | A2 Consulting provides an apparatus (a mobile device) for processing pose data derived from the device's absolute pose when held by a user. | ¶18 | col. 7:1-6 |
| a) at least one invariant feature in said real three-dimensional environment; | A2 Consulting uses "natural features or augmented reality card (cardz)" as the at least one invariant feature. A provided screenshot shows an AR dinosaur appearing from a "Magic Cardz (AR)" placed on a table. | ¶18 | col. 7:7-8 |
| 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... | A2 Consulting uses the camera of an iOS or Android device as the optical measuring means to infer the absolute pose. The complaint alleges this pose is expressed by rotation angles (pitch, yaw, roll) and position (x,y,z) in world coordinates. | ¶18 | col. 7:9-17 |
| c) a processor for preparing said absolute pose data and identifying a subset of said absolute pose data; and | A2 Consulting uses the device's processing unit(s) as a processor for preparing the pose data and identifying a subset, which can include the full six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) pose data. | ¶18 | col. 7:18-20 |
| d) a communication link for transmitting said subset to an application. | A2 Consulting uses an internal communication link within the mobile device to transmit the subset of pose data to an application running on the device. | ¶18 | col. 7:21-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires expressing the pose with data "representing Euler rotated object coordinates." The complaint alleges this is met by using "rotation angles (pitch, yaw, roll)." (Compl. ¶18). A point of contention may be whether pitch, yaw, and roll, a common convention, are necessarily the specific "Euler rotated object coordinates" contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: Does the term "invariant feature," which the patent specification links to stationary references like ground planes and fixed points, read on algorithmically-identified "natural features" or movable objects like an "augmented reality card" as alleged by the complaint? (’641 Patent, col. 1:39-41, incorporating the ’559 Patent specification).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"derivative pattern" (’559 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement allegation for the ’559 Patent, as it defines the specific output the "controller" must identify from the "photodetector data." The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether the accused software's processing method can be characterized as identifying such a pattern. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations are general and do not specify the technical nature of the pattern.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit the source of the "high optical contrast features" from which the pattern is derived, suggesting the pattern could be generated from any detectable visual information.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a system where the controller identifies a "derivative pattern of light sources," which is indicative of an "asymmetric and generally linear pattern" of those sources. (’559 Patent, col. 5:30-36). This could support a narrower construction where the "derivative pattern" must be tied to a pre-defined or geometric arrangement of features, rather than arbitrary visual data.
"invariant feature" (’641 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The "invariant feature" is the fundamental real-world reference point from which the entire absolute pose is calculated. The scope of this term will determine whether the claim can cover modern AR systems that rely on dynamic "natural features" of an environment or on movable markers like AR cards, as alleged. (Compl. ¶18).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim simply requires "at least one invariant feature in said real three-dimensional environment," without specifying that the feature must be permanently fixed. (’641 Patent, col. 7:7-8). This could support reading the term on features that are invariant only for the duration of a tracking session, such as an AR card placed on a table.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section, incorporated from the ’559 Patent, describes an object's pose being expressed with respect to "stationary references such as ground planes, reference surfaces, lines, solids, fixed points and other invariant features disposed in the real three-dimensional environment." (’559 Patent, col. 1:38-42). This language suggests "invariant" implies a higher degree of permanence and may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to fixed environmental structures.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that A2 Consulting induces infringement by providing, selling, or promoting the Accused Products with instructions or training that guide end-users to operate the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶36, 49, 62).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The complaint bases this on Defendant having "had knowledge and notice" of each patent and its own infringement "since at least the date of the filing of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶¶30, 43, 56). This suggests a theory of post-filing willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of functional specificity: do the general-purpose components of a modern smartphone or VR headset (e.g., camera, processor, IMU) perform the specific, purpose-built functions required by the patent claims, such as identifying a "derivative pattern" (’559 Patent) or using a computer vision algorithm with a "homography" (’540 Patent)? The case may turn on whether the accused products' underlying software architecture matches these claimed functional steps.
- A key question of claim construction will be whether terms rooted in dedicated tracking systems, such as "invariant feature" (’641 Patent) and "high optical contrast features" (’559 Patent), can be construed broadly enough to encompass the dynamic, algorithmically-identified natural features and movable AR markers used by the accused AR/VR software.
- An evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what proof can be shown that the Accused Products, which are described in marketing materials at a high level, actually practice the specific mathematical and processing steps recited in the claims, such as expressing pose data using "Euler rotated object coordinates" (’641 Patent)?