DCT
1:25-cv-00256
Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. Designing Digitally Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Designing Digitally, Inc. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA; BANIE & ISHIMOTO LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00256, S.D. Ohio, 04/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio because Defendant is an Ohio corporation with a regular and established place of business in the District and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented and virtual reality products and services infringe three patents related to determining the three-dimensional position and orientation (pose) of manipulated objects for computer interfaces.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for optically tracking handheld devices or head-mounted displays in a physical space to enable user interaction within digital, augmented, or virtual environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-04-30 | '540 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-03-08 | '559 and '641 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-11-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,826,540 Issue Date |
| 2010-11-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 Issue Date |
| 2019-01-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 Issue Date |
| 2025-04-21 | 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 "particularly acute need for efficient, accurate and low-cost determination of the absolute pose of an object in a real three-dimensional environment," noting that prior art systems for interfacing with the digital world were often not sufficiently robust or were too computationally expensive for widespread use ('559 Patent, col. 1:16-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a manipulated object (e.g., a handheld device) has an on-board photodetector that detects high optical contrast features in the surrounding environment. A controller on the object analyzes the data from the photodetector to identify a "derivative pattern"—a transformed view of the features, such as one affected by perspective distortion—which is indicative of the object's position and orientation ('559 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:34-44). This optical data can be supplemented by information from auxiliary sensors, such as an inertial device ('559 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a potential pathway to achieve full six-degree-of-freedom tracking using self-contained, on-board sensors, reducing the need for external multi-camera setups common in traditional motion capture systems ('559 Patent, col. 5:9-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶10).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A manipulated object cooperating with a plurality of high optical contrast features in a 3D environment.
- The object comprises a photodetector configured to detect the features and generate data about their positions.
- The object also comprises a controller configured to identify a "derivative pattern" of the features from the photodetector data, where this pattern indicates the photodetector's position.
- The object also comprises 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, ¶27).
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 that many interface devices for cyberspace do not provide for "absolute pose determination" but instead rely on relative motion capture, which limits the possibility of "one-to-one motion mapping between space and cyberspace" ('641 Patent, col. 1:44-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an apparatus, embodied in a manipulated object, that uses an on-board "optical measuring means" to infer its absolute pose (position and orientation) by observing at least one "invariant feature" in the environment. A processor then prepares this pose data, or a subset of it, and transmits it via a communication link to an application ('641 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a framework for a self-contained device to determine its own absolute position and orientation in a defined space, a foundational capability for direct manipulation in augmented and virtual reality applications ('641 Patent, col. 2:50-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- An apparatus for processing absolute pose data from a manipulated object.
- The apparatus comprises at least one invariant feature in the 3D environment.
- The apparatus comprises an on-board "optical measuring means" for inferring the absolute pose from the invariant feature and expressing it as six-degree-of-freedom data (φ, θ, ψ, x, y, z).
- The apparatus comprises a processor for preparing the pose data and identifying a subset of it.
- The apparatus comprises a communication link for transmitting the subset to an application.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent Claim 29 (Compl. ¶19, ¶40).
U.S. Patent No. 7,826,540 - "High Bandwidth Data Transport System"
Technology Synopsis
The complaint alleges this patent concerns an interface for generating input from the absolute pose of an item, such as a Virtual Reality headset, within a three-dimensional environment (Compl. ¶21, ¶23). The technology as alleged involves using on-board cameras to receive "non-collinear optical inputs" from stationary objects and employing processing electronics with a "computer vision algorithm using a homography" to recover the item's six-degree-of-freedom absolute pose for use by an application (Compl. ¶23).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 and numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶21, ¶24, ¶53).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses Defendant's Virtual Reality Headsets (e.g., Oculus Quest) and Augmented Reality Glasses of infringement, focusing on their "inside-out tracking systems" that use cameras to locate a user in 3D space and "lock" virtual content to physical locations (Compl. ¶23).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as those made, used, or sold by Defendant that incorporate or use augmented or virtual reality (AR/VR) technology (Compl. ¶11). These instrumentalities include mobile devices such as iOS and Android devices, AR glasses, tablets, and Virtual Reality Headsets (VR HMDs) like the Oculus Quest (Compl. ¶12, ¶13, ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products function as interactive training tools for workforce and employee development (Compl. ¶4). A screenshot from Defendant's materials describes how its "AR solutions provide interactive and engaging training that prepares employees with the ability to manipulate objects and understand processes in real-time" (Compl. p. 5).
- The products are alleged to use on-board cameras to detect features in the user's environment, processing units to calculate the device's 3D pose from that visual data, and auxiliary sensors such as an IMU to supplement the tracking (Compl. ¶12). For VR headsets, the complaint highlights the use of "inside-out tracking systems" that employ cameras and computer vision to locate the user in 3D space (Compl. p. 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 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; | Defendant's use of a camera on an iOS or Android device to detect high optical contrast features, such as markings or cards in the environment. A provided screenshot shows an AR application overlaying graphics onto cards on a table (p. 5). | ¶12 | col. 6:30-33 |
| 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 | Defendant's use of the processing unit on an iOS or Android device as a controller that identifies a derivative pattern from camera data, which is indicative of the camera's position. | ¶12 | col. 6:34-38 |
| c) at least one component selected from the group consisting of an auxiliary motion detection component, an active illumination component and a scanning component. | Defendant's use of an iOS or Android device's auxiliary motion detection components, such as an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) or motion sensor. | ¶12 | col. 6:50-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory may depend on whether the processing performed by standard mobile AR frameworks (e.g., Apple's ARKit) can be properly characterized as identifying a "derivative pattern." The construction of this term will be a central issue.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused device's controller identifies a pattern that is specifically "indicative of the position of said photodetector" as required by the claim, as opposed to performing a more general scene analysis?
U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 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; | Defendant's use of at least one invariant feature in the environment, such as "natural features or augmented reality card (cardz)" positioned on a table. A screenshot shows an AR application interacting with cards on a surface (p. 9). | ¶18 | col. 1:40-42 |
| b) an optical measuring means for optically inferring said absolute pose from on-board said manipulated object using said at least one invariant feature... | Defendant's use of a camera on an iOS or Android device as the "optical measuring means" for inferring the device's absolute pose from the invariant feature. | ¶18 | col. 2:4-16 |
| c) a processor for preparing said absolute pose data and identifying a subset of said absolute pose data; and | Defendant's use of an iOS or Android device's processing unit as a controller for preparing the absolute pose data and identifying a subset, such as the full six-degree-of-freedom (6DoF) data. | ¶18 | col. 2:17-19 |
| d) a communication link for transmitting said subset to an application. | Defendant's use of an internal communication link within the iOS or Android device to transmit the subset of pose data to a software application running on the device. | ¶18 | col. 2:20-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1b recites an "optical measuring means for optically inferring said absolute pose." As a means-plus-function limitation, its scope is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. A dispute may arise over whether the camera and processing architecture of a modern smartphone is structurally equivalent to the apparatus disclosed in the patent.
- Technical Questions: Does the complaint provide sufficient detail to establish that the accused systems infer "absolute pose" with respect to a "reference location" in the manner required by the claim, versus performing relative tracking or SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) without a fixed, external reference?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the ’559 Patent
- The Term: "derivative pattern"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the function of the "controller" in Claim 1b. The infringement analysis for the '559 Patent will likely hinge on whether the accused products' method of processing optical data constitutes identifying a "derivative pattern."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that as the photodetector's pose changes, the observed pattern of features "undergoes a well-understood transformation (i.e., perspective distortion...)" ('559 Patent, col. 6:38-41). This language may support an interpretation that covers any algorithm that tracks the predictable changes in a visual pattern caused by movement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "derivative pattern." A party could argue the term implies a specific mathematical operation beyond simply recognizing a transformed pattern, and that its scope should be limited by the embodiments, which focus on patterns of light sources ('559 Patent, col. 6:26-29).
Term from the ’641 Patent
- The Term: "invariant feature"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the environmental reference points the claimed "optical measuring means" uses to determine pose. The scope of what constitutes an "invariant feature" will determine whether the patent can read on systems that use natural features for tracking versus only those that use predefined markers.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background describes invariant features broadly as "stationary references such as ground planes, reference surfaces, lines, solids, fixed points and other invariant features disposed in the real three-dimensional environment" ('641 Patent, col. 1:28-31). This could support a broad construction covering any stable object in the environment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the preferred embodiment specifies that "invariant features 32, 34, 36 are high optical contrast features such as edges of objects, special markings, or light sources" ('641 Patent, col. 9:33-36). This language may support a narrower construction limited to features with high optical contrast or distinct markings.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all three patents-in-suit. The allegations are based on Defendant providing the Accused Products to end-users along with "specific instructions or training regarding the use of those products," which allegedly causes the end-users to directly infringe the patents' claims (Compl. ¶34, ¶47, ¶60).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on Defendant having had "knowledge and notice" of the patents and its own infringement "since at least the date of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶28, ¶41, ¶54). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "derivative pattern" in the ’559 Patent, which is not explicitly defined, be construed broadly enough to read on the general-purpose SLAM and computer vision algorithms used in modern AR/VR platforms?
- A central question will be one of claim construction and equivalence: for the ’641 Patent, is the "optical measuring means" limitation, governed by means-plus-function rules, structurally equivalent to the integrated camera and processing systems of modern smartphones and VR headsets, which were not contemplated when the patent was filed?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Plaintiff will need to present evidence detailing precisely how the accused AR/VR software operates to demonstrate that it performs the specific functions required by the claims, rather than achieving a similar result through a fundamentally different technical approach developed after the patents' priority dates.