DCT

2:24-cv-06706

Rembrandt 3D Holding Ltd v. Homony

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-06706, E.D. Pa., 12/17/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants reside or have a regular and established place of business in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the Chapter 11 Trustee and retained investment bankers for the bankrupt Stream TV Networks, Inc. are infringing patents and misappropriating trade secrets related to glasses-free 3D display technology by offering the bankrupt company's assets for sale.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for improving the quality and visual impact of 3D media by selectively applying processing techniques and storing parameters for different sections of the content, which is significant for autostereoscopic (glasses-free) 3D displays.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a complex history between Plaintiff's predecessor (3D Fusion) and Stream TV Networks ("Stream"), including a 2017 lawsuit that resulted in a 2021 Settlement Agreement licensing the intellectual property to Stream. Following Stream's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in 2023, the court appointed Defendant Homony as trustee. The complaint alleges that Homony and his retained investment banking firm, Defendant SSG Advisors, are now attempting to sell Stream's assets, including the "Ultra-D" technology, in a manner that violates the non-assignable license agreement and infringes the asserted patents. The complaint also references a Bankruptcy Court Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from January 2024 intended to prevent actions affecting the Rembrandt license.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-03-26 Plaintiff's predecessor, 3D Fusion Corp., is formed.
2008-12-18 Earliest priority date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,558,830, 9,521,390, and 9,681,114.
2010-06-09 3D Fusion and Stream sign a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement.
2011-05-01 Stream begins employing key technical personnel previously associated with 3D Fusion's development partners.
2013-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,558,830 issues.
2016-02-01 An individual, Blumenthal, acquires 3D Fusion assets and later forms Rembrandt.
2016-12-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,521,390 issues.
2017-01-01 Rembrandt files a lawsuit against Stream for patent infringement and breach of contract.
2017-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,681,114 issues.
2021-05-23 Rembrandt and Stream execute a Settlement Agreement, including a license to the Rembrandt IP.
2023-03-01 Stream files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
2024-01-04 Bankruptcy Court issues a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining parties from affecting the Rembrandt license.
2024-08-14 Trustee Homony files an application to employ SSG Advisors to market and sell Stream's assets.
2024-12-17 Complaint is filed.

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,558,830 - "System and method for adaptive scalable dynamic conversion, quality and processing optimization, enhancement, correction, mastering, and other advantageous processing of three dimensional media content"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,558,830, "System and method for adaptive scalable dynamic conversion, quality and processing optimization, enhancement, correction, mastering, and other advantageous processing of three dimensional media content," issued October 15, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior art 3D content processing applied a "lowest common denominator" approach, where optimization settings were applied uniformly to an entire media file (’830 Patent, col. 4:35-41). This is problematic because the desirable settings for optimizing the 3D experience vary greatly between different scenes or even between different objects within a single scene, depending on factors like motion, complexity, and lighting ('830 Patent, col. 4:41-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for improving the 3D experience by enabling more granular and adaptive control. It involves identifying a specific "content section" or "3D media element," selecting a predefined modification technique (e.g., a depth adjustment), applying it, determining an optimal parameter setting for that technique, and then associating a reference to both the technique and the optimal setting with that specific media element for future playback ('830 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-14). This allows different parts of a 3D video to have their own tailored enhancement settings stored within or alongside the media file.
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the "mastering" of 3D content, where different processing is applied to different portions of the media, moving beyond a one-size-fits-all enhancement and enabling a higher quality, more comfortable, and more impactful 3D viewing experience ('830 Patent, col. 9:20-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-6 ('830 Patent, Compl. ¶155, ¶163, ¶164).
  • Independent Claim 1 is a method comprising the steps of:
    • (a) identifying at least one content section of the 3D content media comprising at least one 3D media element and selecting at least one corresponding predefined plural 3D content modification technique;
    • (b) applying the selected technique to the 3D media element;
    • (c) determining a setting for at least one parameter of the selected future technique that is optimal for the media element;
    • (d) associating a reference to the selected future technique and the optimal parameter with the media element;
    • (e) selectively repeating these steps for additional content sections;
    • (f) enabling an operator to view results and selectively cancel or change operations; and
    • (g) generating a dynamic 3D content media container file configured for playback that stores, for each media element, the applied modifications and associated references.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims ('830 Patent, Compl. ¶170).

U.S. Patent No. 9,521,390 - "System and method for adaptive scalable dynamic conversion, quality and processing optimization, enhancement, correction, mastering, and other advantageous processing of three dimensional media content"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,521,390, "System and method for adaptive scalable dynamic conversion, quality and processing optimization, enhancement, correction, mastering, and other advantageous processing of three dimensional media content," issued December 13, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the '830 patent, the ’390 Patent addresses the same fundamental problem: the inadequacy of applying uniform processing settings to complex 3D media content, which degrades the quality and impact of the 3D experience ('390 Patent, col. 9:55-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The '390 Patent claims a nearly identical method to the '830 Patent for improving the 3D experience. The method involves identifying a content section, selecting and applying a modification technique, determining optimal parameters for that technique, and storing a reference to the technique and parameters for that specific section of the media ('390 Patent, Abstract). This allows for dynamic and optimized playback where different enhancement "recipes" are applied to different parts of the video.
  • Technical Importance: This patented method provides a framework for creating and using a "dynamic... 3D content media container file" that embeds or links to specific, optimized processing instructions for different parts of the content, enabling superior playback quality on 3D display systems ('390 Patent, col. 13:51-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-6 ('390 Patent, Compl. ¶173, ¶181, ¶182).
  • Independent Claim 1 is a method that is substantively identical to Claim 1 of the '830 Patent, comprising the same core steps of identifying a media element, selecting and applying a modification technique, determining an optimal parameter, associating a reference, and generating a container file for playback.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims ('390 Patent, Compl. ¶186).

U.S. Patent No. 9,681,114 - "System and method for adaptive scalable dynamic conversion, quality and processing optimization, enhancement, correction, mastering, and other advantageous processing of three dimensional media content"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,681,114, "System and method for adaptive scalable dynamic conversion, quality and processing optimization, enhancement, correction, mastering, and other advantageous processing of three dimensional media content," issued June 13, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application for the '390 Patent, the ’114 Patent describes technology for improving 3D content for Depth Based Image Rendering (DBIR) systems ('114 Patent, Abstract). It addresses the problem of generic, one-size-fits-all 3D processing by providing a method to define, apply, and store specific enhancement parameters (such as depth adjustments or variable layer densities) for discrete sections of 2D+Depth media content, thereby optimizing the 3D visual impact during playback ('114 Patent, col. 16:21-34).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least claim 20 (Compl. ¶189).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Ultra-D System, including the Ultra-D Enabled Monitor (UDEM), infringes by providing an on-screen display (OSD) menu with tools like "3D Factor," "3D Offset," and "Borders" that allow an operator to perform the claimed method of selectively identifying, modifying, and storing enhancement parameters for 3D media elements (Compl. ¶190-196).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are collectively referred to as the "Ultra-D System," which includes Stream's "Ultra-D technology," the "Ultra-D Enabled Monitor ('UDEM')," and "SCBV Products" (Compl. ¶154).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Ultra-D System is described as technology for glasses-free 3D display that generates a light-field to create a natural 3D experience (Compl. ¶154). A key accused feature is an on-screen-display (OSD) menu that allows an operator to manually select and apply 3D content modification techniques to specific "3D media elements" (Compl. ¶156). The complaint provides a screenshot of this OSD menu, which includes options for "3D FACTOR," "3D OFFSET," and "BORDERS" (Compl. p. 32). These tools are alleged to allow an operator to improve the 3D image, for instance by correcting "window violation" artifacts where an object appears to pop out of the screen but is unnaturally cut off by the display's physical border (Compl. ¶139).
  • The complaint alleges that this technology is part of the assets of the bankrupt company Stream, which are being marketed and offered for sale by the Defendants (Compl. ¶8, ¶129). The technology is described as foundational to Stream's products and essential to their commercial value (Compl. ¶51, ¶151). The complaint also references a "363 Sale Teaser" document distributed by Defendant SSG that allegedly offers for sale assets including software that implements the claimed subject matter (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,558,830 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) identifying at least one content section of the 3D content media comprising at least one 3D media element and selecting at least one corresponding predefined plural 3D content modification technique... The Ultra-D System's OSD menu allows an operator to identify a content section and select modification techniques such as "3D Factor," "3D Offset," and "Borders." ¶156 col. 13:55-64
(b) for each said selected... technique... applying said selected... technique thereto; The OSD allows the operator to apply the selected modification technique (e.g., "Borders") to the 3D media element to improve it. ¶157 col. 15:1-6
(c) for each said selected... technique... determining a setting for at least one parameter... optimal for application to said corresponding at least one 3D media element; The OSD allows the operator to determine an optimal parameter setting for the "Borders" technique (e.g., setting it to 62%) for future application frames. ¶158 col. 15:7-14
(d) associating a reference to said selected... technique and said determined... optimal parameter, with said corresponding at least one 3D media element; The OSD allows the operator to associate a reference (e.g., the name "Borders") and the determined setting (e.g., 62%) with the 3D media element for future frames. ¶159 col. 15:15-20
(g) after conclusion of said step (f), generating a dynamic 3D content media container file... further configured to store, for each 3D content media element... the selected 3D content modification technique applied... and the associated reference... and the optimal parameter. The UDEM generates a file for playback that applies the selected technique using the optimal parameter and stores the technique and parameter for each element, for example, by including a separate depth signal with meta-data. ¶162 col. 15:30-49

9,521,390 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) identifying at least one content section of the 3D content media comprising at least one 3D media element and selecting at least one corresponding predefined plural 3D content modification technique... The Ultra-D System's OSD provides tools like "3D Factor," "3D Offset," and "Borders" that allow an operator to identify a media element and select a modification technique. ¶174 col. 13:10-21
(b) for each said selected... technique... applying said selected... technique thereto; The OSD allows the operator to apply the chosen modification technique to improve the identified 3D media element. ¶175 col. 13:22-27
(c) for each said selected... technique... determining a setting for at least one parameter... optimal for application to said corresponding at least one 3D media element; The OSD allows an operator to determine an optimal setting (e.g., 62%) for the selected "Borders" technique. A visual in the complaint shows an adjustable "factor frame position setting." ¶176, p. 34 col. 13:28-35
(d) associating a reference to said selected... technique and said determined... optimal parameter, with said corresponding at least one 3D media element; The system associates a reference (e.g., "Borders") and the determined optimal setting with the specific 3D media element. ¶177 col. 13:36-41
(g) ...generating a dynamic 3D content media container file... further configured to store, for each 3D content media element... the selected 3D content modification technique applied... and the associated reference... and the optimal parameter. The UDEM generates a file for playback that stores the selected technique and its associated optimal parameter for each media element, which is performed by including a separate depth signal with meta-data. ¶180 col. 13:51-67
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The core of the infringement allegation is not traditional manufacture or sale to end-users, but the defendants' act of offering the bankrupt's assets for sale (Compl. ¶8, ¶126). A primary legal question will be whether the actions of a bankruptcy trustee and an investment banker in marketing and arranging the sale of assets containing allegedly infringing technology constitute an infringing "offer for sale" or "sale" under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused "Borders" tool, as implemented in the Ultra-D System, performs the specific steps of both applying a modification and storing a reference to that modification technique and its optimal parameter for future use, as required by the claims. The complaint provides visual evidence illustrating how window violations are cured, but the defense may question whether this functionality maps to all limitations of the claimed method, particularly the storage and association steps. For example, the complaint provides a diagram illustrating how window violations are cured through a "Rotated Dynamic Floating Window" (Compl. p. 35), and the court will need to determine if this mechanism meets the claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '830 and '390 Patents:

  • The Term: "3D media element"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the first step of independent claim 1 of both patents and defines the basic unit upon which the claimed method operates. The scope of this term is critical because it will determine the granularity of the infringement. If construed broadly (e.g., an entire scene), it may be easier for the defendant to argue its system operates differently; if construed narrowly (e.g., a single object or a specific portion of a frame), it may be easier for the plaintiff to show the accused OSD tools operate on such "elements."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims state the media element is within a "content section" and that the section can comprise "a plurality of content frames" and a "corresponding scene," which could suggest the element is a significant part of the content ('830 Patent, col. 16:1-5).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses "displayed objects/subjects" and their "relative motion, complexity, backgrounds, lighting, etc." as factors requiring different settings, suggesting a "media element" could be a specific object within a scene ('830 Patent, col. 4:48-52). The detailed description also refers to "static" and "moving" 3D displayed objects as examples of media elements ('830 Patent, col. 16:10-14).

  • The Term: "predefined plural 3D content modification technique"

  • Context and Importance: This term, also in step (a) of claim 1, defines the set of tools from which an operator can select. The construction will determine what qualifies as a "predefined" technique. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require a specific, fixed library of tools, the defendant could argue its system is more flexible or user-defined and thus non-infringing.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification gives broad examples of what such techniques might entail, such as "optimization, playback, and/or display settings and/or parameters" and "display tool adjustments," suggesting the term is not limited to a narrow set of functions ('830 Patent, col. 5:6-10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the word "predefined," which may imply the techniques must exist as a defined set prior to their selection by the operator. The complaint itself points to a specific, defined set of tools—"3D Factor," "3D Offset," and "Borders"—as meeting this limitation, which could support a narrower reading focused on a menu of existing options (Compl. ¶156).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants intended to induce infringement by entities such as SeeCubic and purchasers of the estate assets (Compl. ¶165, ¶183, ¶197). The inducement is based on allegations that Defendants incorporated the Ultra-D technology into the assets offered for sale with the knowledge that its use would cause infringement, or with willful blindness to that possibility (Compl. ¶165).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants receiving actual, repeated notice of the Rembrandt patents and the ongoing infringement (Compl. ¶166, ¶184, ¶198). The complaint cites multiple emails, court filings, and statements made in Bankruptcy Court where Rembrandt allegedly informed Defendants that the proposed sale of assets included Rembrandt's IP and would constitute infringement (Compl. ¶121, ¶127, ¶131).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central issue will be one of infringer identity and liability: Can a bankruptcy trustee and their retained investment banker, whose roles are to liquidate estate assets, be held liable as direct infringers under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) for the act of offering to sell assets that allegedly embody patented technology under a non-assignable license?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused "Ultra-D System," through its OSD menu and tools like "Borders," perform the complete, multi-step method recited in the claims, including not only modifying the 3D image but also creating a "dynamic... container file" that stores and associates specific, optimal parameters with discrete "3D media elements" for future playback?
  • The outcome may also hinge on claim construction: Can the term "3D media element" be construed to cover the specific objects or content portions manipulated by the accused system, and does the accused system's menu of tools like "3D Factor" and "Borders" fall within the scope of a "predefined plural 3D content modification technique"?