DCT
2:18-cv-00284
Infernal Technology LLC v. Crytek GmbH
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Infernal Technology, LLC (Texas) and Terminal Reality, Inc. (Texas)
- Defendant: Crytek GmbH (Germany)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00284, E.D. Tex., 11/08/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege that venue is proper in any judicial district because the Defendant is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Germany.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s CryEngine video game engine and games developed with it infringe two patents related to methods for rendering lighting and shadows in computer graphics.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns deferred rendering techniques, a method for efficiently creating realistic lighting and shadows from multiple light sources, which is a critical component for performance and realism in the video game industry.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Crytek was made aware of U.S. Patent 6,362,822 in April 2005, when the USPTO cited it as prior art during the prosecution of Crytek's own patent application. The asserted patents also survived inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Electronic Arts in 2016, where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued Final Written Decisions confirming the patentability of all challenged claims. Plaintiffs also allege providing direct notice of infringement to Crytek's counsel in May 2016.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-03-12 | Priority Date for ’822 and ’488 Patents |
| 2002-03-26 | U.S. Patent 6,362,822 Issued |
| 2003-02-01 | Crytek files its own patent application (date specified as Feb 2003) |
| 2005-04-07 | USPTO examiner cites ’822 Patent against Crytek's application |
| 2006-06-13 | U.S. Patent 7,061,488 Issued |
| 2012-01-01 | Alleged damages period begins (date specified as "Since 2012") |
| 2016-04-21 | Electronic Arts files IPR petitions against the Asserted Patents |
| 2016-05-01 | Plaintiffs allege providing notice to Crytek (date specified as May 2016) |
| 2016-10-25 | PTAB institutes IPR proceedings |
| 2017-10-19 | PTAB issues Final Written Decision on IPRs |
| 2017-10-23 | PTAB issues Final Written Decision on IPRs |
| 2018-11-08 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,362,822 - "Lighting and Shadowing Methods and Arrangements for use in Computer Graphic Simulations"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,362,822, "Lighting and Shadowing Methods and Arrangements for use in Computer Graphic Simulations," issued March 26, 2002. (Compl. ¶14).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the computational difficulty of rendering realistic shadows from multiple light sources in real-time 3D graphics. Prior methods were often too "compute intensive" or resulted in unrealistic effects, such as "additive darkening," where a surface shaded by multiple light sources becomes overly dark. (’822 Patent, col. 1:56–col. 2:3).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that separates the geometry rendering from the lighting calculation. First, the scene is rendered from the observer's viewpoint to generate data about the scene's geometry and color. Then, for each light source, the system determines which parts of the scene are illuminated by comparing depth information from the observer's view with depth information from the light's view. The contributions from all illuminating light sources are collected in a "light accumulation buffer" before being applied to the final image. (’822 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:66–3:3). This accumulation of light, rather than accumulation of shadow, is described as a way to achieve a more realistic result. (Compl. ¶18).
- Technical Importance: The patent states this approach allows for the modeling of multiple light sources in a "more efficient and realistic manner" on conventional PCs, a key advancement for real-time interactive graphics like video games. (’822 Patent, col. 2:66–3:3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint outlines an infringement theory for independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶31-36).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- providing observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene;
- providing lighting data associated with a plurality of simulated light sources... said lighting data including light image data;
- for each of said plurality of light sources, comparing at least a portion of said observer data with at least a portion of said lighting data to determine if a modeled point within said scene is illuminated by said light source and storing at least a portion of said light image data... in a light accumulation buffer;
- combining at least a portion of said light accumulation buffer with said observer data; and
- displaying resulting image data to a computer screen.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more of the method claims," which may suggest an intent to assert other claims, including dependent claims, at a later stage. (Compl. ¶30).
U.S. Patent No. 7,061,488 - "Lighting and Shadowing Methods and Arrangements for use in Computer Graphic Simulations"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,061,488, "Lighting and Shadowing Methods and Arrangements for use in Computer Graphic Simulations," issued June 13, 2006. (Compl. ¶15). The '488 Patent is a continuation-in-part of the '822 Patent. (Compl. ¶15).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '488 Patent addresses the same technical problems as its parent '822 patent, describing the challenge of efficiently rendering realistic shadows from multiple light sources without artifacts like additive darkening. (’488 Patent, col. 1:59–col. 2:3).
- The Patented Solution: The technology described is functionally identical to the ’822 Patent, employing a deferred rendering approach. The method involves generating observer and lighting data, comparing depth information to determine illumination for multiple light sources, collecting the light in an accumulation buffer, and then combining that light with the observer's view of the scene. (’488 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1–3).
- Technical Importance: As with the parent patent, this invention is presented as a more efficient and realistic method for modeling multiple light sources on conventional computer hardware of the time. (’488 Patent, col. 3:1–3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint details an infringement theory for independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶45-50).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- a shadow rendering method... comprising the steps of:
- providing observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene;
- providing lighting data associated with a plurality of simulated light sources... said lighting data including light image data;
- for each of said plurality of light sources, comparing at least a portion of said observer data with at least a portion of said lighting data to determine if a modeled point... is illuminated by said light source and storing at least a portion of said light image data... in a light accumulation buffer;
- combining at least a portion of said light accumulation buffer with said observer data; and
- outputting resulting image data.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more of the method claims," which may leave open the possibility of asserting other claims. (Compl. ¶44).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as Defendant’s "CryEngine" video game engine and the video games that employ it, including but not limited to Crysis, Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Warface, Ryse: Son of Rome, The Climb, and Robinson: The Journey. (Compl. ¶¶6-7).
Functionality and Market Context
- The CryEngine is described as software that provides a framework for creating video games, with features including graphics rendering and artificial intelligence. (Compl. ¶5). The complaint alleges that the CryEngine is "capable of performing deferred rendering, deferred shading, and/or deferred lighting," which is the central functionality accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶6). The complaint further alleges that Defendant has annual revenues in the "many tens of millions of dollars" and makes its Accused Games available for sale in the United States through major distributors like Electronic Arts, Microsoft, and Sony. (Compl. ¶¶10-11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’822 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A shadow rendering method for use in a computer system... | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to perform a shadow rendering method for use in a computer system. | ¶31 | col. 12:4-5 |
| providing observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene; | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to provide observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene. | ¶32 | col. 12:6-7 |
| providing lighting data associated with a plurality of simulated light sources arranged to illuminate said scene, said lighting data including light image data; | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to provide lighting data from multiple light sources, including light image data. | ¶33 | col. 12:8-11 |
| for each of said plurality of light sources, comparing at least a portion of said observer data with at least a portion of said lighting data to determine if a modeled point...is illuminated...and storing...light image data...in a light accumulation buffer; | For each light source, the Accused Instrumentalities allegedly compare observer and lighting data to determine illumination of a point, and store associated light image data in a light accumulation buffer. | ¶34 | col. 12:12-18 |
| combining at least a portion of said light accumulation buffer with said observer data; and | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to combine the light accumulation buffer with the observer data. | ¶35 | col. 12:19-21 |
| displaying resulting image data to a computer screen. | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to display the resulting image data to a computer screen. | ¶36 | col. 12:22-23 |
’488 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A shadow rendering method, the method comprising the steps of: | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to perform a shadow rendering method for use in a computer system. | ¶45 | col. 12:9-10 |
| providing observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene; | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to provide observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene. | ¶46 | col. 12:11-12 |
| providing lighting data associated with a plurality of simulated light sources... said lighting data including light image data; | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to provide lighting data associated with multiple light sources, including light image data. | ¶47 | col. 12:13-16 |
| for each of said plurality of light sources, comparing at least a portion of said observer data with at least a portion of said lighting data to determine if a modeled point...is illuminated...and storing...light image data...in a light accumulation buffer; | For each light source, the Accused Instrumentalities allegedly compare observer and lighting data to determine if a point is illuminated, and store corresponding light image data for that point and light source in a light accumulation buffer. | ¶48 | col. 12:17-24 |
| combining at least a portion of said light accumulation buffer with said observer data; and | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to combine the data from the light accumulation buffer with the observer data. | ¶49 | col. 12:25-27 |
| outputting resulting image data. | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to output the resulting image data. | ¶50 | col. 12:28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the CryEngine performs "deferred rendering" and that this practice infringes the claims. (Compl. ¶37). A primary technical question will be whether the specific algorithms and data structures used within the CryEngine for lighting and shadowing map onto the specific steps and limitations of the asserted claims. The complaint's infringement allegations track the claim language without providing specific evidence of the CryEngine's internal operations.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on how key claim limitations are construed. For instance, the dispute could center on whether the CryEngine's method for handling multiple light sources is functionally equivalent to the claimed "light accumulation buffer," or whether its method for applying lighting qualifies as "combining" the buffer with observer data in the manner claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "light accumulation buffer"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both asserted patents and is central to the described invention. The function of this buffer is to aggregate illumination from multiple sources before applying it to the final scene. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that its own method for combining light from multiple sources is architecturally or functionally different from the "buffer" described in the patents.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the buffer's general function as storing "RGB pixel data for the accumulated light falling on a pixel... from light sources." (’822 Patent, col. 7:42-47). A party could argue this language supports a construction covering any data structure that serves the purpose of aggregating light values from multiple sources.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The exemplary pseudocode in the specification depicts the operation as a direct addition:
ACCUM (SPx, SPy)+=LIGHT IMAGE (LPx, LPy). (’822 Patent, col. 9). A party could argue this implies a specific, cumulative additive process, and that other methods of combination (e.g., complex blending functions) fall outside the scope of this term.
The Term: "comparing at least a portion of said observer data with at least a portion of said lighting data"
Context and Importance: This claim step defines the core logic for determining whether a point in the scene is in shadow or is illuminated by a light source. The precise nature of this "comparison" is critical to defining the scope of the claimed method.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that this term should be read broadly to encompass any process that uses both observer-view data (e.g., camera depth) and light-view data (e.g., shadow maps) to determine illumination status for a given pixel or point.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific implementation where a pixel from the camera's view is transformed into the light source's coordinate space, and then a Z-value comparison is performed. (’822 Patent, col. 8:45–65). A party could argue that this detailed description limits the term "comparing" to this specific type of coordinate transformation and depth test.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement. The stated factual basis is that Crytek provides its CryEngine to third-party game developers and provides instructions to end users on installing and playing the Accused Games, with the knowledge and intent that doing so would cause infringement of the patented methods. (Compl. ¶¶38-40, 52-54).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It alleges Crytek has had actual notice of the ’822 Patent since at least April 2005, when the USPTO cited the patent against Crytek's own patent application during prosecution. (Compl. ¶¶21, 42). It further alleges providing notice and claim charts to Crytek's counsel in May 2016 in connection with separate litigation, and that Crytek continued to develop and sell infringing products thereafter. (Compl. ¶¶26-28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the "deferred rendering" system within Crytek's CryEngine, as it actually operates, perform the specific sequence of steps required by the asserted claims? The dispute will likely focus on whether the engine's internal processes for determining illumination and combining light from multiple sources constitute the claimed acts of "comparing" data, "storing" results in a "light accumulation buffer," and "combining" that buffer with observer data.
- A key question for damages will be the impact of alleged pre-suit knowledge: The complaint alleges that Crytek knew of the ’822 patent as early as 2005 from its own patent prosecution. A central question will be whether Plaintiffs can prove this knowledge establishes "egregious and willful" infringement (Compl. ¶42), particularly given the patents' subsequent survival of IPR challenges, potentially exposing Defendant to a greater risk of enhanced damages.