DCT
2:22-cv-00387
Panther Innovations LLC v. Sony Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Panther Innovations, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Sony Corporation (Japan), Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (California), and Sony Interactive Entertainment America, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC; THE STAFFORD DAVIS FIRM
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00387, E.D. Tex., 10/05/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Sony Corporation’s status as a foreign corporation and on the U.S. subsidiaries having regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, coupled with allegations of infringing acts occurring within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s PlayStation 3 SimulView gaming technology infringes patents related to displaying different full-screen content to two viewers on a single display.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the limitations of traditional split-screen multiplayer video games by enabling two players to each see a unique, full-screen image on one television simultaneously using specialized eyewear.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents and underlying technology at least as early as June 22, 2012, based on correspondence between Sony and the patents' inventor, which may bear on the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-11-11 | Sony launches PlayStation 3 home video game console |
| 2010-09-01 | Priority Date for ’811 and ’195 Patents |
| 2010-12-31 | ’811 Patent application filed |
| 2011-10-19 | Sony begins marketing the Accused Products with SimulView |
| 2012-06-22 | Alleged date of Sony's knowledge of the patented technology |
| 2017-07-13 | ’195 Patent application filed |
| 2017-07-18 | ’811 Patent issues |
| 2019-11-12 | ’195 Patent issues |
| 2022-10-05 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,712,811 - “Viewing of Different Full-Screen Television Content by Different Viewers at the Same Time Using Configured Glasses and a Related Display,” issued July 18, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the drawbacks of conventional multiplayer gaming on a single television, where split-screen presentations force each player to view a smaller-than-full-screen image while also being able to see their opponent’s screen (’811 Patent, col. 1:40-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method to overcome this problem by taking a "multi-player split screen output" from a source like a game console, converting that output into two separate, sequential full-screen frames at the television, and then using "configured glasses" synchronized with the display so that each viewer sees only their intended full-screen frame while the other is blocked (’811 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:10-48). This process is illustrated in figures showing a split-screen input being transformed into two distinct full-screen outputs for different viewers (’811 Patent, Figs. 4-5).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for a more immersive multiplayer experience on a single display by providing each player with their own private, full-screen perspective, a significant departure from the shared, compromised view of traditional split-screen gaming (’811 Patent, col. 1:40-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
- Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential steps:
- producing a multi-player split screen output from a game console;
- converting the multi-player split screen output to two sequential full screen frames at the television;
- viewing a first of the two sequential full screen frames using a first pair of configured glasses that blocks a second of the two sequential full screen frames; and
- viewing the second of the two sequential full screen frames using a second pair of configured glasses that blocks the first of the two sequential full screen frames.
- The complaint does not specify any dependent claims but may reserve the right to assert them later.
U.S. Patent No. 10,477,195 - “Viewing of Different Full-Screen Television Content by Different Viewers at the Same Time Using Configured Glasses and a Related Display,” issued November 12, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its parent ’811 Patent, the ’195 Patent addresses the limitations of split-screen gaming, where players see reduced-size images and each other’s content (’195 Patent, col. 1:47-60).
- The Patented Solution: The ’195 Patent claims a system for achieving a similar outcome. It describes a display device configured to receive a "frame packed split screen signal" that contains two distinct game views. This signal has specific resolution characteristics (e.g., double the vertical or horizontal resolution of the display) such that each player's view is already at full-screen resolution within the signal. The display then shows the content to two viewers wearing glasses that filter the views, without needing to "upscale" the content to fill the screen (’195 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:41-48).
- Technical Importance: The invention claims a specific system architecture that avoids image degradation by ensuring the source signal already contains full-resolution data for each player, distinguishing it from methods that might stretch or "upscale" a lower-resolution split-screen image (’195 Patent, col. 4:5-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
- Claim 1 is a system claim comprising:
- a display device configured to receive a frame packed split screen signal that includes a first and second player game content in first and second spatial regions;
- the frame packed split screen signal having double the vertical or horizontal resolution of a full screen resolution of the display device, such that the spatial regions are in the full screen resolution of the display device;
- the display device being further configured to display the signal such that each player’s game content is viewable in full screen using separate pairs of glasses that block the other player's content;
- wherein the first and second player game content of the frame packed split screen signal are not upscaled to be viewable in full screen.
- The complaint does not specify any dependent claims but may reserve the right to assert them later.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are the Sony PlayStation 3 gaming console, the PlayStation 3D Display Device, and the TDG-SV5P SimulView Gaming Glasses, which collectively enable a feature Sony calls "SimulView" (Compl. ¶¶8, 43, 45).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that when used together with compatible games, these products allow two players to engage in dual gaming on a single TV, where the system delivers "two different full HD screen images from a single display" (Compl. ¶46). This functionality is designed to "say goodbye to split screen" by giving each player their own "big-screen view of the action" (Compl. ¶46). A promotional image included in the complaint shows two distinct, full-screen player views originating from one display, with two pairs of glasses positioned for each viewer (Compl. p. 12). The complaint notes this technology was marketed and sold beginning in 2011 (Compl. ¶43).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’811 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| producing a multi-player split screen output from a game console; | The PlayStation 3 gaming console produces a multi-player split screen output. | ¶52 | col. 1:47-54 |
| converting the multi-player split screen output to two sequential full screen frames at the television; | The PlayStation 3D Display Device converts the split screen output to two sequential full-screen frames. | ¶53 | col. 3:25-33 |
| viewing a first of the two sequential full screen frames using a first pair of configured glasses that blocks a second of the two sequential full screen frames; | The PlayStation 3D Display Device, used with TDG-SV5P SimulView Gaming Glasses, causes the viewing of a first full screen frame while blocking the second. | ¶54 | col. 4:26-36 |
| and viewing the second of the two sequential full screen frames using a second pair of configured glasses that blocks the first of the two sequential full screen frames. | The PlayStation 3D Display Device, used with a second pair of TDG-SV5P glasses, causes the viewing of the second full screen frame while blocking the first. | ¶55 | col. 4:37-47 |
’195 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a display device configured to receive a frame packed split screen signal that includes a first player game content in a first spatial region... and a second player game content in a second spatial region... | The PlayStation 3D Display Device is configured to receive a signal from the PlayStation 3 containing two players' game content. | ¶74 | col. 3:10-20 |
| the frame packed split screen signal having double the vertical resolution or double the horizontal resolution of a full screen resolution of the display device... | The signal received by the PlayStation 3D Display Device allegedly has double the vertical or horizontal resolution of a full screen. | ¶75 | col. 3:41-48 |
| the display device being further configured to display the frame packed split screen signal such that the first player game content is viewable in full screen by using a first pair of glasses that blocks the second player game content and such that the second player game content is viewable in full screen by using a second pair of glasses that blocks the first player game content, | The PlayStation 3D Display Device and TDG-SV5P SimulView Gaming Glasses are configured to display content such that each player views only their own full-screen content. | ¶76 | col. 4:26-47 |
| wherein the first player game content and the second player game content of the frame packed split screen signal are not upscaled to be viewable in full screen. | The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the Accused Products satisfy every element of the claim, which would include this negative limitation. | ¶73 | col. 8:31-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the ’195 Patent will be whether the signal generated by the PlayStation 3 console meets the specific definition of a "frame packed split screen signal" with "double the vertical resolution or double the horizontal resolution" as recited in the claim. The defense may argue for a narrow construction of this technical term that does not read on the accused system's signal format.
- Technical Questions: For the ’195 Patent, the negative limitation "not upscaled" presents a key evidentiary hurdle for the plaintiff. The complaint does not provide specific technical evidence to support this element. The analysis may turn on what constitutes "upscaling" in this context and whether the accused system performs any operation that could be characterized as such.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "configured glasses" (’811 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is central to the method, as the specific function of the glasses—selectively blocking sequential frames—is what enables the dual-view experience. The dispute may focus on whether the term is limited to the specific examples in the patent or covers any eyewear capable of the claimed function.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "configured glasses," and the specification states "embodiments relate to viewing different full-screen television content ... using configured glasses such as shutter glasses or polarized glasses" (’811 Patent, col. 1:19-25), suggesting these are examples, not an exhaustive list.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses almost exclusively on the operation of shutter glasses and polarized glasses, providing detailed operational descriptions for both (’811 Patent, col. 3:52-col. 4:4; col. 4:60-col. 5:5). A party might argue the invention is limited to these disclosed embodiments.
The Term: "frame packed split screen signal" (’195 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term distinguishes the ’195 system patent from the more general method in the ’811 Patent. Its definition is critical because the infringement allegation hinges on the accused PlayStation 3 system generating a signal that meets this technical description.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term encompasses any signal format that "packs" two views into a single frame, such as standard side-by-side or top-bottom formats, which the patent discusses as types of "split screen" (’195 Patent, col. 3:6-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim links this term to the signal having "double the vertical resolution or double the horizontal resolution" of the display device, such that each region is "in the full screen resolution" (’195 Patent, col. 8:18-24). This suggests the term refers to a specific high-resolution format, not just any split-screen signal that is later upscaled.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Sony induced infringement by knowingly encouraging and instructing end users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶61-62, 82-83). Factual support for this allegation is provided in the form of a screenshot from Sony’s own support website, which explains how to use the "SimulView feature" and lists the required components, including a PS3 system, a 3D display, and SimulView glasses (Compl. ¶46, p. 13).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Sony had actual knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement "at least as early as June 22, 2012, through correspondence between Sony and the inventor of the Asserted Patents" (Compl. ¶47). This allegation of specific pre-suit notice, if proven, would strongly support a finding of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "frame packed split screen signal", with its specific resolution requirements in the ’195 Patent, be construed to read on the video signal generated by the PlayStation 3 for its SimulView feature, or is there a technical mismatch?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of negative proof: can the plaintiff affirmatively prove that the accused system's display process does not involve "upscaling" the game content, a negative limitation required by claim 1 of the ’195 Patent, for which the complaint offers little specific evidence?
- The outcome of the willfulness claim, and potentially the scale of damages, will likely depend on the substance of the alleged "correspondence between Sony and the inventor" from 2012. The discovery and interpretation of this communication will be a central factual dispute in the case.