DCT

2:24-cv-00813

Pointwise Ventures LLC v. Penney OpCo LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00813, E.D. Tex., 10/07/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to a pointing and identification device that uses a camera to identify and interact with on-screen or real-world objects.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for using a handheld device to point at an object, capture its image, and use that image to retrieve information or initiate an action via a connected computer system.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-09-23 ’812 Patent Priority Date
2013-06-25 ’812 Patent Issue Date
2024-10-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812, “Pointing and identification device,” issued June 25, 2013.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the limitations of conventional computer mice, which can only detect relative motion on a surface and cannot be used to point directly at objects on a television screen or in the real world to determine their “absolute location” (’812 Patent, col. 1:11-33).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a Pointing and Identification Device (PID) that integrates a digital camera with an aiming mechanism, such as a laser pointer or an on-screen reticle (’812 Patent, Abstract). The user points the device at an object, and the camera captures a digital image that is transmitted to a computer or network for processing (’812 Patent, col. 1:38-44; Fig. 1A). The system then identifies the object or its location within a specific context (e.g., a frame in a video) and can present the user with interactive options (’812 Patent, col. 1:61-68).
    • Technical Importance: The technology sought to create a more intuitive interface for interacting with digital content and the physical world, moving beyond the desktop metaphor by allowing users to directly point at and select items of interest seen on various displays or in their environment (’812 Patent, col. 1:7-10).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’812 Patent without specifying them, referring to them as the “Exemplary ’812 Patent Claims” (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention.
    • Independent Claim 1 recites a method for identifying an object, comprising the key steps of:
      • Providing a pointing and identification device that has an actuation means, a digital camera, and a communication device.
      • Communicating a digital image from the device to a different location.
      • Automatically identifying a list of likely pointed-to objects from the digital image at the different location.
      • Returning the list of likely pointed-to objects to the user to select one.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, referring to them generally as the “Exemplary Defendant Products” (Compl. ¶11).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality. It makes only a conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '812 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the asserted claims of the ’812 Patent (Compl. ¶16). However, it does not provide any specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint that map the functionality of any accused product to the specific limitations of the asserted claims. Instead, the complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2" which was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶¶16-17). Without this exhibit, the precise theory of infringement for any specific claim element cannot be analyzed. The narrative theory is that Defendant's products, in their customary and intended operation, satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶14, ¶16).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "automatically identifying a list of likely pointed-to objects from the digital image"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 and describes the core data processing step of the invention. The construction of this term will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it defines the required method for turning a captured image into an actionable list of identified items. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes specific identification methods, and a dispute may arise over whether modern image-recognition technologies fall within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any automated process that analyzes an image and returns a set of potential matches, a common function in modern software. The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to a particular algorithm.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be limited by the specific techniques disclosed in the specification. The patent heavily details a "Frame Compare Method," where an image is identified by matching it to a database of frames using a unique "frame ID" or through "audio fingerprinting" (’812 Patent, col. 3:1-15; col. 10:40-44; col. 11:16-25). This could support an argument that the claim requires a more specific database-matching process rather than general-purpose object recognition.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’812 Patent (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that the service of the complaint provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation may serve as a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any infringement that occurs after the complaint was filed.

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

Given the general nature of the pleadings, the case will likely center on fundamental questions of proof and claim scope.

  • A Primary Evidentiary Question: Can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" perform the specific functions recited in the patent's claims? The complaint's lack of factual detail shifts the burden of demonstrating infringement entirely to discovery and expert testimony.
  • A Core Issue of Claim Scope: The central legal dispute may be one of technological evolution: can the term "automatically identifying," which the patent describes in the context of "Frame Compare" and "frame ID" lookup methods prevalent at the time of invention, be construed to cover modern, AI-driven image recognition systems that may operate on entirely different principles? The outcome could depend on whether the court views the patent as covering the general concept of camera-based object identification or only the specific methods disclosed for achieving it.