PanoVision LLC v. Panoee Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PanoVision LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Panoee, Corp. (Vietnam)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00221, E.D. Tex., 02/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for facilitating the sale of real property by providing an immersive, three-dimensional visualization tool that allows users to virtually view and modify a property.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of virtual and augmented reality applications for e-commerce, specifically for the real estate and home remodeling markets.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,108,267 - Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,108,267, "Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service," issued January 31, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the conventional process of selling real estate as "inefficient and burdensome" for both buyers and sellers, involving wasted time visiting unsuitable properties and an inability to visualize potential renovations or furnishing arrangements before purchase (’267 Patent, col. 1:29-65). This process is also described as a "gross invasion of the seller's privacy" (col. 2:22-23).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that allows a user to view an "immersive three-dimensional image" of a property on a computing device, select products (e.g., kitchen cabinets, countertops), and see how those products would look in the virtual scene (’267 Patent, col. 2:37-46). The user can view the scene from any vantage point, "just as if the user were moving around inside or outside the actual property," and can modify features within the scene, such as walls or furnishings, to get a realistic impression of potential changes before committing to them (col. 2:47-61; col. 6:40-44).
• Technical Importance: The method aims to solve inefficiencies in the real estate market by allowing prospective buyers to more thoroughly and realistically evaluate and customize a property remotely, thereby reducing the need for physical visits and providing greater confidence in a purchasing decision.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’267 Patent without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • enabling a user of a computing device to select a real property from a plurality of real properties being offered for sale;
  • displaying, on an electronic display, an immersive three-dimensional image of a first room of the selected real property;
  • seamlessly changing the view on the display to show an immersive three-dimensional image of a second room of the same property; and
  • enabling the user to remove, add, and/or modify a feature within one of the displayed room images.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general allegation for "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" without naming any specific product, service, or software application offered by Defendant Panoee, Corp. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market position. It alleges in general terms that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '267 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the specific comparisons by reference to "the attached claim charts" in Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16-17). The complaint’s narrative theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the "Exemplary '267 Patent Claims," both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶16). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations mapping any particular feature of an accused product to the limitations of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the defendant's products or services are used for "facilitating a sale of a real property" as strictly required by claim 1, or if they are used for other purposes, such as general interior design, architectural visualization, or selling home improvement products, which may fall outside the claim's preamble.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused functionality meets the technical requirements of the claims. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused system displays an "immersive three-dimensional image" that allows a user to "view the scene from any vantage point," as opposed to merely displaying static 2D or pre-rendered 3D images? Further, does the accused system allow for "seamlessly changing a view" between different rooms, or does it involve a process that a court might not consider seamless?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "immersive three-dimensional image"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in nearly every independent claim and is core to the invention's value proposition. The definition will be critical to determining infringement, as it sets the technical bar for what kind of visualization is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether standard 3D rendering is sufficient or if a more interactive, virtual-reality-like experience is required.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term can cover various known projection techniques, stating that three-dimensional images can be represented in two dimensions using "axonometric projections," including isometric, dimetric, and trimetric projections (’267 Patent, col. 4:11-19). This could support an argument that standard 3D modeling representations fall within the claim scope.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the "immersive" quality as allowing a user to view a scene "from any vantage point and at any angle just as if the user were moving around inside or outside the actual property" (’267 Patent, col. 2:51-54). The patent also describes more advanced embodiments using stereographic images to "trick the brain... into seeing actual three-dimensional images" or using head-mounted displays with motion sensing, suggesting a higher standard than simple 3D rendering (’267 Patent, col. 4:26-34; col. 10:44-59).

• The Term: "seamlessly changing a view"

• Context and Importance: This term from independent claim 1 describes the transition between viewing different rooms. Whether a transition in the accused product is "seamless" will likely be a point of factual and legal dispute.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "seamlessly," which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any smooth or uninterrupted transition, such as one without disruptive loading screens or user interface changes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where a user can "seamlessly move the location of the virtual camera from one scene to another scene," simulating the experience of "walking through one room... and into another room" (’267 Patent, col. 6:55-61). This could support a narrower construction requiring a continuous, first-person-style movement between virtual spaces, rather than simply clicking a link or thumbnail to load a new scene.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells its products to customers and provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct and "direct end users to commit patent infringement" in the intended manner (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint establishes a basis for post-suit willful infringement by alleging that the filing and service of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement," and that any continued infringing activity thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). No facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

This dispute appears to center on the specific capabilities of the accused technology and its application in the market. The resolution of the case may depend on the answers to two key questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "real property", which is the explicit subject of the asserted method claim, be construed to cover the activities facilitated by the accused Panoee Corp. products? The court will need to determine if the accused products are primarily used for selling real estate, as claimed, or for a potentially non-infringing purpose like selling individual home goods.

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical and functional sufficiency: Does the accused system provide an "immersive" and "seamless" user experience as contemplated by the patent? The case may turn on whether the defendant's visualization tool merely provides a series of static or pre-rendered views, or if it delivers a truly interactive, first-person-style virtual environment that allows modification, as described in the ’267 patent’s specification.