DCT

2:25-cv-00663

Flick Intelligence LLC v. HP Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00663, E.D. Tex., 06/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant HP, Inc. has a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s xRServices platform, which utilizes smart glasses, infringes a patent related to automatic focusing eyeglasses.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to smart glasses or wearable displays that can dynamically adjust their optical properties based on detecting where a user is looking.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses for its patents, but alleges these licenses did not involve the production of a patented article and therefore do not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). Plaintiff also states it may limit its infringement claims to method claims to remove any marking requirement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-12-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,465,237 Priority Date
2016-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,465,237 Issued
2025-06-26 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,465,237 - "Automatic focus prescription lens eyeglasses"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,465,237, “Automatic focus prescription lens eyeglasses,” issued October 11, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional vision correction, such as bifocal or trifocal lenses, which require a user to look through different portions of a lens to see clearly at different distances. This is described as an "awkward user interface" for users of modern electronic and wearable displays (ʼ237 Patent, col. 1:26-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a pair of eyeglasses with "variable focus lenses" that automatically adjust their focal length. The system uses "focus distance components," such as eye trackers or sensors, to detect the distance at which the user's eyes are attempting to focus. A controller then uses this information to dynamically change the focus of the variable lenses, providing the correct vision prescription for that specific distance (ʼ237 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:17-26, 50-61). Figure 5A illustrates this process, showing the system detecting the focus distance, determining the required lens setting, and activating a lens actuator to make the adjustment (ʼ237 Patent, Fig. 5A).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to automate the process of focusing, eliminating the need for multi-focal lenses and potentially providing a seamless visual experience for users who require different prescriptions for near and far vision (ʼ237 Patent, col. 3:51-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-16 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising:
    • One or two variable focus lenses
    • One or two lens actuators to change the focus of the variable focus lenses
    • One or more focus distance components coupled to detect a focus distance, where a component includes an "eye sensor to continuously determine widths of a lens of an eye of the user"
    • Wherein the actuators set a focal distance for the lenses in response to the detected focus distance, and this setting includes an "adjustment for a vision prescription of the user"
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "xRServices" platform (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as involving "smart glasses and related systems" (Compl. ¶17). Based on the provided URL, HP xRServices appears to be a platform for industrial and enterprise applications, enabling collaboration and support through augmented reality (Compl. ¶9). The complaint alleges HP develops, manufactures, and sells these products and services, which include "Passthrough and related systems" (Compl. ¶3, ¶15). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the smart glasses or the xRServices platform itself. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit (Compl. ¶16). In its absence, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative. The complaint alleges that HP's xRServices, by using smart glasses, directly infringes claims 1-16 of the '237 patent (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). The pleading does not, however, contain specific factual allegations that map the features of the accused xRServices or its associated smart glasses to the specific elements of the asserted claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint describes the patent as relating to "bidirectional communications and data sharing" (Compl. ¶14), while the patent itself is titled "Automatic focus prescription lens eyeglasses" and details a specific optical apparatus. A primary question will be whether HP's xRServices, an industrial augmented reality platform, falls within the scope of claims directed at personal vision correction devices.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused smart glasses perform the functions required by Claim 1. Key technical questions for the court may include:
      • What evidence demonstrates that the accused smart glasses contain "variable focus lenses" capable of changing their focal length, as opposed to fixed-focus displays?
      • What evidence shows the accused system employs an "eye sensor to continuously determine widths of a lens of an eye of the user" to detect focus distance, as opposed to other gaze-tracking or head-positioning technologies?
      • What evidence supports the allegation that the accused system makes an "adjustment for a vision prescription of the user"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "an eye sensor to continuously determine widths of a lens of an eye of the user" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core mechanism for detecting focus distance. The construction of this term is critical to determining whether the accused system's method of gaze or focus detection infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity could be a central point of non-infringement arguments.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for a broad interpretation. A party might argue that "determine widths" should not be read literally and could encompass any method of detecting the eye's accommodative state, which correlates to focus.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this sensor as one that "continuously measure[s] whether the lens has a flattened shape... or is thickened... and therefore has a smaller diameter or width" (ʼ237 Patent, col. 7:10-15). This language suggests the claim requires a sensor that performs a specific physical measurement of the user's own biological eye lens.

  • The Term: "variable focus lenses" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the output component of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused smart glasses utilize lenses whose focal length is actively and dynamically changed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should cover any technology that effectively changes the focus for the user, including digital-focus or image processing techniques in a display.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes physical "electro-optical" (e.g., liquid crystal) and "opto-mechanical" lenses that change their refractive properties or physical shape (ʼ237 Patent, col. 4:30-54). This could support a narrower construction limited to physical, adjustable optical elements rather than purely digital display effects.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement. The stated factual basis is that HP instructs its customers on how to use the accused "smart glasses and related systems" through its website and product manuals (Compl. ¶17-18). It further alleges the accused product is not a staple article of commerce and that its "only reasonable use was an infringing use" (Compl. ¶18).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conditional allegation of willfulness, stating that if discovery reveals Defendant knew of the patent prior to the lawsuit and continued to infringe, Plaintiff will seek enhanced damages (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

This case appears to present several fundamental questions regarding the alignment of the patent's claims with the accused technology. The resolution of the dispute may turn on the following key issues:

  1. A core issue will be one of technological mismatch: can the claims of a patent for "automatic focus prescription lens eyeglasses," which describe a specific apparatus for personal vision correction, be read to cover an industrial augmented reality platform like HP's "xRServices"? The complaint's generic characterization of the patent's technology may be an attempt to bridge this apparent gap.

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of factual support: the complaint makes conclusory infringement allegations without providing specific facts showing how the accused smart glasses meet highly specific claim limitations, such as the use of "variable focus lenses" or an "eye sensor to continuously determine widths of a lens of an eye." The case will likely depend on whether discovery can produce evidence to substantiate these claims.

  3. The outcome will be heavily influenced by claim construction: the viability of the infringement theory hinges on whether key terms like "variable focus lenses" and the "eye sensor" limitation are given a broad interpretation or are construed narrowly based on the specific physical mechanisms described in the patent's specification.