PanoVision LLC v. Deft & Tact Solutions Pvt Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PanoVision LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Deft & Tact Solutions Pvt Ltd. (India)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00746, E.D. Tex., 07/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation and has purportedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's software products and/or services, which facilitate virtual visualization for e-commerce, infringe a patent related to methods for displaying products within an immersive, three-dimensional digital scene.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of virtual and augmented reality tools used in e-commerce, particularly for visualizing home remodeling projects or real estate properties.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit but does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history relevant to the patent.

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"

• Issued: January 31, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies inefficiencies and dissatisfaction in conventional real estate and home remodeling transactions (U.S. Patent No. 8,108,267, col. 1:12-28). It notes that customers often cannot accurately visualize how a finished project or property will look, leading to costly and time-consuming processes with potentially undesirable outcomes (col. 1:12-28, 1:54-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a computer-implemented method to solve this problem by allowing a user to view products or properties within an "immersive three-dimensional image of a scene" (’267 Patent, col. 2:38-40). As described in the detailed description, this system enables a user to view the scene from any vantage point and angle, "just as if the user were moving around inside or outside the actual property," thereby providing a realistic preview before any physical changes are made (’267 Patent, col. 2:50-54; Abstract). The system architecture involves a user computing station connected via a network to a server system (Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The claimed method sought to leverage interactive 3D visualization to reduce the financial risk and uncertainty inherent in high-value transactions like real estate purchases and home renovations (’267 Patent, col. 1:5-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’267 Patent, identifying them as the "Exemplary '267 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim.
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • 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 property;
  • Seamlessly changing the view to display an immersive three-dimensional image of a second room of the property; and
  • Enabling the user to remove, add, and/or modify a feature shown in the image of either room.
• The complaint does not foreclose the possibility of asserting dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). Specific product names are not provided in the body of the complaint; they are purportedly identified in charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not included in the public filing (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '267 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). The allegations suggest the products are software-based tools that allow users, including customers and Defendant’s own employees, to visualize items within a digital environment (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The complaint further alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that it incorporates by reference claim charts from an attached "Exhibit 2" comparing the "Exemplary '267 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the plaintiff's specific theories is not possible.

The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s products satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). This suggests the accused products provide a system where users can select a property or scene, view rooms in an interactive 3D environment, navigate between different views or rooms, and modify features within that environment, thereby directly infringing the method claimed in the ’267 Patent (Compl. ¶11).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products meet the limitation of enabling a user to "select a real property from a plurality of real properties being offered for sale" (’267 Patent, col. 15:1-3). If the accused products are primarily for visualizing products in generic or user-created scenes rather than for browsing listed real estate, this limitation may be a significant point of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused products' functionality meets the patent's specific technical requirements. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the view changes are "seamlessly" performed, and does the visualization qualify as an "immersive three-dimensional image" as those terms are described in the patent specification?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "immersive three-dimensional image"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's technical contribution. Its construction will be critical in determining whether modern 3D rendering technologies, which are common in e-commerce and design software, fall within the claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term can encompass known 3D rendering techniques, such as "axonometric projections," which include isometric, dimetric, and trimetric projections (’267 Patent, col. 4:15-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly characterizes the experience as allowing a user to view a scene "just as if the user were moving around inside or outside the actual property" (’267 Patent, col. 2:50-54). It also describes using "stereographic images that trick the brain of the user... into seeing actual three-dimensional images," suggesting a more realistic, VR-like experience may be required (’267 Patent, col. 4:26-30).

• The Term: "real property...being offered for sale"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase appears in the first step of Claim 1 and may function as a significant limitation on the scope of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could confine the patent's applicability to dedicated real estate sales platforms, potentially excluding general-purpose design or product visualization tools.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's title, "Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service," could support an argument that the claims are not strictly limited to real estate but extend to visualizing any product (e.g., cabinets, faucets) for sale within a scene that represents a real property.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background of the invention extensively discusses the problems and inefficiencies of the conventional "real estate sales process" (’267 Patent, col. 1:54-2:27). Furthermore, Claim 1 explicitly requires selecting from "a plurality of real properties being offered for sale," which suggests the method begins with an activity akin to browsing a real estate listing.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that actively and knowingly instruct its customers and end users to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the ’267 Patent (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The basis for willfulness is alleged post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its attached claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringing activity thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Is the claimed method limited to platforms for selling listed real estate, as suggested by the claim language "select a real property from a plurality of real properties being offered for sale," or can it be construed more broadly to cover modern e-commerce tools that visualize products within any representative scene?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Assuming the scope question is resolved in Plaintiff's favor, what evidence will demonstrate that the accused products' visualization technology meets the specific standard of an "immersive" experience and "seamlessly changing" views, as those terms are defined by the 2008-era patent specification?