Virtuo Convert LLC v. Crunchfish Ab

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtuo-Convert LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Crunchfish AB (Sweden)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00993, E.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a foreign corporation, and it is alleged to have committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for providing user commands to an electronic device by detecting specific hand gestures, such as pinching and spreading fingers, to emulate mouse button operations.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of gesture-based human-computer interaction, which seeks to provide device control without physical input devices like mice or touchscreens.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,372,223 (“Method for providing user commands to an electronic processor and related processor program and electronic circuit”), issued August 6, 2019 (the “’223 Patent”).

U.S. Patent No. 10,372,223 - Method for providing user commands to an electronic processor and related processor program and electronic circuit

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes situations where conventional graphic user interface devices like a mouse or touchscreen are unsatisfactory, such as when a user lacks a surface for a mouse, finds a touchscreen too small, or is wearing gloves (’223 Patent, col. 1:33-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes to solve this problem by emulating a mouse using an image detection device to interpret specific hand gestures (’223 Patent, col. 2:49-53). A "first user command," corresponding to a mouse button press, is generated when the system detects a "pinching" movement between the pad of the thumb and the pad of another finger (’223 Patent, col. 3:24-30; FIG. 2). A "second user command," corresponding to a button release, is generated upon detecting a subsequent "spreading" movement of the same two fingers (’223 Patent, col. 3:31-38; FIG. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables users to provide discrete commands, analogous to mouse clicks, to an electronic device without requiring physical contact with an input surface (’223 Patent, col. 2:1-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit not attached to the complaint, without specifying any particular claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A) identifying a hand of a person with an image detection device configured to detect a sequence of images;
  • B) detecting movement of the hand corresponding to pinching of a pad of a thumb and a pad of a first predetermined other finger, which includes identifying and tracking the thumb and finger and identifying a tracked distance between their pads;
  • C) generating a first user command (e.g., a mouse press) and sending it to the processor;
  • D) detecting a subsequent movement corresponding to the spreading of the thumb and other finger, which also includes identifying a tracked distance between their pads; and
  • E) generating a second user command (e.g., a mouse release) and sending it to the processor.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general allegation against "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses unspecified "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')" (Compl. ¶11). These charts were not provided with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It states only that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '223 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim charts detailing its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe by practicing the claimed technology and satisfying all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the gesture recognition in the accused products meets the specific limitations of the claims. For example, does the accused technology detect the "pinching of a pad of a thumb... and of a pad of a first predetermined other finger" as claimed, or does it recognize a more general hand-closing gesture that does not depend on the pads of specific fingers?
• Technical Questions: The claims require "identifying a tracked distance between the pad of the thumb and the pad of the first predetermined other finger." A key question will be whether the accused products perform this specific measurement. The complaint does not provide evidence on whether the accused system explicitly calculates a distance between two finger pads, as depicted in the patent's FIG. 6, or if it infers a "pinch" state through other means, such as holistic hand-pose estimation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "pinching of a pad of a thumb... and of a pad of a first predetermined other finger" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the specific user action that triggers the first command (the "mouse press"). Its construction is critical because it will determine whether infringement requires detection of a precise, fingertip-to-fingertip motion, or if a more general gesture of bringing fingers together is sufficient.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's brief summary describes the invention more generally as an "emulation by means of (automatic) visual detection of gestures of the hand," which might support a construction that is not strictly limited to the pads (’223 Patent, col. 2:58-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly recites the "pad" of the thumb and another finger. The detailed description consistently refers to the "pad of the thumb" and the "pad of the other finger," and FIG. 2 clearly illustrates a gesture involving the fingertips (’223 Patent, col. 3:26-29; FIG. 2). This language may support a narrower construction limited to the specific fleshy part of the fingertip.

The Term: "identifying a tracked distance between the pad of the thumb and the pad of the first predetermined other finger" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the technical method for detecting the "pinching" and "spreading" motions. The dispute may turn on whether the accused products perform this specific distance-tracking function or use an alternative method for gesture recognition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any system that successfully distinguishes a "pinch" from a "spread" inherently or implicitly tracks the distance between the relevant fingers, even without an explicit distance calculation step.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes and illustrates this concept with technical specificity. FIG. 5 shows the trajectory of finger pads (A1, B1) moving to a contact point (C), and FIG. 6 explicitly graphs the distance "d" between the fingers over time, suggesting that "identifying a tracked distance" is a distinct, required step of measurement and analysis (’223 Patent, col. 4:21-44; FIGs. 5-6).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '223 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its attached claim charts "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," and that Defendant’s continued activities thereafter are willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "pinching of a pad," which the patent describes with specific fingertip mechanics, be construed to cover the particular gesture-recognition technique employed by the accused products? The answer will depend on evidence concerning how those products technically operate, which is not present in the complaint.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what proof can be offered that the accused products perform the specific claimed step of "identifying a tracked distance" between two finger pads, as opposed to using a different algorithmic approach, such as machine learning models that classify a holistic hand pose as "open" or "pinched" without explicitly measuring inter-digit distances?