Virtuo Convert LLC v. Manomotion Ab

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtuo-Convert LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: ManoMotion AB (Sweden)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00994, E.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s gesture recognition technology infringes a patent related to emulating mouse button commands using specific hand gestures detected by an image sensor.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of human-computer interaction, specifically using camera-based systems to interpret hand movements as computer inputs, a key component in virtual and augmented reality systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

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

• 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 Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses situations where traditional graphic input devices like a mouse or touchpad are unsatisfactory due to lack of surface area, small size, or other physical constraints, such as a user wearing gloves (’223 Patent, col. 1:33-42). The inventor sought to emulate the fundamental operations of a mouse—specifically, button clicks—using a more flexible input method.
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses an image detection device (e.g., a webcam) to track a user's hand and translate specific finger movements into mouse button commands (’223 Patent, col. 2:50-61). The core method involves detecting the "pinching" movement of the thumb and another finger to generate a "button press" command, and the subsequent "spreading" of the same fingers to generate a "button release" command (’223 Patent, col. 3:24-38; Fig. 2-3). This allows a user to interact with a computer without physically touching an input device.
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a non-contact method for computer input, which is particularly relevant for sterile environments, immersive virtual reality applications, or situations where traditional hardware is cumbersome.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least claim 1, and refers to "exemplary claims" without specifying others (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for providing user commands to an electronic processor, corresponding to a mouse button press and release.
  • The method involves steps performed in sequence:
    • A) Identifying a hand with an image detection device.
    • 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 fingers.
    • C) Generating a first user command ("press") and sending it to the processor.
    • D) Detecting movement corresponding to spreading of the pads of the same two fingers.
    • E) Generating a second user command ("release") and sending it to the processor.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name specific products in the body of the complaint, instead incorporating them by reference from an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '223 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Based on the nature of the patent, these products are likely software development kits (SDKs) or software applications that provide gesture recognition capabilities for controlling electronic devices. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality or market positioning of Defendant's products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’223 Patent by making, using, and selling products that practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges that Defendant’s employees directly infringe by internally testing and using these products (Compl. ¶12). The complaint incorporates claim charts by reference in "Exhibit 2," but this exhibit was not attached to the filed document (Compl. ¶17).

In the absence of the claim charts, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's general allegations. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '223 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). This suggests Plaintiff's theory is that the accused products use an image sensor to identify a user's hand, track the movement of the thumb and another finger, and interpret the decreasing distance between them (pinching) as a "press" command and the increasing distance (spreading) as a "release" command, thereby emulating a mouse click as recited in claim 1 of the ’223 Patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "detecting movement of said hand corresponding to pinching"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as it defines the specific action that triggers the emulated "button press." The dispute will likely focus on what technical criteria satisfy the "pinching" limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant’s technology may recognize gestures based on different parameters than those disclosed in the patent, creating a potential non-infringement argument.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 requires "detecting movement... corresponding to pinching," which could be argued to cover any motion where the fingers move closer together, regardless of speed or final contact (’223 Patent, col. 10:59-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed embodiments where "pinching" is detected not just by decreasing distance, but by comparing that distance to an "adaptive threshold" (DTH) and also comparing the "pinch speed" to a threshold (VTH) (’223 Patent, col. 5:14-20; Fig. 6-7). This could support a narrower construction requiring the detection to be based on specific distance and/or speed thresholds, or even physical contact between the finger pads as suggested by the description of two trajectories ending at the "same point C" (’223 Patent, col. 4:26-33).

• The Term: "pad of a thumb" and "pad of a first predetermined other finger"

• Context and Importance: The claims specify that the pinching and spreading movements are detected relative to the "pad" of the fingers. The definition of "pad" could be critical if the accused system tracks a different part of the finger, such as the tip or the entire digit.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that reference points could correspond "substantially to the centre of the pad" or "alternatively... to the tips of the fingers," suggesting the term may not be strictly limited to the anatomical pad (’223 Patent, col. 4:15-20). This could support an argument that tracking any point on the fingertip is sufficient.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The consistent use of the word "pad" throughout the claims and specification, in contrast to the alternative "tips" mentioned in the detailed description, could support an argument that the claim requires tracking the fleshy part of the fingertip specifically (’223 Patent, col. 3:27-28; col. 4:17). Figures 2 and 3 also depict gestures where the pads, not the tips, are brought together.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use its products in a manner that infringes the ’223 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15). The knowledge element for inducement is alleged to be met at least from the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement, but bases its allegation of knowledge on the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶13). It alleges that despite this "actual knowledge," Defendant continues to infringe, which could form the basis for a future willfulness argument regarding post-suit conduct (Compl. ¶14).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused gesture recognition system "detect movement... corresponding to pinching" by meeting the specific criteria disclosed in the ’223 Patent’s specification (e.g., using distance and speed thresholds), or does it rely on a fundamentally different recognition model, such as machine learning, that does not perform the discrete steps required by the claims?
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope: Does the accused system track the "pad" of the fingers as recited in the claims, or does it track a different reference point (e.g., the fingertip or a skeletal joint)? The answer will depend on how the court construes the term "pad" in light of the patent’s disclosure.
• An evidentiary question will be central to the inducement claim: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's instructional materials specifically direct users to perform the patented sequence of "pinching" to press and "spreading" to release, thereby encouraging infringement, or do the materials provide more general instructions for gesture-based control?