Virtuo Convert LLC v. Ultraleap Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtuo-Convert LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Ultraleap Limited (UK)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00996, E.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products, which likely involve gesture-based control technology, infringe a patent related to emulating computer mouse commands using hand gestures.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of human-computer interaction, specifically using image sensors to interpret hand movements as control inputs, displacing traditional peripherals like a mouse.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings concerning the patent-in-suit. The allegations of knowledge and inducement are based solely on the filing of the instant complaint.

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 “’223 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional graphic user interface devices. It notes that a mouse requires a physical surface to operate, while touchpads and touchscreens can be too small for effective use or are rendered inoperable if the user is wearing gloves (’223 Patent, col. 1:33-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention emulates the functionality of a computer mouse—specifically the press and release of a button—by using an image detection device to recognize specific hand gestures (’223 Patent, col. 1:52-60). The method involves detecting a "pinching" movement, where the thumb and another finger move together, to generate a first command equivalent to a button press (illustrated in Fig. 2). Subsequently, detecting a "spreading" movement of the same two fingers generates a second command equivalent to a button release (illustrated in Fig. 3) (’223 Patent, col. 3:11-38).
• Technical Importance: This technology offers a method for contactless control of electronic devices, which can be useful in environments where physical input devices are impractical or in applications like virtual and augmented reality.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and "exemplary claims" of the ’223 Patent without specifying which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶11). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative claim.
• Independent Claim 1 requires, in sequence:
  • A) Identifying a person's hand with an image detection device.
  • B) Detecting a "pinching" movement between the pad of the thumb and the pad of another finger, which includes identifying and tracking those fingers.
  • C) Generating and sending a first user command (the "press").
  • D) Detecting a "spreading" movement between the pad of the thumb and the pad of the other finger.
  • E) Generating and sending a second user command (the "release").
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within an "Exhibit 2" which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused products. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '223 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No allegations are made regarding the products' specific market context or commercial importance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference its infringement allegations from claim charts in an external "Exhibit 2," which is not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint's narrative theory alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '223 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '223 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent language and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions.

• Scope Questions: A central question will concern the scope of the terms "pinching" and "spreading." The court will need to determine whether these terms are limited to the specific algorithmic definitions provided in the patent's detailed implementation examples (e.g., involving distance thresholds, speed calculations, and monotonicity checks) or if they encompass a broader range of finger-approximation and separation gestures (’223 Patent, col. 5:15-44; col. 9:8.1-8.2.1.2.1.1).
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what specific movements Defendant's products are designed to detect. The analysis will require evidence showing whether the accused systems perform the claimed sequence of: (1) identifying and tracking specific finger pads, (2) detecting a "pinching" motion to trigger a first command, and then (3) detecting a subsequent "spreading" motion to trigger a second, distinct command, as required by Claim 1 of the ’223 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention, defining the specific gesture that triggers the first user command ("button press"). Its construction will determine whether a wide variety of finger-touching gestures infringe or only those that meet specific criteria outlined in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the gesture simply as detecting movement "corresponding to pinching" (’223 Patent, col. 3:25-29), which could support a construction that does not require meeting every parameter of the specific embodiments.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a highly specific algorithm for recognizing a valid pinch, which includes comparing finger distance to an adaptive threshold ("DTH"), calculating pinch speed relative to a threshold ("VTH"), and checking for monotonic decrease in distance (’223 Patent, col. 5:15-50; Fig. 6-7). Defendant may argue these detailed steps define and limit the scope of the term.

The Term: "image detection device" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term dictates the type of hardware to which the patented method applies. Its scope is critical to determining whether the accused products, which likely use some form of optical or infrared sensor, fall within the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the device "could be a digital camera, a digital video camera (for example a 'webcam'), or a more specialized device" and that images could be in the "visible range, in the infrared or in another range" (’223 Patent, col. 2:57-65). This language suggests a broad interpretation covering various sensor types.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly references a specific commercial product, the "Leap Motion Controller," and describes an implementation based on the high-level, three-dimensional spatial information it provides (’223 Patent, col. 2:61, col. 7:31-33). An argument could be made that the term should be construed to require a device capable of providing similarly detailed 3D spatial data, rather than any simple 2D camera.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of its infringement since being served with the complaint and that its continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶13-14). This allegation is based on post-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Will the term "pinching" be construed broadly to cover any gesture of bringing fingers together, or will it be limited by the detailed algorithmic constraints (e.g., speed, distance, and monotonicity thresholds) described in the ’223 Patent’s specific embodiments?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Given the absence of specific infringement allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff will bear the burden of demonstrating through discovery that Defendant’s gesture-recognition technology performs the precise sequence of finger tracking, pinch detection, command generation, and subsequent spread detection as recited in the asserted claims.
• A final question will be one of intent: Can Plaintiff develop sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant, through its user documentation, specifically intended for its customers to perform the patented method, as required to sustain a claim for induced infringement?