Virtuo Convert LLC v. Xreal Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Virtuo-Convert LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: XREAL Inc. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00997, E.D. Tex., 10/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, and further asserts that Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement and caused harm within the Eastern District of Texas.
• 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 at issue falls within the field of human-computer interaction, specifically gesture-based controls that enable users to interact with electronic devices without traditional physical input hardware like a mouse or touchscreen.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings 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

• Issued: August 6, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses situations where conventional graphic user interface input devices, such as a computer mouse or touchpad, are unsatisfactory or unavailable (U.S. Patent No. 10,372,223, col. 1:33-42). Examples include scenarios where there is no surface to move a mouse, a touchpad is too small for effective use, or a user is wearing gloves (Id.).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to emulate the functions of a mouse, particularly button presses and releases, using an image detection device that tracks a user's hand gestures (’223 Patent, Abstract). The system detects a "pinching" movement between the thumb and another finger to generate a first user command (e.g., a mouse click) and a corresponding "spreading" movement to generate a second command (e.g., a mouse release) (’223 Patent, col. 3:23-37). Figures 2 and 3 of the patent visually depict the claimed "pinching" and "spreading" motions, respectively (’223 Patent, Figs. 2-3).
• Technical Importance: The described method enables mouse-like functionality for devices without traditional input hardware, a feature particularly relevant for emerging platforms like smart glasses, augmented reality systems, or other contexts where hands-free interaction is desired (’223 Patent, col. 1:45-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '223 Patent Claims" identified in an incorporated but unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the patent.
• Independent Claim 1 elements:
  • A method for providing user commands to an electronic processor.
  • A) identifying a hand of a person 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, where detection includes identifying and tracking the thumb and other finger and identifying a tracked distance between their pads.
  • C) generating a first user command (e.g., mouse press) and sending it to the processor.
  • D) detecting movement of the hand corresponding to spreading of the pads of the thumb and the other finger, including identifying a tracked distance between them.
  • E) generating a second user command (e.g., mouse release) and sending it to the processor.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products, instead referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts within Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '223 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Without the referenced exhibit, the specific functionality of the accused products cannot be determined from the complaint alone. XREAL Inc. is a known manufacturer of augmented reality (AR) glasses, which often incorporate gesture-based user interfaces.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '223 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '223 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The allegations cover direct infringement through Defendant's own making, using, testing, and selling of the products, as well as by its customers (Compl. ¶11-12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the gesture recognition performed by the accused products meets the specific method steps required by the claims. For example, does the accused system perform the claimed step of "identifying a tracked distance between the pad of the thumb and the pad of the first predetermined other finger" to detect "pinching" and "spreading," or does it use a different technical method for gesture recognition? (’223 Patent, col. 11:1-14).
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence demonstrating how the accused products' internal software and hardware operate. A key question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that the accused products' functionality corresponds to each limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the steps of generating and sending discrete "first" and "second" user commands based on the detected gestures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"detecting movement of said hand corresponding to pinching of a pad of a thumb of said hand and of a pad of a first predetermined other finger"

Context and Importance

This term is the core of the invention, defining the specific gesture that triggers a user command. The definition of "pinching" will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it dictates the required physical action and the method of its detection. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires the fingers to make physical contact or merely to approach each other within a certain threshold distance.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly require contact, only "pinching." This could be interpreted to cover any motion where the fingers move towards each other to trigger a command. The specification describes a pinch threshold distance "DTH" which, if crossed, is sufficient to trigger the command, suggesting contact is not required (’223 Patent, col. 5:15-20).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description accompanying Figure 5 describes a trajectory where, at instant t4, "the centre of the pad of the finger FA comes into contact with the centre of the pad of the finger FB" (’223 Patent, col. 4:31-33). This specific embodiment could be used to argue that "pinching" contemplates eventual physical contact between the finger pads.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '223 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of infringement acquired upon service of the complaint and the accompanying claim charts. The complaint alleges that Defendant's continued infringement after receiving such notice is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the court construe the term "pinching"? Does it require the specific detection of a "tracked distance" between finger pads as recited in the claim, and can Plaintiff show that the accused products perform this specific step rather than a more generalized form of gesture recognition?
• A second key question will be evidentiary: given the complaint's reliance on an unprovided exhibit for its infringement contentions, a central challenge for the Plaintiff will be to produce technical evidence—such as source code, technical specifications, or expert analysis—demonstrating that the accused AR products actually perform each step of the claimed method for emulating a mouse click.