DCT

2:26-cv-00034

Matrixed Reality Technology Co Ltd v. Eden Future HK Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00034, E.D. Tex., 01/15/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper because Defendants are foreign corporations not resident in the United States and thus may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “VITURE” brand of augmented reality (AR) glasses infringes a patent related to optical systems for wearable AR devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of optical engines in AR glasses, focusing on improving image quality and user privacy by controlling the path and polarization of light.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously asserted the European counterpart to the patent-in-suit against Defendant Eden Future HK Limited in Germany, resulting in the issuance of a preliminary injunction. This prior litigation is presented as evidence of Defendants' pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-02-12 ’839 Patent Priority Date
2024-05-21 ’839 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-22 Alleged date of Defendants' knowledge of the '839 Patent
2026-01-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,988,839 - *Augmented reality apparatus and optical system therefor*

(Issued May 21, 2024; ’839 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies shortcomings in conventional head-mounted AR devices. These include the user being able to directly see stray light from the image projection source, which degrades image contrast and causes discomfort, and light from the projected image exiting the device, which compromises user privacy and can cause unwanted reflections ('839 Patent, col. 1:51-2:10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a specific arrangement of optical components to manage the path of polarized light. A polarizer is placed between the image source and a polarizing beam splitter, ensuring that only light of a specific polarization (the second direction) is transmitted to the splitter ('839 Patent, col. 2:39-48). This light is then reflected by the beam splitter towards a semi-reflector and into the user's eye. The patent also describes placing an "additional wave plate and an additional polarizer" after the semi-reflector to absorb and prevent the projected image from exiting the glasses, thereby enhancing privacy ('839 Patent, col. 5:12-30; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This optical architecture is designed to create a more efficient and private viewing experience in a compact form factor suitable for consumer AR glasses.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('839 Patent, col. 24:1-24:51; Compl. ¶29).
  • Claim 1 of the ’839 Patent requires:
    • An image projection source.
    • A polarizing beam splitter arranged to receive light from the source.
    • A polarizer disposed between the image source and the beam splitter, configured to absorb light of a first polarization and transmit light of a second polarization.
    • A wave plate adjacent to the beam splitter.
    • A semi-reflector located downstream of the wave plate.
    • An additional wave plate and an additional polarizer located in that order distal to the semi-reflector, configured to absorb exiting light.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "VITURE" brand of AR/XR glasses, including the VITURE Pro XR/AR Glasses, VITURE Luma Pro XR Glasses, and VITURE Luma Ultra XR/AR Glasses ("Accused Products") (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are described as "premium AR/XR devices" that are sold in the United States through major retail channels such as Amazon and Best Buy, as well as an official website (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges these products are manufactured in China and imported into the United States for sale to consumers (Compl. ¶7). To support venue allegations, the complaint includes a map showing Best Buy retail locations throughout Texas where the Accused Products are allegedly sold (Compl. ¶22; p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’839 Patent (Compl. ¶29). It states that a claim chart illustrating this infringement is attached as Exhibit 9; however, this exhibit is not included with the provided complaint document (Compl. ¶30). The complaint itself does not contain a narrative breakdown of how the Accused Products meet each element of the asserted claim. Consequently, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided materials. The core of the infringement theory rests on the allegation that the optical systems within the Accused Products incorporate the specific arrangement of components recited in claim 1.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Structural Questions: The primary technical dispute will likely focus on whether the optical architecture of the Accused Products contains the specific sequence of components mandated by claim 1. This includes the presence and location of: (1) a polarizer between the image source and the beam splitter, (2) a first wave plate, (3) a semi-reflector, and (4) an additional wave plate followed by an additional polarizer, all in the claimed spatial relationship.
  • Functional Questions: A related question may be whether the components in the Accused Products, even if present, function as claimed. For example, does the component identified as the "additional polarizer" perform the claimed function of absorbing "the exiting linearly polarized light"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a polarizer disposed between the image projection source and the beam-splitting side of the polarizing beam splitter"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines a key structural element of the invention intended to filter light before it reaches the beam splitter. Practitioners may focus on this term because the precise location and function of this initial polarizer are critical to the patent's stated goal of improving image quality and preventing the user from seeing the light source directly. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused devices contain a distinct component that meets this structural and functional definition.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the purpose of the polarizer is to eliminate the possibility "that the human eye 40 sees the image projection source 10 directly through the polarizing beam splitter 21" ('839 Patent, col. 12:20-24). A party could argue that any component between the source and splitter achieving this purpose meets the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 explicitly depicts the polarizer (60) as a separate element located upstream of the polarizing beam splitter (21) ('839 Patent, Fig. 3). A party could argue this specific embodiment limits the claim to configurations with a physically distinct and separate polarizer component in that exact location.

  • The Term: "an additional wave plate and an additional polarizer which are located in this order distal to the semi-reflector"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation describes a two-component system designed to prevent the projected image from exiting the AR glasses, thereby enhancing user privacy. Its construction is critical because it requires not only the presence of two specific components (a wave plate and a polarizer) but also a specific sequence ("in this order") and location ("distal to the semi-reflector").
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires the components to be "distal to," which could be argued to mean anywhere on the exit path after the semi-reflector, not necessarily immediately adjacent to it.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 shows the "second quarter-wave plate" (70) and "polarizer" (80) as distinct elements located in a specific sequence immediately after the semi-reflector (30) ('839 Patent, Fig. 5). The specification also describes them as being integrated directly onto the semi-reflector substrate, which may suggest a physically compact and ordered arrangement ('839 Patent, col. 13:54-14:2).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by "knowingly and intentionally inducing others (including distributors, retailers, and end-users) to directly infringe" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint does not plead specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, that demonstrate an intent to encourage infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the ’839 Patent and its family since at least September 22, 2025, based on Plaintiff's assertion of the European counterpart patent against Defendant Eden Future in a German court, which resulted in a preliminary injunction (Compl. ¶¶32-33). This pre-suit notice is alleged as the basis for willful infringement.

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

  • A central issue will be one of technical correspondence: Do the accused VITURE glasses contain the precise, multi-element optical train recited in claim 1, including both the pre-splitter polarizer designed to enhance image quality and the post-reflector wave plate and polarizer system designed to ensure privacy? The highly specific nature of the claim suggests the case may turn on a direct comparison of the claimed optical architecture against the physical construction of the accused devices.
  • A key legal question will be the impact of the prior foreign litigation. The court will need to assess whether the assertion of a European counterpart patent against one defendant provides the requisite knowledge and intent to support a claim of willful infringement of the subsequently issued U.S. patent against all named defendants, a finding that could lead to enhanced damages.