PanoVision LLC v. Builders FirstSource Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PanoVision LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Builders FirstSource, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00203, N.D. Tex., 01/27/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having an established place of business in the district and allegedly committing acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for facilitating sales by allowing a user to visualize products within an immersive, three-dimensional virtual scene.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the e-commerce and virtual design sector, specifically concerning tools that enable customers to preview architectural or design changes to a property before purchase or construction.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,108,267 - Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the conventional processes for real estate sales and home remodeling as inefficient, burdensome, and time-consuming. It notes that a customer often cannot see how a new structure or change will look until after the work is completed and paid for, which can lead to dissatisfaction and costly revisions ('267 Patent, col. 1:11-28, col. 1:55-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method that enables a user to view an "immersive three-dimensional image" of a scene, such as a room in a property, on an electronic display. The user can select products and see them placed within this virtual scene, and can change the vantage point to view the scene from different angles, simulating the experience of being physically present ('267 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-61). The system is designed to give the user a "realistic impression" of the final result before committing to a purchase or project ('267 Patent, col. 3:4-9).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to increase buyer confidence in high-value online transactions, such as home remodeling or real estate purchases, by bridging the gap between a 2D online representation and the final real-world outcome ('267 Patent, col. 3:6-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '267 Patent Claims" but does not identify specific claims in the body of the document (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1, a method claim, is representative of the patent's core teachings.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • enabling a user of a computing device to select a real property from a plurality of real properties being offered for sale;
  • displaying, on an electronic display, an immersive three-dimensional image of a first one of a plurality of rooms of the real property that has been selected;
  • seamlessly changing a view on the electronic display in order to display an immersive three-dimensional image of a second one of the plurality of rooms of the real property on the display; and
  • enabling the user of the computing device to remove, add, and/or modify a feature shown in an image selected from the group consisting of the image of the first one of the plurality of rooms...and the image of the second one of the plurality of rooms...

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name any accused products in its main body. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')" (Compl. ¶11). These charts, designated as Exhibit 2, were not attached to the publicly filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" are made, used, sold, and offered for sale by Defendant (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges that Defendant's employees internally test and use these products (Compl. ¶12). Without Exhibit 2, the specific functionality of the accused instrumentality cannot be determined from the complaint itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are made by incorporating by reference an external document, "Exhibit 2," which purportedly contains claim charts comparing the "Exemplary '267 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16). As Exhibit 2 was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint.

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '267 Patent" and that they "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '267 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how the accused products meet each limitation of any asserted claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "immersive three-dimensional image" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term appears central to the dispute, as it defines the quality of the user experience required by the claim. The question is whether a standard 3D rendering on a 2D screen qualifies, or if a more advanced, virtual-reality-like experience is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine what types of visualization technology fall within the patent's scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term can cover conventional displays, stating that "the electronic display 16, 16' is used to display three-dimensional images by representing three-dimensional objects in two dimensions" using methods like "axonometric projections" ('267 Patent, col. 4:10-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a more advanced embodiment "that even more closely resembles a real-life situation," using "stereographic images that trick the brain of the user or viewer into seeing actual three-dimensional images" with glasses or goggles ('267 Patent, col. 4:25-32). A defendant may argue this language limits "immersive" to stereoscopic or VR-type displays.

• The Term: "seamlessly changing a view" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term describes the transition between viewing different rooms. Its definition is important to distinguish between simply loading a new, distinct image file versus a more fluid, connected virtual movement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which could support a plain and ordinary meaning of any smooth transition that does not require restarting the application or a lengthy, disjointed loading process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides context suggesting a continuous virtual experience, where the displayed images "simulate the view that the user would obtain if the user were walking through one room represented by a scene and into another room represented by another scene" ('267 Patent, col. 6:55-60). This could support a narrower construction requiring a simulated "walk-through" capability.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct and instruct end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint bases its allegation of knowledge on the service of the complaint itself, stating "at least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim charts, Defendant has actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" (Compl. ¶15). No pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue stems from the complaint's structure. By pleading infringement almost entirely through an unprovided external exhibit, a central question will be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief under the standards of Iqbal and Twombly.
2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely turn on claim construction. A core question for the court will be whether the term "immersive three-dimensional image" requires a stereoscopic, VR-like experience as described in a preferred embodiment, or if it can be read more broadly to cover standard 3D renderings on a 2D screen.
3. Functional Operation: A key factual question will be whether the accused products' transition between viewing different areas constitutes "seamlessly changing a view." The dispute may focus on whether the accused functionality is more akin to loading separate scenes or to the continuous, "walk-through" experience described in the '267 patent's specification.