PanoVision LLC v. Hyphen Solutions LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PanoVision LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Hyphen Solutions, LLC (TX)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00205, N.D. Tex., 01/27/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for facilitating sales by allowing users to visualize products within an interactive, immersive three-dimensional scene.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the e-commerce and virtual visualization space, enabling customers to preview how products, such as home furnishings or architectural changes, would look in a realistic, simulated environment before purchase.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The willfulness and inducement allegations are based on knowledge allegedly established by the service of the complaint itself.

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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,108,267, "Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service," issued January 31, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the conventional processes for selling real estate and remodeling services as inefficient, time-consuming, and burdensome for both buyers and sellers. A key drawback identified is that a customer cannot see how a new structure or remodeled space will appear until after the costly and lengthy construction process is complete, potentially leading to dissatisfaction with the final result. (Compl. ¶9; ’267 Patent, col. 1:10-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-implemented method that allows a user to view products within an "immersive three-dimensional image of a scene," such as a room in a house. The system enables the user to navigate this virtual space from any angle "just as if the user were walking around the actual property," and to add, remove, or modify features within the scene to visualize different product combinations or structural changes. (’267 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-61). The method is illustrated in flowcharts, such as those in Figures 2A and 2B, which depict steps from selecting a scene to enabling user navigation via a virtual camera. (’267 Patent, Figs. 2A-2B).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to give consumers confidence in major purchasing decisions by providing a realistic, interactive preview, thereby reducing the risk and uncertainty associated with traditional real estate transactions and remodeling projects. (’267 Patent, col. 2:61-col. 3:10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’267 Patent, referring to them as the "Exemplary '267 Patent Claims," without specifying particular claim numbers. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative:
• Independent Claim 1: A method of facilitating a sale of a real property, comprising the steps of:
  • 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 room of the selected real property;
  • seamlessly changing the view to display an immersive three-dimensional image of a second room of the real property; and
  • enabling the user to remove, add, and/or modify a feature shown in an image of one of the rooms.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services in its main body. It refers to them generally as the "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the infringement allegations are detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not included with the filed complaint document. (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint contains a visual reference to these charts, describing them as "charts comparing the Exemplary '267 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶16). Without this exhibit, the specific functionality and market context of the accused products cannot be determined from the complaint itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to an external "Exhibit 2," which is described as containing claim charts but is not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint asserts narratively that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '267 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '267 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). As the detailed claim charts are not available, a tabular analysis cannot be performed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "immersive three-dimensional image"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the core "displaying" step of claim 1. Its definition is critical to determining infringement, as the dispute may center on whether the accused system's visualization technology qualifies as "immersive." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent contrasts its invention with prior art that does not give a user a sufficiently realistic experience.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests "immersive" means the ability to "view the scene from any vantage point and at any angle just as if the user were moving around inside or outside the actual property," a feature that could be implemented on a standard computer display. (’267 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes more advanced embodiments, including the use of "stereographic images that trick the brain of the user" and display goggles, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring a more all-encompassing, virtual reality-like experience. (’267 Patent, col. 4:26-34).

• The Term: "seamlessly changing a view"

  • Context and Importance: This term from claim 1 describes the transition between viewing different rooms. The scope of "seamlessly" will be important, as it implies a certain quality and fluidity of user experience that the accused product must provide.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning, suggesting any smooth, uninterrupted transition between scenes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes enabling a user to "seamlessly move from room to room" in a manner that simulates "walking through one room... and into another room," suggesting a continuous, first-person navigational experience rather than simply loading a new, separate scene. (’267 Patent, col. 6:58-63).

• The Term: "modify a feature"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires enabling a user to "remove, add, and/or modify a feature" of a room. Whether the accused product's customization options (e.g., changing paint color, swapping furniture) constitute modifying a "feature" of the room itself will be a key infringement question.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "feature" is broad. Dependent claim 4, which depends from claim 3 (which in turn depends from claim 2 and then claim 1), refers to changing "features of a plurality of products," suggesting "feature" can apply to products within the room, not just the room's structure. (’267 Patent, col. 16:3-5).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claims 8, 9, and 10 explicitly define the "feature" as a "wall," "ceiling," and "floor," respectively. A defendant may argue this context limits the term "feature" in the independent claim to structural components of the room itself. (’267 Patent, col. 16:20-29).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’267 Patent. (Compl. ¶14). The allegation of knowledge is based on the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts. (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is willful. This allegation is predicated on alleged post-suit knowledge, asserting that by continuing its allegedly infringing activities after being served with the complaint, Defendant is acting despite "actual knowledge of infringement." (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The primary immediate question is whether the allegations, which rely entirely on an unattached exhibit, will be deemed sufficient to proceed. The substance of the case hinges on the specific functionality of the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and the infringement theories laid out in the non-public claim charts.
2. Definitional Scope: A central legal issue will be the construction of the claim term "immersive three-dimensional image". The case may turn on whether the accused product's user interface provides a sufficiently interactive and realistic experience to meet the patent's standard of "immersion," or if it is more akin to a conventional, non-immersive 3D model viewer.
3. Functional Mismatch: A key factual question for the court will be one of functional comparison: does the accused product's capability—for example, to change the color or model of an object within a scene—constitute enabling a user to "modify a feature" of the room itself (such as a wall or floor), as may be required by a narrow reading of the claims?