Pointwise Ventures LLC v. Neiman Marcus Group Ltd LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Pointwise Ventures LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Neiman Marcus Group Ltd LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-02311, N.D. Tex., 12/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the district and having committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for using a device to point at an object, capture a digital image of it, and automatically identify a list of likely objects from that image.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to visual search and object identification, enabling users to interact with real-world or on-screen objects by pointing a camera-equipped device at them to retrieve information or initiate transactions.
• Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-09-23	’812 Patent Priority Date
2013-06-25	’812 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-12	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812 - *"Pointing and identification device"*

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812, “Pointing and identification device,” issued June 25, 2013 (’812 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art pointing devices, such as a computer mouse, were limited to detecting relative motion on a 2D surface and could not be used to "directly point at, click-on, and identify a distant absolute location" on a TV screen, computer screen, or in the real world (’812 Patent, col. 2:29-32). Conventional devices allegedly lacked the ability to use a digital camera to form an image of an object pointed at by the user for real-time identification (’812 Patent, col. 1:31-2:28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "pointing and identification device" (PID) that includes a digital camera. A user points the device at an object, actuates a button to capture a digital image, and the image is sent to a "different location" for processing (’812 Patent, Fig. 1A). Software then automatically analyzes the image to identify a list of "likely pointed-to objects" and returns this list to the user for selection (’812 Patent, col. 3:15-26; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to bridge the gap between physical or displayed objects and digital information, allowing users to interact with their environment in a "point-and-click" manner that was previously confined to on-screen cursors (’812 Patent, col. 1:15-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on infringement of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶12, 17).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’812 Patent recites a method with the following essential elements:
  • Providing a pointing and identification device comprising at least one actuation means, a digital camera, and a communication device.
  • The user points the device at an object and actuates the actuation means, causing the digital camera to form a digital image of the object.
  • Communicating the digital image to a different location.
  • Automatically identifying a list of likely pointed-to objects from the digital image at the different location.
  • Returning the list of likely pointed-to objects to the user to select one.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" but refers to charts in an unattached exhibit for their specific identification (Compl. ¶22, 27).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. The allegations suggest the accused products involve a method where users can identify objects to "get more information and/or to buy" (Compl. ¶16; ’812 Patent, col. 33:25-26). Given the defendant is a retailer, this suggests the accused functionality may relate to visual search features on an e-commerce website or mobile application.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶28). The following summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations for Claim 1.

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products practice an "unconventional method" that infringes the ’812 Patent (Compl. ¶12). The core of the infringement theory is that Defendant provides a system that performs the steps of Claim 1. This allegedly includes using a hardware device with a digital camera to capture an image of an object, which is then processed to "automatically identify[] a list of likely pointed-to objects from the digital image" (Compl. ¶17). This identified list is then allegedly returned to the user, allowing the user to "select one of the likely pointed-to objects," a functionality the complaint asserts was not possible with prior art hardware like a conventional mouse (Compl. ¶17-18). The complaint argues this combination of components and method steps was an inventive concept that taught away from conventional hardware of the prior art (Compl. ¶14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether software functionality on a general-purpose device (like a smartphone running an app) constitutes the claimed "pointing and identification device." The patent describes a dedicated hardware device, raising the question of how the claim term should be construed in the context of modern mobile applications.
• Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products perform the specific step of "automatically identifying a list of likely pointed-to objects" as required by the claim. The defense may argue that its system operates differently, for example, by identifying a single best match or by identifying general product categories rather than a "list of likely pointed-to objects" for user selection.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"pointing and identification device"

Context and Importance

This term is foundational to Claim 1. Its construction will determine whether the claim reads on a general-purpose smartphone executing an application or is limited to a dedicated piece of hardware. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint characterizes it as a "novel and unconventional hardware device" (Compl. ¶12), while the accused instrumentality is likely software running on conventional consumer electronics.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the device functionally by what it comprises: "at least one actuation means," "a digital camera," and "a communication device" (’812 Patent, col. 49:11-19). This component-level definition could be argued to cover any device, like a smartphone, that includes these elements.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contrasts the invention with prior art like the "mouse," a distinct peripheral (’812 Patent, col. 1:10-30). Figures 1A and 1B depict a standalone, handheld device separate from a computer, which could support a narrower construction limited to a purpose-built apparatus (’812 Patent, Figs. 1A, 1B).

"automatically identifying a list of likely pointed-to objects"

Context and Importance

This term describes the core data processing step of the claimed method. The dispute may turn on what degree of automation is required and whether the output of the accused system qualifies as a "list of likely pointed-to objects."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a process where a "prestored mapping of locations on the archived frame to objects then provides a list of objects potentially being pointed to by the PID" (’812 Patent, col. 3:15-18). This suggests a broad process of matching an image portion to a database to generate multiple potential results.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires returning "the list" to the user "to select one," implying a discrete set of multiple, distinct options is presented for user interaction (’812 Patent, col. 49:28-31). A system that returns a single "best guess" or a link to a product page without offering a choice among several identified objects may be argued to fall outside this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that since the filing of the complaint, Defendant has knowingly and intentionally encouraged infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶25-26).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement despite having "actual knowledge" of the ’812 Patent from the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶24-25).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "pointing and identification device," described in the patent as a novel hardware apparatus, be construed to cover a software application operating on a general-purpose smartphone or computer?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of method step equivalence: Does the accused functionality, likely a visual search feature in an e-commerce application, perform the specific, sequential method steps of Claim 1, particularly the generation and return of a "list of likely pointed-to objects" from which a user must "select one"?
• A third pivotal question will concern patent eligibility: Given the complaint’s emphasis on overcoming the limitations of conventional hardware by using software to process an image (Compl. ¶17-18), the case may raise questions about whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea of identifying an object from an image, potentially implicating 35 U.S.C. § 101.