PanoVision LLC v. ECI Software Solutions Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PanoVision LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: ECI Software Solutions, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00069, N.D. Tex., 01/27/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and has caused harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s software products infringe a patent related to methods for facilitating sales by virtually displaying products in an immersive three-dimensional scene.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves computer-generated, interactive 3D environments used in e-commerce and design to allow customers to visualize products (such as furniture or building materials) in a realistic setting before purchase.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The claim of willful infringement is based on knowledge 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 for remodeling properties as "inefficient and burdensome" for both buyers and sellers (’267 Patent, col. 1:55-56). A key drawback is that a customer cannot see what a new or changed structure will look like until after the "significant financial cost and a significant period of time" have already been expended, which can lead to unsatisfactory results (’267 Patent, col. 1:21-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method that allows a user to virtually experience a property or a remodeled space. It does so by displaying an "immersive three-dimensional image of a scene" where a user can place and view selected products, such as cabinets or faucets (’267 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-47). The system is designed to allow the user to change the vantage point and viewing angle "just as if the user were moving around inside or outside the actual property," providing a realistic preview of the final result (’267 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
• Technical Importance: This technology sought to provide a "realistic impression" of a redesigned space or new property, thereby reducing the risk, cost, and uncertainty inherent in traditional construction, remodeling, and real estate sales processes (’267 Patent, col. 3:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them, referring only to the "Exemplary '267 Patent Claims" in a referenced exhibit not attached to the public filing (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core method for real estate sales.
• 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 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 or the image of the second one of the plurality of rooms.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within an Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It makes only general allegations that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products and that its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates its infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). The narrative alleges 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). Without the exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent's claims and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions once the accused products are identified.
  • Scope Questions: A central question will concern the scope of the term "immersive three-dimensional image." The dispute may focus on whether the accused software’s display, which might be a simple 3D model viewer, meets the patent's potentially higher standard of a user being able to "view the scene from any vantage point and at any angle just as if the user were moving around" (’267 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
  • Technical Questions: A likely point of dispute will be the "seamlessly changing a view" limitation in claim 1. The analysis will question whether the accused product provides a fluid transition between different rooms that simulates "walking through one room... and into another" (’267 Patent, col. 6:55-60), or if it simply loads a new, static scene, which may not meet the claimed limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: The definition of "immersive" is fundamental to the scope of the claims. The patent’s protection may be broad enough to cover many modern 3D product configurators or narrow enough to cover only highly realistic, virtual reality-like experiences. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether a wide range of common e-commerce visualization tools infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that 3D objects can be represented in 2D using "axonometric projections," a conventional technique that does not require a fully interactive, first-person environment (’267 Patent, col. 4:15-19). This could support a broader construction that includes more basic 3D viewers.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes creating a "realistic impression" that "even more closely resembles a real-life situation," for instance by using stereographic images that "trick the brain... into seeing actual three-dimensional images" (’267 Patent, col. 4:26-31; Abstract). This language suggests a narrower scope limited to technologies that provide a more powerful sense of presence and realism.

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

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the required user experience when navigating between different virtual spaces (e.g., rooms). Infringement may depend on whether the accused product’s transitions are merely functional (i.e., loading a new scene) or if they must be fluid and continuous.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to mean simply that a user can navigate from one room's image to another without exiting the application or restarting the process.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more specific context, stating the user "can seamlessly move from room to room" to simulate the view "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 suggests a requirement for a continuous, uninterrupted transition that mimics physical movement, rather than an abrupt loading of a new, separate scene.

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 '267 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that "[t]he service of this Complaint... constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," and that Defendant’s continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "immersive three-dimensional image," as described in the patent, be construed to cover the specific type of 3D visualization technology used in Defendant’s software, or does the patent require a higher degree of realism and interactivity than the accused products provide?
• A second key issue will be one of functional operation: does the accused software’s method for navigating between different virtual scenes meet the "seamlessly changing a view" limitation of claim 1, particularly given the specification’s description of simulating a user "walking" from one room into another?
• An immediate procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: the complaint provides no factual detail regarding infringement and instead incorporates allegations from an unprovided exhibit. A threshold issue will be whether the allegations, once fully presented, are sufficient to plausibly link the specific functionality of an accused product to the patent's claims.