PanoVision LLC v. Smith Douglas Homes Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PanoVision LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Smith Douglas Homes Corp. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00256, TXSD, 01/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s methods for marketing and selling real property, which purportedly allow customers to visualize homes, infringe a patent related to facilitating sales through immersive 3D scenes.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves computer-implemented systems that allow users to virtually experience and customize products or properties, such as real estate, in a three-dimensional environment 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 allegation of willfulness is based on knowledge gained from the filing of the present complaint.

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 describes the conventional processes for selling real estate and remodeling homes as inefficient, burdensome, and risky for both buyers and sellers (’267 Patent, col. 1:24-66). Buyers struggle to visualize how a property will look with changes or different furnishings, while remodeling customers cannot see the end result before committing significant funds, which can lead to dissatisfaction (’267 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method that allows a user to view an "immersive three-dimensional image of a scene," such as a room in a house (’267 Patent, Abstract). The user can select a property, navigate through different rooms, and modify features within the scene to see how potential changes would appear. The system is designed to provide a realistic impression by allowing the user to view the scene from any vantage point, "just as if the user were walking around the actual property" (’267 Patent, col. 2:50-65).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to reduce friction in high-value transactions by providing a realistic, interactive preview, thereby increasing buyer confidence and reducing the risk of post-purchase or post-construction dissatisfaction (’267 Patent, col. 3:5-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them, instead referring to an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• 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, and 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 of the real property that has been selected and the image of the second one of the plurality of rooms of the real property that has been selected.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Defendant products" and refers to them as "Exemplary Defendant Products" in an external exhibit not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶11). Given Defendant is Smith Douglas Homes Corp., a home builder, the accused instrumentality is presumably its website, software, or in-person sales tools used to market and sell homes (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific details on the functionality of the accused products. It alleges Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users (i.e., potential home buyers) to use its products in a manner that infringes the ’267 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The implicit allegation is that these tools allow users to view and customize home designs online.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to an external document, "Exhibit 2," which contains claim charts but was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement via a claim chart.

The narrative theory of infringement suggests that Defendant’s methods of marketing and selling homes directly infringe the ’267 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The allegation is that Defendant provides a system where a user (a prospective home buyer) can select a property, view immersive 3D images of various rooms, navigate between these rooms, and visualize modifications to features within those rooms, thereby performing the steps of claims such as independent claim 1.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the accused marketing tools meet the definition of an "immersive three-dimensional image" as required by the claims. The interpretation could range from a basic 3D rendering to a more advanced stereoscopic or virtual-reality-based environment, which the patent specification discusses as a possibility (’267 Patent, col. 4:26-34). Similarly, the meaning of "seamlessly changing a view" will be at issue.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether Defendant’s systems "enable[] the user... to remove, add, and/or modify a feature." The case may turn on whether simple customization of finishes (e.g., changing paint color or cabinet style) meets this limitation, or if it requires the ability to make more structural modifications (e.g., moving or deleting a wall), a feature also contemplated by the patent (’267 Patent, col. 15:20-22).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "immersive three-dimensional image"

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its construction will determine the technological threshold for infringement. The dispute will center on how "immersive" the experience must be to fall within the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent frequently uses the term in a general sense to describe a 3D scene that a user can navigate from any vantage point, suggesting any interactive 3D walkthrough could qualify (’267 Patent, col. 2:50-55).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses more advanced technologies to achieve a more realistic experience, such as "stereographic images that trick the brain of the user or viewer into seeing actual three-dimensional images" (’267 Patent, col. 4:26-31). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits "immersive" to such advanced implementations.

The Term: "seamlessly changing a view"

• Context and Importance: This term from claim 1 defines the user experience when navigating between different parts of the virtual property. Its construction will be critical to determining if Defendant's user interface, which may involve clicking between separate webpages or image galleries for each room, meets the claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that any user-initiated transition between two room views without restarting the entire process is "seamless."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes simulating a user "walking through one room... and into another room," which suggests a continuous, uninterrupted transition rather than loading discrete, separate scenes (’267 Patent, col. 6:55-60).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant’s "product literature and website materials" instruct and encourage end users (customers) to use the accused systems in a manner that directly infringes the ’267 Patent’s method claims (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint bases its willfulness allegation on post-suit knowledge, asserting that the "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts... 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

1. A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations regarding the accused technology, the case will depend on whether evidence, presumably contained in the unattached Exhibit 2 and developed during discovery, can demonstrate that Defendant's home-marketing tools actually perform each step of the asserted method claims.

2. The case will also hinge on claim construction: The outcome will likely be shaped by the court’s interpretation of key terms. A central question will be whether the term "immersive three-dimensional image" can be construed to cover the standard 3D virtual tours and configurators common in the real estate industry, or if it is limited to the more advanced, highly interactive virtual environments described in the patent's specific embodiments.

3. A third question relates to functionality: Does the accused system's ability to "modify a feature" extend beyond simple cosmetic choices (e.g., changing colors) to include the more structural alterations (e.g., adding or removing walls) contemplated by the patent, and is that level of modification required to infringe?