1:23-cv-00623
Immersion Corporation v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Immersion Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Folio Law Group PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00541, W.D. Tex., 05/26/22
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a continuous and systematic presence, including a place of business in Austin employing over 2,000 individuals, a significant office lease, a planned data center in Temple, and numerous employees and job openings related to the accused AR/VR technology.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Meta Quest 2 virtual reality systems, and associated software and services, infringe six patents related to haptic feedback technology.
- Technical Context: Haptic technology provides tactile sensations to users of electronic devices, enhancing the sense of touch to create more immersive and intuitive user experiences, particularly in virtual and augmented reality environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any significant procedural events, such as prior litigation between the parties or post-grant validity challenges concerning the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-22 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 |
| 2010-09-30 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,727,217; 10,248,298; 10,664,143 |
| 2012-08-24 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,896,524 |
| 2013-03-15 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,269,222 |
| 2013-06-25 | U.S. Patent No. 8469806 Issues |
| 2014-11-25 | U.S. Patent No. 8896524 Issues |
| 2017-08-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9727217 Issues |
| 2019-04-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10248298 Issues |
| 2019-04-23 | U.S. Patent No. 10269222 Issues |
| 2020-05-26 | U.S. Patent No. 10664143 Issues |
| 2022-05-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,469,806 - "System and method for providing complex haptic stimulation during input of control gestures, and relating to control of virtual equipment," Issued June 25, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that conventional haptic stimulation provides static feedback that does not correlate strongly with the real-world control of virtual equipment, limiting the user experience (Compl. ¶47; ’806 Patent, col. 1:39-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides for complex, multi-part haptic feedback corresponding to a single, continuous user action, described as a "control gesture" (Compl. ¶48). As described in the specification, the system generates a first haptic stimulation responsive to an "initial portion" of the gesture and a second, different stimulation responsive to a subsequent "intermediate portion" of the same gesture, creating a more dynamic and intuitive tactile sensation over the duration of the user's input (’806 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows haptic feedback to evolve during a single user input, providing more nuanced information and creating a more immersive experience than simple, static event confirmations (Compl. ¶48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶54).
- The essential elements of claim 11 include:
- monitoring, on one or more processors, performance of a control gesture by a user, wherein the control gesture... includes an initial portion, a first intermediate portion, and an ending portion;
- determining, on the one or more processors, haptic stimulation... wherein the haptic stimulation includes a first stimulation determined responsive to performance of the initial portion..., and a second stimulation that is different from the first stimulation and is determined responsive to performance of the first intermediate portion...; and
- generating, with the haptic device, the determined stimulation during performance of the control gesture.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶54).
U.S. Patent No. 8,896,524 - "Context-dependent haptic confirmation system," Issued November 25, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that conventional systems provide static haptic effects that do not vary based on the context of a user’s interaction with an interface element (Compl. ¶47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses "context metadata" associated with a user interaction to customize the resulting haptic feedback (Compl. ¶49). This metadata, which can include data on the functionality of an interface element or its history of use, is mapped to one or more haptic parameters (e.g., magnitude, duration) to generate a unique haptic signal for that specific interaction (’524 Patent, col. 1:44-55). This allows a single user interface element to generate multiple different confirmation haptic effects depending on the context of the interaction (Compl. ¶49).
- Technical Importance: This method enables haptic feedback to convey more nuanced information beyond a simple confirmation, allowing the "feel" of an interaction to communicate details about its function or history (Compl. ¶49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶84).
- The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- receiving context metadata associated with a user interaction of a user interface element, wherein the context metadata comprises at least one of: data indicating a functionality of the user interface element, or data indicating a history of the user interface element;
- mapping the received context metadata to one or more haptic parameters;
- generating a haptic signal based at least in part on the one or more haptic parameters; and
- sending the haptic signal to an actuator to generate the confirmation haptic effect.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶84).
U.S. Patent No. 9,727,217 - "Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content," Issued August 8, 2017
The Invention Explained
The patent discloses systems and methods for interacting with virtual objects using multiple physical peripherals, such as a controller for each hand, that can be moved freely through real space with at least three degrees of freedom. This approach aims to provide users with a more tangible, physical sense of interaction with objects in a virtual environment (Compl. ¶50).
Key Claims at a Glance
At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶100).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the Meta Quest 2 system, which utilizes two handheld touch controllers that are tracked through real space to allow users to manipulate virtual objects, infringes the ’217 Patent (Compl. ¶¶104, 108).
U.S. Patent No. 10,248,298 - "Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content," Issued April 2, 2019
The Invention Explained
The patent describes a system that detects a user's interaction with a virtual object via a peripheral moving in free space. The system determines haptic feedback by generating a first feedback parameter that depends on an identifier of the specific peripheral (e.g., left or right hand controller) and a second feedback parameter that depends on the peripheral's particular position in free space ('298 Patent, col. 12:56-col. 13:5).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts infringement of at least claim 9, and provides an analysis based on claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶119-120).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses the Meta Quest 2 system, which tracks its controllers in free space and can provide haptic feedback based on the controller's identity and position during interactions with virtual objects (Compl. ¶¶127, 132).
U.S. Patent No. 10,269,222 - "System with wearable device and haptic output device," Issued April 23, 2019
The Invention Explained
The patent teaches a system comprising a wearable device (such as headwear) and a second, remote device that communicate with each other. A processor generates distinct control signals, and corresponding distinct haptic feedback signals, for different events that occur in an environment related to the devices (Compl. ¶¶51, 142).
Key Claims at a Glance
At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶141).
Accused Features
The complaint identifies the Meta Quest 2 headset as the "wearable device" and the touch controllers as the "second device remote from" it. The system is alleged to generate different haptic feedback for different in-game events, such as striking different objects in the game Beat Saber (Compl. ¶¶145, 146, 151, 155).
U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 - "Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content," Issued May 26, 2020
The Invention Explained
The patent describes a system where a peripheral worn on a user's head is tracked in real space. The system outputs different interactive content to a display based on the head's position and determines a haptic signal based on both that position and the new content being displayed (Compl. ¶¶52, 161).
Key Claims at a Glance
At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶160).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses the Meta Quest 2 headset, which is tracked in real space, where a user's head movement (e.g., a "dodge" motion in the game Creed: Rise to Glory) causes the displayed content to change and triggers a corresponding haptic signal (Compl. ¶¶171, 175, 179).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Accused Instrumentalities are the Meta Quest 2 virtual reality system (including headset and touch controllers), related software and games (Horizon Worlds, First Steps, Beat Saber, Creed: Rise to Glory), and the dedicated servers that support this ecosystem (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
The Meta Quest 2 is a standalone VR system featuring a headset and two handheld controllers, both of which are tracked in six degrees of freedom (Compl. ¶¶104, 108). The system's touch controllers incorporate actuators capable of providing haptic feedback to the user during gameplay (Compl. ¶59). The complaint alleges that Meta exercises significant control over the entire ecosystem by setting design and technical requirements for developers, curating the content on its Quest Store, providing specific APIs for implementing haptics, and operating the servers for multiplayer applications (Compl. ¶¶22-23, 27). The complaint also points to the system's commercial importance, citing user spending of over $1 billion on Quest Store content (Compl. ¶28, fn. 36). The complaint provides a screenshot from the "First Steps" application showing a user interacting with a virtual button, which is one of the accused functionalities (Compl. ¶89; p. 26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'806 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitoring, on the one or more processors, performance of a control gesture by a user, wherein the control gesture... includes an initial portion, a first intermediate portion, and an ending portion; | The system monitors the user's action of drawing a virtual bow and arrow in Horizon Worlds, which comprises grabbing the bowstring (initial portion), drawing it back (intermediate portion), and releasing it (ending portion). | ¶¶62, 64-67 | col. 2:1-9 |
| determining... haptic stimulation... includes a first stimulation determined responsive to performance of the initial portion... and a second stimulation that is different from the first stimulation and is determined responsive to performance of the first intermediate portion...; | The system determines a first haptic feedback upon grabbing the bowstring and a second, different haptic feedback (e.g., representing increasing tension) as the user draws the bowstring back. The complaint includes a screenshot series illustrating the partial and full draw of the virtual bow (Compl. ¶71; p. 21). | ¶¶70, 71 | col. 16:1-6 |
| generating, with the haptic device, the determined stimulation during performance of the control gesture. | The touch controllers (the haptic device) generate the determined haptic stimulations, which the user experiences while performing the bow-drawing action. The complaint points to developer APIs as the mechanism for generating this feedback. | ¶¶76, 77 | col. 16:7-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the fluid, multi-step action of drawing and releasing a virtual bow constitutes a single "control gesture" with discrete "portions" as contemplated by the patent, or whether the claim requires more distinct, sequential inputs.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a "different" haptic feedback is provided during the draw phase compared to the initial grab (Compl. ¶71). A point of contention may be the evidentiary basis for this difference and whether any variation in feedback (e.g., a continuous increase in intensity) meets the claim limitation of a distinct "second stimulation."
'524 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving context metadata associated with a user interaction of a user interface element, wherein the context metadata comprises at least one of: data indicating a functionality of the user interface element, or data indicating a history of the user interface element; | In the First Steps application, the system receives data related to the history of interaction with user interface elements, such as the degree to which a virtual button has been pressed or the path a virtual cube has been moved. The complaint provides screenshots showing the progressive depression of a virtual button (Compl. ¶89; p. 26). | ¶¶89, 90 | col. 1:44-55 |
| mapping the received context metadata to one or more haptic parameters; | The system allegedly maps this contextual information, such as collision data (e.g., contact points, impact velocity) provided by the Unity game engine, to determine specific haptic parameters like frequency or amplitude. | ¶¶90, 91 | col. 2:1-4 |
| generating a haptic signal based at least in part on the one or more haptic parameters; | The system generates a haptic signal based on the mapped parameters, resulting in different haptic effects for different tasks (e.g., button pressing versus cube moving), as confirmed by testing. | ¶92 | col. 2:5-8 |
| sending the haptic signal to an actuator to generate the confirmation haptic effect. | The generated signal is sent to an actuator within the touch controllers, causing the user to experience the haptic effect. | ¶94 | col. 2:8-11 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the term "history of the user interface element" can be construed to cover real-time, continuous positional data (e.g., the depth of a button press) during a single interaction, or if its meaning is limited to data about discrete, prior interactions (e.g., the number of times a button was previously clicked).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question may be what specific evidence demonstrates that the accused software uses the alleged "context metadata" to map to and generate a customized haptic effect, as opposed to simply using a general physics engine to trigger a pre-programmed effect upon collision.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’806 Patent:
- The Term: "control gesture"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to claim 11. The infringement case depends on whether a user's continuous 3D motion of drawing a virtual bow is properly characterized as a single "control gesture" containing the claimed "initial," "intermediate," and "ending" portions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention in the general context of controlling a "game, a real world component or piece of equipment, and/or other entity," suggesting the term is not limited to any specific type of input device or gesture (’806 Patent, col. 3:9-13).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Many of the patent’s specific examples and figures depict interactions with a 2D touch-sensitive surface (’806 Patent, Figs. 2, 4). This could support an argument that the intended scope of "control gesture" is limited to the more discrete, sequential inputs characteristic of 2D interfaces, rather than fluid 3D motions.
For the ’524 Patent:
- The Term: "context metadata"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical, as infringement hinges on whether real-time data like the depth of a button press or the position of a moving virtual object qualifies as "context metadata," specifically "data indicating a history of the user interface element."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, requiring only "data indicating a history of the user interface element" (’524 Patent, col. 8:22-24). This could plausibly be read to include the sequence of states that comprise the "history" of a single, ongoing interaction.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example of history as "a speed at which a user either types on the user interface element... or touches the user interface element," which relates to the rate of discrete, past events (’524 Patent, col. 2:9-14). This may support a narrower construction limited to data about past interactions, not the continuous state of a current one.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint contains factual allegations that may support a claim for induced infringement. It alleges that Meta provides developers with documentation, software development kits, and specific Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that instruct them on how to implement the accused haptic functionality in their games and applications (Compl. ¶¶22(c), 22(e), 23(b), 77, 93).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit or other facts that would typically form the basis of a willfulness claim.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the patent specifications, such as "control gesture" from the ’806 patent, be construed broadly enough to cover the fluid, continuous 3D motions of modern VR interactions, or will their meaning be constrained by the more discrete, 2D examples provided in the patents?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional implementation: for patents like the ’524 patent, what evidence will show that the accused Meta Quest 2 system specifically uses "context metadata" to dynamically map and customize haptic effects, as opposed to merely triggering pre-defined effects based on general collision events from a physics engine?
- A central challenge may relate to proving infringement by a single entity: given that the accused system involves hardware (Meta), software (Meta and third-party developers), and user actions, a key legal question will be whether Plaintiff can satisfy the requirements for direct infringement for the asserted system and method claims based on Meta’s alleged control over the entire VR ecosystem.