DCT
1:23-cv-01386
Immersion Corp v. Meta Platforms
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Immersion Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Folio Law Group PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01386, W.D. Tex., 11/10/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Austin and has committed acts of infringement within the district. The complaint heavily references a venue ruling in a parallel case between the same parties (Meta I) to support its allegations.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Meta Quest 3 augmented and virtual reality systems, along with associated software and game engines, infringe five U.S. patents related to haptic feedback technology.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is haptics, the science of touch, which provides users with tactile sensations (e.g., vibrations) to enhance the realism and immersion of interactions with virtual objects and environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of all five patents-in-suit due to an earlier, ongoing lawsuit filed by Plaintiff on May 26, 2022 (Meta I), which asserted the same patents against Defendant's previous generation of AR/VR products (Quest 2 and Quest Pro). This prior litigation is the basis for the complaint's allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-22 | ’806 Patent Priority Date |
| 2010-09-30 | ’217, ’298, & ’143 Patents Priority Date |
| 2013-03-15 | ’222 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-06-25 | ’806 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-08-08 | ’217 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-04-02 | ’298 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-04-23 | ’222 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-05-26 | ’143 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-05-26 | Plaintiff files Meta I lawsuit, allegedly giving Meta knowledge of patents-in-suit |
| 2023-10-10 | Accused Meta Quest 3 product begins shipping |
| 2023-11-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
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"
- Patent Identification: 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 describes conventional haptic systems as providing only static and simple feedback that confirms a basic event has occurred, without correlating the feedback to the nuances of a user's physical gesture ('806 Patent, col. 1:39-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a single, complex "control gesture" is broken down into distinct portions (e.g., initial, intermediate, ending). The system determines and generates a different haptic stimulation for at least two of these different portions, providing feedback that evolves with the user's continuous action ('806 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-18). For example, the haptic sensation for starting a gesture would feel different from the sensation while continuing or completing it.
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to create a more immersive and intuitive user experience by making haptic feedback dynamic and responsive to the progression of a user's input gesture ('806 Patent, col. 1:45-47).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶55).
- Essential elements of Claim 11 include:
- Monitoring the performance of a "control gesture" that includes an initial portion, a first intermediate portion, and an ending portion.
- Determining a haptic stimulation that includes a "first stimulation" responsive to the initial portion and a "second stimulation that is different from the first" responsive to the first intermediate portion.
- Generating the determined stimulation with a haptic device during the gesture.
U.S. Patent No. 9,727,217 - "Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,727,217, "Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content," issued August 8, 2017.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background notes that while conventional systems provided visual and audio feedback for virtual interactions, a "physical sense of interaction with virtual objects" was not provided to users ('217 Patent, col. 1:45-47).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system centered on a "manipulatable input device" (e.g., a controller) that can move through real space in at least three degrees of freedom and contains a haptic output device. The system receives sensor signals indicating the device's position and its identification, establishes a communication pathway, and determines a "feedback parameter" based on this information. It then transmits a haptic signal to the device to produce a haptic effect corresponding to the virtual interaction ('217 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This technology creates a closed loop between a user's physical manipulation of a controller in 3D space and the tactile feedback received, deepening the sense of immersion in a virtual environment ('217 Patent, col. 3:4-10).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶86).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A manipulatable input device movable in at least three degrees of freedom and incorporating a haptic output device.
- A processor in communication with the haptic output device.
- A memory with instructions for the processor to: receive sensor signals indicating the device's position and identification; establish a communication pathway; determine a feedback parameter based on the position and identification; and transmit a haptic signal to the device to generate a haptic effect based on the parameter.
U.S. Patent No. 10,248,298 - "Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,248,298, "Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content," issued April 2, 2019.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the lack of a "physical sense of interaction" with virtual objects ('298 Patent, col. 1:41-43). The invention describes a system that detects when a peripheral in free space interacts with a virtual object and then determines separate feedback parameters—one based on the peripheral's identifier (e.g., left vs. right controller) and another based on its specific position—to generate a corresponding haptic signal ('298 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶106).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Meta Quest 3 system of infringing when a user, for example, plays Beat Saber. The system allegedly detects an interaction when a controller (the peripheral) strikes a virtual block, and determines haptic feedback based on which controller was used (identifier) and its position relative to the block (Compl. ¶¶114-119).
U.S. Patent No. 10,269,222 - "System with wearable device and haptic output device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,269,222, "System with wearable device and haptic output device," issued April 23, 2019.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent seeks to provide useful user feedback in augmented reality systems, noting the limitations and computational intensity of object recognition ('222 Patent, col. 1:29-37). The disclosed system comprises a wearable device (e.g., headset) and a second, remote device. A processor generates different control signals for a first event and a second, different event, causing a haptic output device to provide distinct haptic feedback signals for each ('222 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶129).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Meta Quest 3 headset (wearable device) and controllers (second device). It alleges infringement occurs in Beat Saber when the system generates a first control signal and haptic feedback for cutting a standard note (a first event) and a second, different control signal and haptic feedback for cutting an "arc note" (a second event) (Compl. ¶137).
U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143 - "Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,664,143, "Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content," issued May 26, 2020.
- Technology Synopsis: Addressing the lack of physical interaction in virtual environments, this patent describes a system that uses a position sensor to track a peripheral worn on a user's head ('143 Patent, col. 1:49-51). Based on the head's position, the system determines what interactive content to display and also determines a corresponding haptic signal to send to a haptic output device, linking head movement to both visual and tactile feedback ('143 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶147).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Meta Quest 3 headset (peripheral worn on head) and its Oculus Insight tracking system (position sensor). Infringement is alleged to occur in games like Resident Evil 4, where getting "hit" by an enemy (the second interactive content) depends on the user's head location, which in turn determines the haptic signal generated in the controllers (Compl. ¶¶162, 165).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The Accused Instrumentalities include the Meta Quest 3 AR/VR hardware, associated software such as Horizon Worlds, First Steps, Beat Saber, and Resident Evil 4, integrated game engines like Unity and Unreal Engine, and corresponding dedicated servers for multiplayer applications (Compl. ¶¶1-2).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Meta Quest 3 system consists of a headset containing processors and a display, along with two handheld "Touch Plus" controllers that provide "TruTouch Haptics" (Compl. ¶¶58, 60). The system's "Oculus Insight" technology tracks the position of the user's head and controllers in three-dimensional space, enabling interaction with virtual environments (Compl. ¶¶63, 94). The complaint alleges that Meta exerts control over the entire ecosystem by providing development tools and APIs, setting design requirements for software, and operating the Quest Store through which applications are sold (Compl. ¶22). It further alleges that Meta hosts dedicated servers that monitor user inputs and manage multiplayer game states (Compl. ¶¶25-26). The complaint provides an image from Meta's developer documentation illustrating a client-server model for multiplayer applications (Compl. p. 11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’806 Patent 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 Accused Instrumentalities allegedly monitor the user's controller movements during a multi-part action, such as grabbing a bowstring (initial), drawing it back (intermediate), and releasing it (ending) in the Launching Examples world. | ¶63, ¶65-67 | col. 2:10-14 |
| determining, on the one or more processors, haptic stimulation associated with performance of the control gesture...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... | The system allegedly determines a first haptic feedback upon grabbing the bowstring and a different haptic feedback while drawing the bowstring to different lengths. | ¶71-72 | col. 2:14-18 |
| generating, with the haptic device, the determined stimulation during performance of the control gesture. | The user allegedly experiences the determined haptic stimulations in the Touch Plus controller (the haptic device) while performing the bow-and-arrow gesture. The complaint points to developer APIs as the mechanism for generating this vibration. | ¶77-78 | col. 2:18-20 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the court may be the definition of "control gesture." The infringement theory depends on whether a sequence of distinct user actions (e.g., grab, pull, release) can be considered a single, unitary "control gesture" with different "portions," as required by the claim. An alternative interpretation might be that these are separate, discrete inputs, each with its own feedback, falling outside the claim's scope.
- Technical Questions: The complaint illustrates the accused functionality with screenshots of a user drawing a virtual bow (Compl. p. 23). A technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the haptic feedback for "grabbing" the bowstring is quantifiably "different from" the haptic feedback for "drawing" it, as the claim requires.
’217 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a manipulatable input device movable through real space in at least three degrees of freedom, the manipulatable input device incorporating a haptic output device | The Meta Quest 3 "Touch Plus" controllers, which are tracked in 3D space and contain haptic actuators. | ¶90 | col. 4:25-29 |
| a processor in communication with the haptic output device | The Qualcomm Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2 processor located in the Quest 3 headset, which is in wireless communication with the haptic devices in the controllers. | ¶91 | col. 4:11-14 |
| receive one or more sensor signals indicating a position of the manipulatable input device in the at least three degrees of freedom and an identification of the manipulatable input device | The Oculus Insight tracking system allegedly receives signals that indicate the 3D position of each controller and identify it (e.g., as the left or right controller). | ¶94, ¶98 | col. 6:58-62 |
| establish a communication pathway between the manipulatable input device and the processor | The controllers are allegedly paired with the headset to automatically establish a wireless communication connection when turned on. The complaint includes an image from Meta's documentation describing the pairing process (Compl. p. 35). | ¶95 | col. 2:50-55 |
| after establishing the communication pathway, determine a feedback parameter based at least in part on the position...and the identification of the manipulatable input device | Game engines allegedly use the controller's position and identity to determine what haptic feedback to provide. The complaint points to an API that uses a "controllerMask" to specify which controller (LTouch or RTouch) receives the vibration. | ¶96-98 | col. 2:62-65 |
| transmit a haptic signal to the haptic output device, the haptic signal configured to cause the haptic output device to output a haptic effect according to the feedback parameter. | In a game like Beat Saber, when a user slices a note, a haptic signal is allegedly transmitted to the corresponding controller, causing it to vibrate. The complaint includes an in-game screenshot from Beat Saber to illustrate this interaction (Compl. p. 37). | ¶100 | col. 2:55-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "feedback parameter" will be a key issue. The complaint's theory suggests that using the controller's position and identity as inputs to select a predefined haptic effect meets this limitation. It raises the question of whether the claim requires a more dynamic calculation where the parameter itself (e.g., a value representing force or intensity) is determined, rather than just triggering a canned effect.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory is distributed across the headset (processor) and controllers (haptic device). The evidence needed to show that the processor in the headset performs the claimed "determining" and "transmitting" steps, as opposed to functionality executed on the controller itself, may be a point of technical dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’806 Patent:
- The Term: "control gesture"
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the infringement allegation for the '806 patent. The plaintiff's case requires that a sequence of distinct physical actions (e.g., grabbing, pulling back, and releasing a virtual bowstring) constitutes a single, unified "control gesture." The case may turn on whether the term is construed to cover such multi-step sequences or is limited to more continuous, singular motions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes "control gestures through which the user controls, for example, a game," which is general language that could encompass any set of user actions aimed at a single in-game outcome ('806 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites an "initial portion," a "first intermediate portion," and an "ending portion." This sequential, portioned structure could suggest a continuous, uninterrupted motion, which might not read on the discrete "grab, then pull" actions alleged in the complaint.
For the ’217 Patent:
- The Term: "feedback parameter"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining whether the accused system's software architecture infringes. The complaint alleges that using the controller's position and identity to trigger a haptic effect satisfies the requirement of "determin[ing] a feedback parameter." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will decide whether simply selecting a pre-programmed effect based on location is sufficient, or if the claim requires the system to dynamically calculate a specific value (the parameter) that dictates the haptic output's characteristics (e.g., intensity, duration).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the parameter to be "based at least in part on the position" and identification of the device, which suggests the relationship need not be exclusive or strictly mathematical ('217 Patent, col. 8:62-65). This could support an interpretation where position is simply one input into a logic tree that selects an output.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's stated goal of providing a "physical sense of interaction" could imply that the "feedback parameter" must correspond to a physical quantity (e.g., force, texture, momentum) that is calculated from the interaction, rather than being a simple trigger for a generic vibration effect ('217 Patent, col. 1:45-47).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis for these claims includes allegations that Meta provides developers with game engines (Unity, Unreal), software development kits (SDKs), specific application programming interfaces (APIs) for haptics, and documentation that instruct and enable them to implement the allegedly infringing features (Compl. ¶¶9, 33, 73-74, 97).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is a central allegation. The complaint asserts that Meta gained actual knowledge of all five patents-in-suit no later than May 26, 2022, the filing date of the Meta I lawsuit, which asserted the same patents against Meta's earlier Quest 2 and Quest Pro products (Compl. ¶49). The complaint further alleges that Meta received Immersion's infringement contentions in that case by August 2022, providing it with "full and specific knowledge of the manner of its infringement" (Compl. ¶51). The subsequent development and launch of the Quest 3, which allegedly infringes in a "substantially similar, if not identical" manner, is therefore alleged to be intentional and willful (Compl. ¶¶48, 53).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: for the '806 patent, can the term "control gesture" be construed to cover a sequence of discrete user actions like grabbing and then drawing a virtual object, or is it limited to a single, continuous motion? For the other asserted patents, does using a controller's position and identity simply to trigger a predefined vibration meet the claim requirement of "determin[ing] a feedback parameter"?
- A second central question will be one of willfulness and the effect of prior litigation: given that the same patents were asserted against Meta's older products in a prior case, what evidence will be required to demonstrate that Meta's decision to launch the functionally similar Quest 3 constituted "brazen" and willful infringement sufficient to warrant enhanced damages?
- A third key evidentiary question may relate to divided infringement: since the accused functionality involves actions by Meta (providing the platform and APIs), third-party game developers (implementing the features), and end-users (performing the gestures), can Immersion establish that Meta directs or controls all necessary steps of the asserted method claims to prove direct infringement?