DCT

1:25-cv-01668

Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. Creepy Greens Entertainment Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01668, W.D. Tex., 10/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the allegation that the San Antonio defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s operation of commercial virtual reality games and experiences infringes a patent related to determining an object's six-degree-of-freedom position and orientation using on-board optical sensors.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue, known as inside-out positional tracking, is fundamental to modern virtual and augmented reality systems, enabling users to move naturally within a digital environment.
  • Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-30 '540 Patent Priority Date
2016-01-05 '540 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 - "Deriving Input From Six Degrees Of Freedom Interfaces"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of accurately and efficiently determining the "absolute pose"—the complete position and orientation—of an unconstrained item moving in a three-dimensional space, particularly for items manipulated by a human user for interacting with a digital environment (’540 Patent, col. 4:31-46). Prior art solutions are described as often being limited, cumbersome, or lacking the robustness needed for a seamless user interface (’540 Patent, col. 3:36-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an interface where a unit on-board the user-held item (e.g., a camera) observes "non-collinear optical inputs" from a stationary object in the environment (e.g., the edges of a television screen) (’540 Patent, Abstract). By processing these optical inputs, the system can recover the item's absolute pose within a stable reference frame and map that information to generate input for a software application, such as controlling a cursor or navigating a virtual space (’540 Patent, col. 18:1-24; Fig. 1A).
  • Technical Importance: This "inside-out" tracking approach, where the moving object perceives the static world, offers a potentially self-contained and scalable alternative to "outside-in" systems that use fixed external cameras to track an object, a design choice central to the development of consumer-grade virtual reality headsets (’540 Patent, col. 4:41-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’540 Patent, col. 90:7-45; Compl. ¶10).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • An interface for producing an input from the absolute pose of an item associated with a user.
    • A unit on-board the item configured to receive non-collinear optical inputs from at least one stationary object to establish a stable frame.
    • Processing electronics that use a computer vision algorithm with a "homography" to recover the item's absolute pose from a geometrical description of the optical inputs.
    • An application that uses a signal related to the absolute pose as an input, where the pose has at least three translational and three rotational degrees of freedom, and an aspect of the application varies with the pose.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert numerous dependent claims, including Claims 2, 11-19, 25, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 44-49 (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "games and experiences that use virtual reality" offered by the Monster Defendants, which are alleged to utilize Virtual Reality Headsets (VR HMDs) such as the "HP Reverb, HTC Vive or other VR HMD" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused VR HMDs feature on-board cameras that receive optical inputs from the surrounding physical environment, including "lighted and unlighted objects," to track the headset's position and orientation in real-time (Compl. ¶11). This tracking data is then used as input for the VR application, allowing a user to navigate and interact with a "simulated environment" (Compl. ¶11). A photograph included in the complaint shows customers wearing VR headsets while seated on an attraction, illustrating the commercial use of the accused technology in an entertainment venue (Compl. p. 5). The complaint identifies software platforms such as "MS Mixed Reality" and "Valve SteamVR" as interfaces used by the HMDs (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’540 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An interface for producing an input from an absolute pose of an item associated with a user in a three-dimensional environment... The Monster Defendants use an interface embodied in a Virtual Reality Headset (VR HMD) to produce input from the headset's absolute pose. ¶11 col. 8:3-9
a) a unit on-board said item, said unit configured to receive non-collinear optical inputs presented by at least one stationary object in said three-dimensional environment... for establishing a stable frame... The on-board cameras of the VR HMD receive non-collinear optical inputs from stationary objects in the physical environment to establish a stable frame for tracking. ¶11 col. 8:49-51
b) processing electronics employing a computer vision algorithm using a homography to recover said absolute pose of said item from a geometrical description of said non-collinear optical inputs... The Monster Defendants use electronics with a computer vision algorithm employing a "homography (homography aka projective or perspective transformation)" to recover the headset's absolute pose. ¶11 col. 36:9-14
c) an application employing said signal in said input, wherein said absolute pose of said item comprises at least three translational degrees of freedom and at least three rotational degrees of freedom... and at least one aspect of said application varies with said absolute pose of said item. The Monster Defendants use a VR application (game or experience) that employs the recovered pose signal, which includes six degrees of freedom, to allow user navigation and interaction. A screenshot shows a "HOLOGATE" system that transports players into an interactive simulated environment (Compl. p. 7). ¶11 col. 7:44-54

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the use of a "homography" to recover the absolute pose (Compl. ¶11). A central question may be whether the specific computer vision algorithms used in the accused VR tracking systems (e.g., Simultaneous Localization and Mapping, or SLAM, algorithms) meet the technical and legal definition of "using a homography" as required by the claim. The defense may argue that their methods, while functionally similar, are algorithmically distinct.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires recovering "absolute pose" in a "stable frame" established by "stationary object(s)." A potential point of dispute could be whether the dynamically generated and updated environmental maps created by modern VR systems constitute a "stable frame" in the manner contemplated by the patent, which often uses a single, fixed object like a television screen as its primary example (Compl. ¶11; ’540 Patent, Fig. 1A).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "homography"

    • Context and Importance: This term is a specific technical limitation in Claim 1. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused products' tracking algorithms perform a calculation that constitutes a "homography." Practitioners may focus on this term because modern VR tracking systems often rely on complex, multi-stage algorithms that may or may not include a step that is technically a homography calculation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint parenthetically defines "homography" as "aka projective or perspective transformation" (Compl. ¶11), suggesting Plaintiff may argue for a broader definition that covers a general class of geometric transformations.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification refers to homography as a specific, efficient method for comparison in pose estimation ('540 Patent, col. 36:9-14), suggesting it is a particular algorithm rather than a general concept. A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to its specific mathematical definition in the field of computer vision (an invertible transformation between two projective planes).

  • The Term: "absolute pose"

    • Context and Importance: The patent defines this term as an item's position and orientation within a "stable frame" ('540 Patent, Abstract). The dispute may center on whether the pose calculated by the accused VR systems, which build a map of their surroundings as they move, qualifies as "absolute" in the patent's sense.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification acknowledges that a "stable frame" is a matter of convention and not truly stationary in an astronomical sense, but is defined by "stationary objects" in the user's environment ('540 Patent, col. 2:43-52). This could support a reading that covers any locally consistent coordinate system.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples predominantly feature a single, pre-identified stationary object, such as a television, that defines the stable frame ('540 Patent, Fig. 1A, obj. 126). A defendant could argue this implies a pre-defined or static frame, in contrast to the dynamically generated frames common in modern SLAM-based tracking systems.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that the Monster Defendants provide the accused VR systems to end-users with instructions and training, intending for those users to directly infringe the '540 Patent by operating the equipment as designed (Compl. ¶¶20-23).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the basis of knowledge of the patent and infringement "since at least the date of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶16, ¶18). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are pleaded.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical scope: does the term "homography," a specific algorithm in computer vision, read on the broader class of complex, multi-stage SLAM algorithms that are alleged to be used in modern VR headset tracking systems? The outcome may depend on whether the court construes the term as a narrow, required algorithmic step or as representative of a broader functional outcome.
  • A key question of definitional interpretation will be whether the dynamically generated and constantly refined coordinate systems created by the accused VR systems qualify as a "stable frame" for recovering "absolute pose" as those terms are used in the patent, which primarily illustrates the concept using a single, fixed stationary object.