Flick Intelligence LLC v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Google, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00051, W.D. Tex., 01/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google ARCore software platform and related systems infringe patents related to methods for displaying supplemental data associated with an object or element shown on a display.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of augmented reality (AR) and interactive media, where digital information is overlaid onto a user's view of the real world or a media stream.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge, prior litigation, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit. Willfulness allegations are based on knowledge of the patents as of the complaint's filing date.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-12-31	U.S. Patent No. 9,465,451 Priority Date
2011-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,965,237 Priority Date
2016-10-11	U.S. Patent No. 9,465,451 Issued
2018-05-08	U.S. Patent No. 9,965,237 Issued
2023-01-26	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,465,451 - “Method, system and computer program product for obtaining and displaying supplemental data about a displayed movie, show, event or video game”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,465,451, issued October 11, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Existing systems for obtaining information about video content were described as too general, lacking a way for users to select a specific element within a scene (e.g., a particular product or person) and receive information about only that element (’451 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user can point a device at a "point of interest" within a video frame on a primary display. The system detects this selection and, in response, displays supplemental information associated with that point of interest on a secondary display, such as the user's handheld device (’451 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:6-15). The system architecture envisions a primary multimedia display, a pointing device, and a secondary display for the supplemental information (’451 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create a more granular and interactive viewing experience, allowing users to actively query specific objects within media content rather than relying on general, pre-packaged information (’451 Patent, col. 2:7-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-14 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1:
  • Determining a location of a primary display in relation to an augmented reality (AR) device, using markers on the primary display.
  • The AR device comprises a secondary display.
  • Detecting a selection of a scene element, where a viewer uses the AR device to point at and select the element on the primary display.
  • Displaying additional information to the viewer on the secondary display in response to the selection.
• The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted.

U.S. Patent No. 9,965,237 - “Methods, systems and processor-readable media for bidirectional communications and data sharing”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,965,237, issued May 8, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem as the ’451 Patent: the need for methods to obtain information about specific elements within displayed media (’237 Patent, col. 2:50-65).
• The Patented Solution: This invention discloses a method where a user registers a wireless handheld device (HHD) with a multimedia display system and selects a "profile icon" to act as their personal cursor on the main display (’237 Patent, Abstract). The user can then manipulate this cursor with their HHD to select on-screen content and receive supplemental data on their HHD or another display (’237 Patent, Fig. 23).
• Technical Importance: The system provides a framework for multiple users to interact with a shared display simultaneously, each using their own device and personalized cursor, which is particularly relevant in gaming or other collaborative environments (’237 Patent, col. 27:3-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-16 (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1:
  • Registering at least one wireless hand held device with a controller associated with at least one multimedia display.
  • Selecting at least one profile icon for use as a cursor during interaction.
  • Rendering an event on the multimedia display.
  • Providing supplemental data from the display or a remote database to the wireless handheld device based on a selection of data on the display marked by the cursor.
• The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Google ARCore and related systems" and "the AR application developed using Google ARCore" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶8, 10, 15, 17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Google ARCore is a platform used to develop AR applications (Compl. ¶¶10, 17). ARCore provides software tools that allow applications on devices like smartphones to track their position in the real world and overlay computer-generated images and information onto a live camera feed.
• The complaint asserts that these systems perform methods for displaying supplemental data that infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶7, 14). No further technical detail on the operation of ARCore is provided.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D but does not attach them (Compl. ¶¶9, 16). The infringement analysis is therefore based on the general allegations in the complaint body. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a complete element-by-element analysis.

'451 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Google ARCore and related systems infringe, but provides no specific facts mapping product functionality to the elements of asserted claim 1 (Compl. ¶8).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that ARCore-based systems perform the specific steps of claim 1. For example, what evidence demonstrates that they use "a plurality of markers" on a primary display to determine its location relative to the AR device, as the claim requires?
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites an "augmented reality device" and a separate "secondary display." A potential dispute is whether a single smartphone, which acts as both the AR device (with its camera and processor) and the display screen, can meet both limitations. The patent specification appears to distinguish between a main display (e.g., a movie screen) and a secondary display (e.g., a cell phone) (’451 Patent, Fig. 9).

'237 Patent Infringement Allegations

Similar to the ’451 patent allegations, the complaint alleges that Google ARCore and related systems infringe claim 1 but does not provide specific operational details (Compl. ¶15).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The court will need to consider what evidence shows that ARCore systems perform the steps of "registering" a wireless handheld device with a "controller" and providing supplemental data in the manner claimed. The complaint does not detail how these functions are allegedly performed.
  • Scope Questions: A key point of contention may be the meaning of "profile icon for use as a cursor." The patent specification illustrates this with distinct, user-selectable, personalized icons (’237 Patent, Fig. 20). The question for the court will be whether a generic pointer or selection reticle within an ARCore application meets this limitation, or if the claim requires the type of personalization described in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'451 Patent

• The Term: "secondary display"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because asserted independent claim 1 requires both an "augmented reality device" and a "secondary display." If a single smartphone is the accused instrumentality, the infringement analysis depends on whether the phone's screen can be considered a "secondary display" separate from the AR device itself.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any screen on which supplemental data is shown.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts the "secondary display" as a device separate from the primary display being viewed. For example, Figure 9 shows a "Movie Screen Display" (242) and a separate "User's Cell Phone/Augment Reality Device" (120) where information is displayed, suggesting two distinct components in the system architecture (’451 Patent, col. 5:23-26, Fig. 9).

'237 Patent

• The Term: "profile icon for use as a cursor"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to distinguishing the claimed invention from systems using generic pointers. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused ARCore systems, which may use standard pointers, fall within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that any icon or graphical element that indicates a user's point of selection on screen functions as a "profile icon," linking the cursor to that user's "profile" or session.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of users selecting unique, personalized icons to represent themselves, such as a dollar sign, a deer, or a skeleton (’237 Patent, Fig. 20; col. 27:3-13). This embodiment suggests that a "profile icon" is more than a generic pointer and involves user-specific designation and personalization. The patent states, "Each user of an HHD can designate his or her own personal profile icon" (’237 Patent, col. 27:5-7).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The factual basis for these claims is the allegation that Google "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers and/or the customers of its related companies)... on how to use its products and services (e.g., the AR application developed using Google ARCore...)" (Compl. ¶¶10, 11, 17, 18). This suggests the infringement theory relies on Google's role in providing the ARCore SDK and developer documentation.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents "from at least the date of the filing of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶10, 17, fn. 1, 3). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge, thereby limiting the initial willfulness claim to post-filing conduct.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue will be whether the plaintiff can substantiate its infringement allegations with concrete evidence. The complaint lacks specific factual assertions tying the functionality of Google ARCore to the discrete elements of the asserted claims, a question that will be central during discovery and summary judgment.
2. System Architecture and Claim Scope: For the ’451 patent, a core legal question is one of claim construction: can a single device like a smartphone, which functions as both the camera-and-processor "augmented reality device" and the screen for viewing information, satisfy the claim 1 limitation requiring a separate "secondary display"?
3. Definitional Scope: For the ’237 patent, the case may turn on the construction of "profile icon." The key question for the court will be whether this term, which the specification illustrates with personalized, user-selected graphics, can be construed to read on the potentially generic pointers or selection indicators used in ARCore applications.