Flick Intelligence LLC v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00057, W.D. Tex., 01/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Apple, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iPhone and iPad product lines, when using certain augmented reality functionalities, infringe two patents related to selecting on-screen elements to display supplemental information.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of interactive and augmented reality systems, which allow users to engage with displayed video content or real-world environments to retrieve context-specific data.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-12-31	Earliest Priority Date for ’451 Patent
2011-09-27	Earliest Priority Date for ’237 Patent
2016-10-11	’451 Patent Issued
2018-05-08	’237 Patent Issued
2023-01-27	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, "Method, system and computer program product for obtaining and displaying supplemental data about a displayed movie, show, event or video game," issued October 11, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for systems that allow a viewer to obtain information about a specific element within a scene (e.g., an actor or product) rather than receiving only general information about the entire scene or movie (’451 Patent, col. 2:3-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a user employs an augmented reality device to view a primary display (such as a movie screen). The system uses markers to determine the location of this primary display relative to the user's device. The user can then point at and select a "scene element" on the primary display, which triggers the system to present supplemental information about that specific element on a secondary display, such as the screen of the augmented reality device itself (’451 Patent, Abstract; col. 31:31-40).
• Technical Importance: This technology describes a framework for creating interactive "second screen" and augmented reality experiences from traditionally passive video content (’451 Patent, col. 1:49-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-14, including independent claims 1 (method), 8 (system), and 14 (computer program product) (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 contains the following essential elements:
  • Determining a location of a display in relation to an augmented reality device, using a plurality of markers.
  • Detecting a selection of a scene element, wherein a viewer looks through the augmented reality device to view the display and uses the augmented reality device to point at and select the element.
  • Displaying additional information to the viewer on a secondary display in response to the selection.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

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, "Methods, systems and processor-readable media for bidirectional communications and data sharing," issued May 8, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’451 patent, the ’237 patent addresses the problem of users wanting information about specific elements within displayed media, where existing database solutions are too general (’237 Patent, col. 1:50-65).
• The Patented Solution: This invention discloses a system for enabling interactive sessions between one or more wireless handheld devices (HHDs) and a multimedia display. The solution involves registering the HHD with a controller, allowing a user to select a "profile icon" to act as a cursor, and using that cursor to select on-screen content to retrieve and display supplemental data on either the HHD or the main multimedia display (’237 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-45). The use of distinct profile icons facilitates multi-user interactions with the same display (’237 Patent, Fig. 20).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides an architecture for multi-user, multi-device interactive environments, applicable to gaming and collaborative media consumption (’237 Patent, col. 1:40-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-16, including independent claims 1 (method), 9 (system), and 15 (processor-readable medium) (Compl. ¶15).
• Independent Claim 1 contains the following essential elements:
  • 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 the interaction.
  • Providing supplemental data from the multimedia display and/or a remote database to the wireless hand held device based on a selection of data marked by the cursor.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies a range of Apple devices, including various models of the iPhone (from iPhone X onward) and iPad Pro, as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶8, ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused infringement occurs when these devices operate an "AR application using Apple ARKit," which allows a user to "identify real objects in the surroundings via a device" (Compl. ¶10, ¶17). The core accused functionality is the use of Apple's augmented reality framework to interact with the environment.
• The complaint alleges these are commercial products sold throughout Texas and the United States, but provides no further detail on their market positioning (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• ’451 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • Plaintiff’s infringement theory appears to be that Apple's devices (e.g., an iPhone) function as both the claimed "augmented reality device" and the "secondary display." The complaint suggests that when a user operates an ARKit application, they view the real world through the device's camera feed, which serves as "the display." By interacting with this view to get information about a real-world object (a "scene element"), the user is allegedly performing the patented method, with the supplemental information appearing on the device's screen (the "secondary display") (Compl. ¶10).

• ’237 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that an iPhone or iPad acts as the "wireless hand held device" (HHD). This HHD allegedly "registers" with a "controller" (a specific Apple service is not identified) to enable interactive functionality. The complaint's theory suggests a user's touch input or an AR reticle on the screen functions as the "cursor" associated with a "profile icon." When the user selects content, the device provides "supplemental data" in a manner that allegedly infringes the patent (Compl. ¶17).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A primary question for the ’451 patent is whether the claim term "the display", which the patent specification repeatedly associates with a separate "movie screen" or "multimedia display" (’451 Patent, Fig. 9), can be construed to cover the real-world environment viewed through the camera of the accused AR device itself.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 of the ’451 patent requires using a "plurality of markers" to determine the display's location. A key factual question will be what evidence shows that Apple's ARKit uses a system of markers as described in the patent, rather than general-purpose environmental mapping technologies like SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping), to perform its functions.
  • Scope Questions: For the ’237 patent, a central issue may be whether a generic pointer or touch input on an iPhone screen constitutes a "profile icon" as required by claim 1. The patent specification depicts "profile icons" as distinct, personalized graphics for different users (’237 Patent, Fig. 20), raising the question of whether a default, non-personalized cursor meets this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "the display" (’451 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to the infringement analysis. The patent's examples focus on an AR device interacting with a separate, primary display like a television. The accused ARKit functionality, however, involves viewing the ambient environment through the device's own screen. Whether the real world itself can be "the display" will be a pivotal issue.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent, which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any visual information presented to a user, including a live video feed of reality.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to a "multimedia display device," "movie screen display," and "television" (’451 Patent, col. 9:28-31, col. 15:26). Figures 4 and 9 explicitly depict a separate display (121, 242) from the user's pointing device, which may support a narrower construction limited to a discrete electronic screen.

• Term: "profile icon" (’237 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: Infringement of the ’237 patent hinges on whether the accused devices utilize a "profile icon" as a cursor. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory appears to equate this with a generic tap or AR reticle, whereas the patent suggests a more specific, personalized element.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires "selecting at least one profile icon for use as a cursor," without further limitation. A plaintiff may argue this covers any graphical pointer associated with a user's interaction. The specification notes that "an icon or cursor can be displayed, which is associated with the HHD" (’237 Patent, col. 28:33-35).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures suggest personalized icons. Figure 23 includes the step to "Establish user profile and designate profile icon" (554), and Figure 20 shows distinct icons (a dollar sign, a deer, a skull) for different users. This may support a narrower construction requiring a user-selectable or designated, non-generic graphical element.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. The allegations are based on Apple allegedly encouraging and instructing customers and developers on how to use the accused devices and Apple ARKit to perform the infringing methods (Compl. ¶10-11, ¶17-18).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents "from at least the date of the filing of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10, n.1; ¶17, n.3). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. p. 7, ¶(e)).

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

This dispute will likely center on fundamental questions of claim scope and technical implementation. The key issues for the court to resolve include:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "the display" from the ’451 patent, which the specification illustrates as a separate television or movie screen, be construed to cover the ambient real-world environment as captured and presented by an augmented reality device's camera?
• A second key issue of definitional scope will be whether the term "profile icon" from the ’237 patent, which the specification links to user-designated and personalized graphics, can be read to cover a generic tap input or default system-generated reticle in the accused Apple products.
• A central evidentiary question will be whether the general-purpose environmental mapping of Apple's ARKit performs the specific functions recited in the claims, such as the ’451 patent’s requirement of using a "plurality of markers" to determine a display's location, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.