Flick Intelligence LLC v. Jam City Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Jam City, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00653, W.D. Tex., 09/07/2023
• 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 alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Jurassic World Alive" mobile game infringes a patent related to methods for displaying supplemental information about a point of interest on a display.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that allow a user to select an element within displayed media (such as a movie or video game) and receive additional, related information, often on a secondary device or display.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-12-31	'451 Patent - Earliest Priority Date (Prov. App. 61/291,837)
2016-10-11	'451 Patent - Issue Date
2023-09-07	Complaint Filing Date

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, issued October 11, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art methods for obtaining information about on-screen content were too general. A user interested in a specific on-screen element could only get general information about the entire scene, without the ability to "select a specific scene element and to obtain information about only that element" (’451 Patent, col. 2:6-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user can interact with content on a main display (e.g., a television) using a separate device, such as a handheld device or an augmented reality (AR) device. By pointing the device at a specific "scene element" on the main display, the user can select it and receive supplemental information about that element, which can be shown on a secondary display, such as the screen of the handheld device itself (’451 Patent, col. 4:5-16; Fig. 3). The system synchronizes the user's selection with the video timeline to ensure the correct element is identified (’451 Patent, col. 10:7-12).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide a more granular and interactive "second screen" experience, allowing users to dynamically query specific objects of interest within media content as it is being viewed (’451 Patent, col. 2:1-11).

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.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A method for displaying additional information about a scene element in video content on a display.
  • Determining the location of the display relative to an "augmented reality device" which has a secondary display.
  • Using markers to determine the display's location and mapping points on the display to points on the secondary display.
  • Detecting a selection of the scene element, where a viewer "looks through the augmented reality device to view the display" and uses the device to point at and select the element.
  • Displaying the additional information to the viewer on the secondary display in response to the selection.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of claims 1-14 implies this.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Jurassic World Alive game" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as a "gaming application" (Compl. ¶8, ¶10).
• The complaint alleges the game provides for "displaying additional information about a displayed point of interest" (Compl. ¶7).
• The complaint does not provide further technical detail about how the accused game operates or specific features that are alleged to infringe.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that support for its infringement allegations is contained in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶9). This exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. The complaint's narrative allegations are general, stating that the accused game is a "device" or "system" that infringes claims of the ’451 patent by "displaying additional information about a displayed point of interest" (Compl. ¶7-8). Without the claim chart from Exhibit B, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "augmented reality device"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and is central to the claimed method. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused "Jurassic World Alive" game, which typically runs on a standard smartphone, can be considered an "augmented reality device" as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's description often depicts this device as something a user "looks through" to view a separate, primary display, such as AR glasses viewing a movie screen (’451 Patent, col. 12:20-33; Claim 1).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests an AR device "can include a local display that the user 122 can observe, a video camera, and other devices" (’451 Patent, col. 12:20-23). This could be argued to describe a smartphone with a camera and display.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly requires a method wherein "a viewer looks through the augmented reality device to view the display." This language, along with figures like FIG. 4, suggests a see-through device (like glasses) augmenting the view of a separate, primary display, rather than a single, opaque device like a smartphone where the game and the "augmented" elements exist on the same screen.

The Term: "scene element"

• Context and Importance: This term defines what can be selected by the user. The patent's title includes "video game," suggesting the term is intended to cover elements within a game. However, the core of the infringement question may be whether an interactive, user-controllable object in a game like "Jurassic World Alive" is equivalent to a "scene element" as described in the patent, which often refers to more passive objects in a linear video stream like a movie (’451 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent title explicitly lists "video game" as a context for the invention. The specification discusses annotated elements in a "group video" (Compl. Fig. 5), which could be argued as analogous to elements in a game environment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The problem statement focuses on obtaining information about "actors in a scene or the music being played" in a "movie or scene" (’451 Patent, col. 2:1-4), suggesting a context of passive media consumption rather than an interactive game.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶10-11). The factual basis alleged is that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use the infringing products and services (Compl. ¶10).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the ’451 patent "from at least the date of the filing of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10, fn. 1; ¶11, fn. 2). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willfulness only, as no pre-suit knowledge is alleged. The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. ¶V.e).

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

• A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: Can the term "augmented reality device", as used in claim 1 to describe a device a user "looks through to view the display," be construed to read on a standard smartphone running the accused game, where the display, camera, and user interface are all integrated into a single device?
• A key evidentiary and factual question will emerge from the missing claim chart: What specific features of the "Jurassic World Alive" game will Plaintiff argue meet the claim limitations? The court will need to determine if the game's functionality matches the patent's specific architecture, which requires interaction between a primary "display," a separate "augmented reality device," and a "secondary display," or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.
• The dispute may also turn on the definition of the claimed environment: Does the interactive, player-centric world of the accused game constitute the "frame of video content being presented on a display" as required by claim 1, a phrase that may suggest a more passive, non-interactive media context?