Flick Intelligence LLC v. Meta Platforms Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00655, W.D. Tex., 09/07/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Passthrough API for augmented reality applications infringes a patent related to systems for selecting on-screen elements to display supplemental information.
• Technical Context: The technology enables interactive media experiences, often called "second screen" functionality, where a user can interact with content on a primary display using a secondary device to retrieve related data.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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. (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for systems that allow a user to get information about a "specific" element within a media presentation (e.g., a movie or show), rather than just general information about the entire scene. (’451 Patent, col. 2:3-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user can employ a device, such as a smartphone or an augmented reality (AR) device, to point at and select a specific "point of interest" on a primary display. In response to the selection, the system retrieves and displays supplemental information about that specific element, often on a secondary display like the user's handheld device. (’451 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-16). Figure 3, for example, depicts a user selecting an on-screen beverage to retrieve a coupon on a secondary display. (’451 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This technology facilitates interactive and immersive experiences, such as second-screen applications and interactive advertising, by creating a direct link between viewed content and related digital information. (’451 Patent, col. 1:49-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-14. (Compl. ¶9). The primary independent claims are 1 (method), 8 (system), and 14 (computer program product).
• Independent Claim 1, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
  • Determining a location of a display in relation to an augmented reality device, using a plurality of markers to determine the display's location.
  • The augmented reality device comprises a secondary display, and the location data is used to map points between the primary display and the secondary display.
  • Detecting a selection of a scene element by a viewer who looks through the augmented reality device and uses it to point at and select the element.
  • Displaying additional information to the viewer on the secondary display in response to the selection.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is identified as Defendant's "Passthrough API" and related systems. (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Passthrough API is used to develop AR applications. (Compl. ¶11). It provides very little technical detail about the API's specific functionality or how it operates. The complaint frames the accused technology in general terms as enabling "question and answer services across the Internet." (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations may be found in a preliminary table attached as Exhibit B. (Compl. ¶10). However, that exhibit was not included with the public filing of the complaint. The narrative infringement theory is presented in conclusory terms, alleging that the "Passthrough and related systems" infringe claims 1-14 without mapping specific product features to claim elements. (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart-based analysis.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A primary issue may be whether the accused "Passthrough API," a software development tool, falls within the scope of the claimed "augmented reality device," which claim 1 recites as comprising a "secondary display." This raises the question of whether a software API can be considered an infringing "device" under the patent's claims.
  • Technical Question: The complaint does not specify what evidence supports the allegation that the Passthrough API performs key technical steps of claim 1, such as "using a plurality of markers to determine the location of the display" or "mapping points on the display to points on the secondary display." The connection between the API's functionality and these specific claim requirements remains an open evidentiary question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "augmented reality device" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the dispute. The case may turn on whether this term can be construed to read on a software API, as accused in the complaint, or if it is limited to a physical, user-facing hardware system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention in terms of functional "modules" that can be implemented in software, which may support an argument that an API enabling the claimed functionality is covered. (’451 Patent, col. 7:25-33).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides numerous examples of the "device" as physical hardware, such as a "Smartphone, cellular telephone, a remote control device," a device with a "forward pointing camera," and a "tablet." (’451 Patent, col. 9:13-18, col. 12:30-35). Furthermore, claim 1 requires the "augmented reality device" to "comprise a secondary display," language that may suggest a physical hardware component. (’451 Patent, col. 31:38-39).

• The Term: "plurality of markers" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a key requirement for how the system orients itself. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused Passthrough API uses a technology that can be defined as a "plurality of markers."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests that determining display location can be done by "simply observing the screen edges, or some other means," which could support a broader construction that is not limited to artificial fiducials and might include natural feature detection. (’451 Patent, col. 13:1-2).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly illustrates "Marker 157" in Figure 4 and explains that a "movie screen can include markers that help the AR device 161 determine the screen location and distance," suggesting the term refers to discrete, artificial reference points. (’451 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 12:27-29).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The stated basis is that Defendant encourages and instructs its customers on how to use its products and services, such as "the AR application developed using Passthrough," in a way that infringes the ’451 Patent. (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’451 Patent "from at least the date of the filing of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶11). Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to amend the complaint if pre-suit knowledge is revealed during discovery. (Compl. p. 4, fn. 1-2).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "augmented reality device," which the patent describes as a user-facing system comprising a secondary display, be construed to cover Defendant's "Passthrough API," a software development tool provided to third-party developers?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Absent specific factual allegations in the complaint, can the Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused API, either by itself or as used by developers, performs the specific technical functions required by the claims, particularly the use of a "plurality of markers" for spatial orientation?
• The case may also hinge on the standard for indirect infringement: Can the Plaintiff move beyond conclusory allegations to show that Defendant’s documentation or instructions for the Passthrough API specifically taught or encouraged developers to build applications that practice every limitation of the asserted claims?