Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. Havenly Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Havenly Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC; Banie & Ishimoto LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00707, W.D. Tex., 10/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality interior design service infringes patents related to determining the three-dimensional position and orientation of a manipulated object, such as a smartphone, using optical features in the environment.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of augmented reality (AR) and computer vision, which are increasingly significant for e-commerce applications that allow consumers to visualize products in their own physical spaces before purchase.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 - Computer Interface For Manipulated Objects With An Absolute Pose Detection Component

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a low-cost, robust, and accurate system for determining the absolute position and orientation (pose) of a hand-held object used to interface with a computer (’559 Patent, col. 2:59-3:4). Existing methods were described as either computationally expensive, reliant on external multi-camera setups, or limited to tracking relative motion, which could lead to positional drift and error (’559 Patent, col. 2:44-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a manipulated object, such as a phone or tablet, that uses its own on-board photodetector (e.g., a camera) to detect "high optical contrast features" in the surrounding three-dimensional environment (’559 Patent, Abstract). A controller then identifies a "derivative pattern" from the detected features to determine the object's position, a process that can be supplemented with data from an auxiliary motion sensor like an inertial device (’559 Patent, col. 6:26-41).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a potential framework for enabling sophisticated 3D user interfaces and augmented reality on consumer devices by allowing the device to determine its own absolute pose without complex external tracking hardware (’559 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1.
  • Claim 1 recites a manipulated object comprising:
    • A photodetector configured to detect a plurality of high optical contrast features and generate data representative of their positions.
    • A controller configured to identify a "derivative pattern" from that data, where the pattern is indicative of the photodetector's position.
    • At least one additional component, which can be an auxiliary motion detection component, an active illumination component, or a scanning component.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 19, 24, and 25 (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 - Apparatus And Method For Determining An Absolute Pose Of A Manipulated Object In A Real Three-Dimensional Environment With Invariant Features

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a major problem with existing manipulated objects (e.g., control wands, gaming implements) in that they lacked a "sufficiently robust and rapid absolute pose determination system" (’641 Patent, col. 1:47-49). Many devices functioned as "quasi three-dimensional mice," relying on relative motion sensors that were insufficient for one-to-one motion mapping between real space and cyberspace (’641 Patent, col. 1:49-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an apparatus with an on-board "optical measuring means" that infers the object's absolute pose by using at least one "invariant feature" in the environment (’641 Patent, Abstract). A processor then prepares the absolute pose data—representing Euler rotated coordinates—and identifies a subset of that data to be transmitted via a communication link to an application (’641 Patent, col. 9:11-35).
  • Technical Importance: The invention outlines a complete system architecture for a handheld device to determine its own absolute 3D pose and selectively communicate that information, forming a technical basis for applications like augmented reality and direct manipulation interfaces (’641 Patent, Abstract).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1.
  • Claim 1 recites an apparatus for processing absolute pose data, comprising:
    • At least one invariant feature in the environment.
    • An "optical measuring means" on the manipulated object for inferring the absolute pose using the invariant feature and expressing it as pose data (including Euler coordinates).
    • A processor for preparing the pose data and identifying a subset of it.
    • A communication link for transmitting the subset to an application.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claim 29 (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Havenly Inc.'s interior design service, specifically its augmented reality (AR) feature, referred to in marketing materials as "View in room" or "See it in your space" (Compl. ¶10; p. 3).

Functionality and Market Context

The service operates on mobile devices such as iPhones and Android phones (Compl. ¶11). It utilizes the device's camera in conjunction with underlying AR platforms like Apple's ARKit or Google's ARCore (Compl. ¶¶11, 11(c)). These platforms enable the device to understand the real-world environment by detecting "feature points and planes" and tracking the device's position and motion (Compl. ¶11(a); p. 5). This functionality allows a user to visualize 3D models of Havenly's furniture products superimposed onto the live view from their device's camera, as if the products were physically in their room (Compl. p. 3). One screenshot from Havenly's website describes this as a way to "get a feel for our fabrics" by visualizing seating products in 3D (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'559 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Question: A central question may be whether the term "derivative pattern," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the complex algorithms used by modern AR platforms like ARKit and ARCore for visual-inertial odometry. The complaint alleges these platforms track "differences in the positions of those features," but the court will need to determine if this meets the specific meaning of "derivative pattern" in the context of the patent.
• Technical Question: The complaint provides a screenshot from Google's ARCore documentation stating it "is constantly improving its understanding of the real world environment by detecting feature points and planes" (Compl. p. 5). A potential point of contention is what evidence shows this general process is equivalent to the specific function of identifying a "derivative pattern" from photodetector data as required by claim 1(b).

'641 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Question: A key dispute may arise over the proper construction of "optical measuring means." Practitioners may question whether this term, in the context of the patent's disclosure, can be interpreted to cover a general-purpose smartphone camera system running a third-party AR software library, or if it implies a more specialized hardware configuration.
• Technical Question: Claim 1(b) requires "expressing said inferred absolute pose with absolute pose data...representing Euler rotated object coordinates." The complaint alleges the accused service uses rotation angles like pitch, yaw, and roll (Compl. ¶17(b)), but a technical question remains as to what evidence demonstrates that the accused system specifically calculates and uses pose data expressed as "Euler rotated object coordinates," as opposed to other common representations like quaternions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "derivative pattern" (’559 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the infringement theory for the ’559 Patent, as it defines the specific processing required by the controller. Its construction will likely determine whether the functionality of modern AR frameworks like ARKit and ARCore, which the complaint accuses, falls within the scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the derivative pattern is "indicative of the asymmetric and generally linear pattern" and that as the "absolute pose of photodetector changes, the...pattern undergoes a well-understood transformation" (’559 Patent, col. 6:34-41). This could support an interpretation covering any pattern of changes in feature positions from which pose can be derived.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the transformation to "perspective distortion plus any optical aberrations" (’559 Patent, col. 6:38-41). This language could support a narrower construction requiring the identification of a specific, mathematically defined pattern of perspective change, rather than a more general tracking of feature points as performed in modern visual-inertial odometry.
• The Term: "optical measuring means" (’641 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to infringement of the ’641 Patent. Whether a standard smartphone camera and processor running a third-party AR library constitutes an "optical measuring means" for "optically inferring...absolute pose" will be a critical issue.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, referring to a "means for optically inferring." This could be argued to encompass any system that uses light ("optical") to figure out ("infer") its pose, a function the complaint alleges the accused smartphone camera performs (Compl. ¶17(b)).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments, such as an apparatus using a position-sensitive detector (PSD) to view beacons (’641 Patent, col. 21:44-56). A defendant may argue that the term should be understood in light of these more specialized disclosed embodiments and not read to cover a general-purpose camera system that was not contemplated by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for both patents. It asserts that Havenly knowingly encourages infringement by providing its AR-enabled service to end-users along with "specific instructions or training regarding the use of those products," such as instructions on its website for how to use the AR feature (Compl. ¶¶28, 41; p. 10).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's knowledge of the patents and its alleged infringement "since at least the date of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶22, 35). This establishes a basis for potential post-filing willfulness but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of temporal scope and construction: can claim terms from patents with a 2004 priority date, such as "derivative pattern" and "optical measuring means", be construed broadly enough to read on the sophisticated, general-purpose visual-inertial odometry systems (e.g., ARKit and ARCore) that are foundational to modern smartphone-based augmented reality?
• A second key question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: does the complaint’s reliance on high-level marketing statements and third-party developer documentation for the accused AR platforms provide sufficient factual matter to plausibly allege that the accused service performs the specific technical functions required by the claims, such as identifying a "derivative pattern" or expressing pose data using "Euler rotated object coordinates"?