Flick Intelligence LLC v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00079, W.D. Tex., 02/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including a specific office location in Austin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Windows Mixed Reality VR platform infringes a patent related to using an augmented reality device to select an object on a primary display and view supplemental information on the device's secondary display.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for creating interactive "second screen" experiences, allowing users to obtain information about specific objects within video content by pointing at them with an augmented or mixed reality device.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and acquired the patent-in-suit by assignment. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent, are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,465,451 ("the ’451 Patent"), "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. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section asserts that prior art database solutions for video content provided information "only in a very general way," making it difficult for a user to select a specific scene element and obtain information about only that element. (’451 Patent, col. 2:3-10; Compl. ¶17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a user employs an "augmented reality device" to view a primary display (e.g., a TV). The AR device uses a "plurality of markers" to determine its location relative to the primary display. The user then "point[s] at and select[s]" a specific element in the video content, and in response, the AR device displays "additional information" about that element on its own "secondary display." (’451 Patent, Abstract; col. 31:31-32:8). Figure 4 of the patent illustrates a system architecture where an AR device (161) interacts with a primary display device (121) that has markers (153, 155, 157). (’451 Patent, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The claimed method sought to enable a more granular and direct form of user interaction with video content, linking real-time visual selection of an on-screen object to the retrieval of context-specific data. (Compl. ¶16, ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-14. (Compl. ¶20).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
  • A method for displaying additional information about a scene element displayed in a frame of video content being presented on a display.
  • Determining a location of the display in relation to an augmented reality device wherein a plurality of markers is used to determine the location of the display.
  • The augmented reality device comprises a secondary display, and the location of the display is used to map points on the display to points on the secondary display.
  • Detecting a selection of the scene element wherein a viewer looks through the augmented reality device to view the display and utilizes the augmented reality device to point at and select the scene element.
  • Displaying the additional information to the viewer on the secondary display, in response to the selection.
• The complaint notes that infringement is alleged literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is identified as "Windows Mixed Reality VR" and related "Passthrough" systems. (Compl. ¶20-21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality includes "the AR application developed using Passthrough and related systems." (Compl. ¶22). The functionality is described at a high level as enabling users to interact with products and services. (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the Windows Mixed Reality VR platform or its passthrough features, nor does it contain allegations regarding the product's specific commercial importance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that support for the infringement allegations may be found in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B." (Compl. ¶21). This exhibit was not included with the publicly filed complaint. The body of the complaint itself does not provide a detailed mapping of the accused product's features to the elements of the asserted claims. The infringement theory is articulated generally, alleging that Microsoft's "Passthrough and related systems" perform the steps of the patented method. (Compl. ¶20).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether "Windows Mixed Reality VR," a platform primarily marketed for virtual reality, qualifies as an "augmented reality device" as that term is used in the patent. The allegation hinges on the functionality of its "Passthrough" systems. (Compl. ¶22).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations raise the question of what evidence will be presented to show that the accused system performs the specific step of "determining a location of the display in relation to an augmented reality device wherein a plurality of markers is used." (Compl. p. 6). The use of physical "markers" is a specific limitation, and a central issue may be whether the accused system employs such markers or relies on a different, markerless technology (e.g., inside-out tracking) for spatial awareness.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "augmented reality device"

• Context and Importance: The accused product is "Windows Mixed Reality VR." (Compl. ¶21). Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on whether a VR headset operating in a "passthrough" mode, which blends camera feeds of the real world with virtual objects, falls within the patent's definition of an AR device.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition. The specification describes the device's function broadly, stating "users can view the world through their own eyes or can view an augmented version by viewing the world through the device," which could be argued to encompass a VR headset using passthrough cameras. (’451 Patent, col. 12:35-38).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of the embodiment in Figure 4 depicts a device (161) that appears to be glasses-like, overlaying data onto a user's direct or camera-based view of the world, a configuration traditionally associated with AR. (’451 Patent, Fig. 4). This could support an argument that the term requires a device designed primarily for augmenting reality, not a VR device with a secondary AR-like feature.

The Term: "plurality of markers"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because modern mixed reality systems often use "markerless" inside-out tracking. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether the accused Windows Mixed Reality VR system uses a form of tracking that can be characterized as relying on "markers."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide language supporting a broad interpretation beyond physical or displayed fiducials.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that the "movie screen can include markers that help the AR device 161 determine the screen location and distance." (’451 Patent, col. 12:27-30). Figure 4 further depicts distinct markers (153, 155, 157) on the primary display. (’451 Patent, Fig. 4). This intrinsic evidence suggests a potentially narrow construction limited to discrete, identifiable fiducials used for spatial registration.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting that Microsoft "has actively encouraged or instructed others... on how to use its products and services (e.g., the AR application developed using Passthrough...)" to infringe the ’451 Patent. (Compl. ¶22-23).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on knowledge of the ’451 Patent "from at least the date of the filing of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶22-23). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing willfulness. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered. (Compl. ¶22, n.4).

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

• A central issue will be one of technical implementation: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused Windows Mixed Reality VR platform, which typically relies on inside-out tracking, uses a "plurality of markers" to determine its location relative to a display, as strictly required by the language of independent claim 1?
• The case will also involve a question of definitional scope: Does a virtual reality headset operating in a "passthrough" camera mode meet the claim requirement of an "augmented reality device" as understood in the context of the ’451 patent's specification, which was filed in 2009?
• Finally, an evidentiary question will be whether the accused system facilitates the claimed user interaction of "point[ing] at and select[ing] the scene element" to trigger the display of "additional information," a specific workflow that must be shown to exist in Microsoft's platform.