Flick Intelligence LLC v. NXP USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: NXP USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00080, W.D. Tex., 02/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically identifying an office in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality systems infringe a patent related to using an augmented reality device to select an on-screen element and display supplemental information about it.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for enhancing user interaction with video content by allowing for the selection of specific objects within a scene to retrieve targeted information.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit, are mentioned in the complaint.

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art database solutions provided information about elements in a video scene "only in a very general way" ('451 Patent, col. 2:4-6). It identifies a need for "systems and methods that provide people with the ability to select a specific scene element and to obtain information about only that element" ('451 Patent, col. 2:8-10; Compl. ¶18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a user employs an "augmented reality device" to interact with a primary video display (e.g., a TV) ('451 Patent, col. 31:34-36). The system uses a "plurality of markers" on the primary display to determine its location relative to the AR device ('451 Patent, col. 31:36-39). The user can then look through the AR device to "point at and select" a specific element in the video, and in response, supplemental information is displayed to the user on the AR device's "secondary display" ('451 Patent, col. 31:43-48). The architecture depicted in Figure 4 shows an AR device (161) interacting with a primary display device (121) that has markers (157) on it.
• Technical Importance: This technology aimed to create a more granular and interactive viewing experience, allowing users to move beyond passive consumption and directly query specific objects of interest within a video frame ('451 Patent, col. 1:61-2:10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-14 (Compl. ¶20).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’451 Patent 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;
  • wherein the augmented reality device comprises a secondary display, and wherein 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; and
  • displaying the additional information to the viewer on the secondary display, in response to the selection.
• The complaint also asserts infringement of system and computer program product claims which largely mirror the method of claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "NXP's augmented reality systems," including "Passthrough and related systems" and "the AR application developed using Passthrough" (Compl. ¶¶20-22).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides very limited information on the specific functionality of the accused products. It alleges they are "augmented reality systems" that Defendant "develops, designs, manufactures, distributes, markets, offers to sell and/or sells" (Compl. ¶3, ¶21). The complaint alleges that Defendant encourages its customers to use these products and services in a manner that infringes the ’451 Patent (Compl. ¶22). No specific technical details about how the accused products operate are provided.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced Exhibit B claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for the lead independent claim based on the claim language quoted in the complaint and the general allegations made against the accused instrumentality.

’451 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant's "Passthrough and related systems" meet the definition of an "augmented reality device" as contemplated by the patent. The complaint's lack of detail about the accused products prevents a direct comparison to the claimed device, which is described as using markers for positioning.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify the technical mechanism by which the accused systems allegedly determine display location or detect user selection. A key factual dispute will likely be whether the accused systems use a "plurality of markers" for location, as explicitly required by claim 1, or if they employ a different, potentially non-infringing technology like markerless world tracking or screen content analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "augmented reality device"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the central apparatus of the invention. Its construction will be critical for determining whether Defendant’s products fall within the scope of the claims, as the complaint broadly accuses "augmented reality systems" without specifying their hardware configuration (Compl. ¶21).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that in some embodiments, the functionality can be implemented on general-purpose hardware, stating that a mobile device can be a "Smartphone," "a pad computing device," or a "remote gaming device" ('451 Patent, col. 4:30-36).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself imparts significant structural and functional limitations, requiring the device to comprise a "secondary display" and be used to determine its location relative to a primary display via "a plurality of markers" ('451 Patent, col. 31:36-43). Figure 4 depicts a dedicated "AR Device" (161) with specific modules for scene alignment and synchronization.

• The Term: "plurality of markers"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific method by which the system orients itself. Infringement of claim 1 appears to hinge on the presence of this feature. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern AR systems often use markerless tracking, and the presence or absence of this limitation in the accused products could be dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument that it covers any set of reference points used for spatial tracking.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's description and Figure 4, which shows distinct markers (153, 155, 157) on the primary display's frame, could support a narrower construction limited to discrete, physical fiducials placed on the display for the purpose of tracking ('451 Patent, col. 12:28-30).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement. The factual basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant "has actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its products, including its "AR application," in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶22, 23).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge of the ’451 Patent "from at least the date of the filing of the lawsuit," supporting a claim for post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶¶22, 23). The complaint includes footnotes reserving the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: does NXP’s accused “Passthrough” augmented reality technology operate using the specific “plurality of markers” recited in claim 1 for spatial orientation, or does it rely on a different, potentially non-infringing method? The complaint’s failure to provide any technical details about the accused products elevates this from a simple infringement read to a central question of fact.
• The case may also turn on a question of claim scope: can the term "augmented reality device", which is defined in the context of a marker-based system within the patent, be construed broadly enough to encompass the accused NXP systems, particularly if they are found to be markerless? The answer will likely depend on whether the “markers” are considered an essential feature of the invention or merely a preferred embodiment.