Flick Intelligence LLC v. Unity Software

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Unity Software, Inc. d/b/a Unity Technologies (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00082, W.D. Tex., 02/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas, specifically an office in Austin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality software platform infringes a patent related to using an augmented reality device to select an object on a primary display and view supplemental information about it on a secondary display.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses user interaction in augmented reality, where a viewer can engage with media on one screen by using a separate AR device to point, select, and 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 concerning the patent-in-suit are mentioned.

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 (“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; ’451 Patent, cover).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art methods for obtaining information about video content were too general, providing information about an entire scene rather than allowing a user to inquire about a specific object or person of interest within that scene (’451 Patent, col. 2:3-10; Compl. ¶16). The patent 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).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user views a primary display (e.g., a movie screen) through an "augmented reality device" that has its own secondary display (’451 Patent, col. 31:30-47). The system first determines the location of the primary display relative to the AR device using a "plurality of markers" (’451 Patent, Fig. 4). The user then utilizes the AR device to point at and select a specific element on the primary display. In response, additional information about that selected element is shown on the AR device's secondary display (’451 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to enable a more granular and user-directed form of interactive media, allowing viewers to pull information about specific on-screen elements in real-time using an AR interface (’451 Patent, col. 2:8-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-14, with independent claim 1 being representative (Compl. ¶20).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method for displaying additional information about a scene element on a display.
  • Determining the location of the display relative to an augmented reality (AR) device using a "plurality of markers."
  • The AR device has a secondary display, and the location data is used to map points between the primary and secondary displays.
  • Detecting a user's selection of a scene element by looking through the AR device and using it to point at and select the element.
  • Displaying additional information about the selected element on the secondary display in response to the selection.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are identified as "Unity's augmented reality platform" and "Passthrough and related systems" (Compl. ¶¶20-21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality is an "AR application developed using Passthrough and related systems" (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of how Unity's platform or Passthrough feature actually operate. The allegations center on the platform enabling developers to create applications that cause infringement of the ’451 Patent (Compl. ¶22). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit with the filed document (Compl. ¶21). The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement theory for claim 1 presented in the complaint.

’451 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the accused "Unity augmented reality platform" uses a "plurality of markers" to determine a display's location, as required by the claim. The patent specification depicts these as distinct objects placed on or around the primary display for alignment (’451 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 12:29-32). The complaint does not allege any facts regarding the use of such markers by the accused platform, raising the question of a potential technical mismatch if the accused system uses markerless tracking technology (e.g., SLAM).
• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint makes broad allegations against "Unity's augmented reality platform" without pleading specific facts about its operation. A key question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the platform, as provided to developers, performs each claimed step or, for indirect infringement, was specifically designed to be used in an infringing manner.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Key Term: "plurality of markers"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical. If construed narrowly to mean only physical, artificial objects placed for tracking, it may not read on modern AR systems that use markerless world-tracking by identifying natural environmental features. The infringement analysis may depend entirely on whether the accused platform's tracking method falls within the scope of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly discusses markers in a way that suggests they are distinct, physical objects. Figure 4 depicts "marker" 157 on the frame of the "Display Device" 121. The description states, "The movie screen can include markers that help the AR device 161 determine the screen location and distance" (’451 Patent, col. 12:29-32). This may support an interpretation limited to objects added to the environment for the purpose of tracking.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "marker" or expressly disclaim other forms of tracking. A party could argue that in the absence of a specific definition, the term could be given a broader meaning that includes any set of identifiable points—natural or artificial—used to determine location.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement theory is based on allegations that Unity "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its platform to build infringing AR applications (Compl. ¶22). The contributory infringement allegation rests on the same factual basis (Compl. ¶23).
• 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. ¶¶22-23). The complaint does not allege any facts to support pre-suit knowledge or other egregious conduct typically associated with enhanced damages.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical scope: can the claim term "plurality of markers," which the patent illustrates with physical objects on a screen's frame, be construed to cover the spatial tracking methods used by the accused modern AR platform? The viability of the direct infringement claim may hinge on the answer.
• A second key question will be one of causation and intent for indirect infringement: assuming end-users of third-party applications are the direct infringers, what evidence will show that Unity's platform and developer tools specifically instructed or encouraged developers to configure their applications in a manner that satisfies every limitation of the asserted claims?
• Finally, the case presents an evidentiary question of specificity: the complaint's allegations are directed at a high-level "platform" without detailing how specific features operate. A central challenge for the plaintiff will be to connect its broad infringement theory to the concrete technical realities of the accused software.