PanoVision LLC v. PulteGroup Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PanoVision LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: PulteGroup, Inc. (Michigan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00018, W.D. Tex., 01/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in Austin, Texas, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s new home visualization and customization tools infringe a patent related to methods for facilitating sales by allowing users to view and modify products within an immersive three-dimensional scene.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves interactive 3D visualization systems used to configure and sell complex products, such as new homes, by allowing potential buyers to digitally preview different options and designs.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,108,267, "Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service," issued January 31, 2012.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the conventional processes for home construction, remodeling, and real estate sales as inefficient, time-consuming, and burdensome for both buyers and sellers. A key drawback identified is that a customer cannot see what a changed or new structure will look like until after the costly and lengthy construction process is complete, which can lead to unsatisfactory results (ʼ267 Patent, col. 1:12-28, 1:53-2:10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented method to solve this problem by enabling a user to view an "immersive three-dimensional image of a scene" that resembles an actual property. Within this virtual scene, the user can select, place, and modify products (e.g., kitchen cabinets, furniture) or property features (e.g., walls) to obtain a realistic impression of the final result from any vantage point "just as if the user were walking around the actual property" (ʼ267 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-54).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to reduce financial risk and buyer's remorse in high-value transactions by providing an interactive and realistic preview, thereby increasing customer confidence and streamlining the sales process (ʼ267 Patent, col. 3:5-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, stating only that Defendant infringes "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim directed at facilitating the sale of real property.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • enabling a user of a computing device to select a real property from a plurality of real properties being offered for sale;
  • displaying an immersive three-dimensional image of a first room of the selected property;
  • seamlessly changing the view to display an immersive three-dimensional image of a second room of the property; and
  • enabling the user to remove, add, and/or modify a feature shown in the image of either room.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" which are identified in an "Exhibit 2" that is referenced but not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Given Defendant is a national homebuilder, the accused instrumentalities are presumably its website, design center applications, or other software tools that allow prospective homebuyers to view, customize, and purchase new homes.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any specific details about the functionality of the accused products. It alleges in general terms that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '267 Patent" and that Defendant makes, uses, and sells them in the United States (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain infringement allegations in its body or in an attached exhibit; it incorporates by reference "claim charts of Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint's narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '267 Patent" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions:

• Scope Questions: A primary issue will be the scope of an "immersive three-dimensional image." The analysis will question whether the visualization in Defendant’s system provides the degree of interactivity and realism described in the patent, which suggests a user can "view the scene from any vantage point and at any angle just as if the user were moving around inside or outside the actual property" (ʼ267 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
• Technical Questions: The claim requirement of "seamlessly changing a view" between rooms will likely be a point of dispute. A technical question is whether Defendant's system provides a continuous transition simulating movement, as the patent suggests (ʼ267 Patent, col. 6:56-62), or if it simply loads a separate, static scene for each room, which might not meet the "seamlessly" limitation.
• Functional Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on the extent of the modification capabilities in the accused tools. It will raise the question of whether Defendant's system merely allows for selecting from pre-set options or if it enables a user to "remove, add, and/or modify a feature," such as a wall, as required by claim 1 and described in the specification (ʼ267 Patent, col. 10:20-29; col. 15:11-17).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "immersive three-dimensional image"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in every independent claim and is the core of the invention. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Defendant's visualization tools fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could distinguish the patent's highly interactive environment from more conventional, limited 3D product viewers.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that displaying 3D images can be accomplished using well-known techniques like "axonometric projections," which could argue for a broad construction covering a wide range of 3D rendering technologies (ʼ267 Patent, col. 4:15-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly characterizes the experience as highly realistic, using phrases like "trick the brain of the user or viewer into seeing actual three-dimensional images" and viewing the scene "just as if the user were turning his/her head in different directions" (ʼ267 Patent, col. 4:26-31; col. 3:1-3). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a first-person, free-roaming perspective.

• The Term: "seamlessly changing a view"

• Context and Importance: This limitation in claim 1 defines the required transition between viewing different rooms. Its meaning is central to the method of virtually touring a property.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be construed broadly to mean any user-initiated switch from one room's image to another without requiring a system reboot or navigating away from the main interface.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a user experience that simulates "walking through one room represented by a scene and into another room represented by another scene" (ʼ267 Patent, col. 6:56-59). This may support a narrower interpretation requiring a continuous, animated transition rather than simply loading a new, distinct image.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that encourage and instruct customers on how to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the ʼ267 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that by being served with the complaint and its attached (but missing) claim charts, Defendant obtained "actual knowledge" of the ʼ267 Patent and that its continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent’s central term, "immersive three-dimensional image," which is described as a highly realistic, first-person-like experience, be construed to cover the specific visualization technology used in Defendant’s home customization tools?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: does the accused system’s method for switching between different room views meet the "seamlessly changing" limitation of claim 1, particularly in light of specification language that suggests simulating physical movement between spaces?
• An initial procedural question may be one of pleading sufficiency: given the complaint's reliance on a missing exhibit for all specific factual allegations of infringement, a threshold issue may be whether the pleading provides sufficient notice to survive a motion to dismiss under the Twombly/Iqbal standard.