PanoVision LLC v. Tri Pointe Homes Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: PanoVision LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Tri Pointe Homes, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00021, W.D. Tex., 01/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district, committing alleged acts of infringement in the district, and causing harm to the Plaintiff in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s methods for marketing and selling homes, presumably through its website and associated design tools, infringe a patent related to virtual visualization and customization of real property.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns computer-implemented methods that allow a user to generate and interact with an immersive, three-dimensional virtual representation of a physical space, such as a house, to facilitate a sale.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations of willful infringement are predicated on knowledge gained from the service of the instant complaint.

Case Timeline

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

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 identifies the traditional process of selling and remodeling real estate as inefficient, time-consuming, and burdensome for both buyers and sellers. It notes that customers often cannot accurately visualize the final appearance of a remodeled or newly constructed property, leading to potential dissatisfaction after significant time and money have been spent (’267 Patent, col. 1:11-28, 1:54-68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method that enables a user to view an "immersive three-dimensional image of a scene" that resembles a real property (’267 Patent, Abstract). The user can view the scene from multiple vantage points "just as if the user were walking around the actual property," select products for placement in the scene, and modify features to see how changes will look before committing to a purchase or construction (’267 Patent, col. 2:50-64). The system is intended to give the user a realistic impression of a finished or modified property, thereby facilitating a sale of the property or related products and services (’267 Patent, col. 3:4-13).
• Technical Importance: The method aims to overcome the limitations of static blueprints or physical model homes by providing a dynamic, interactive, and customizable virtual experience for prospective home buyers or remodelers.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’267 Patent, referring to them as the "Exemplary ’267 Patent Claims" without specifying them individually (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's focus on real property sales.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • enabling a user of a computing device to select a real property from a plurality of real properties being offered for sale;
  • displaying, on an electronic display, an immersive three-dimensional image of a first one of a plurality of rooms of the real property that has been selected, and seamlessly changing a view on the electronic display in order to display an immersive three-dimensional image of a second one of the plurality of rooms of the real property on the display; and
  • enabling the user of the computing device to remove, add, and/or modify a feature shown in an image selected from the group consisting of the image of the first one of the plurality of rooms of the real property that has been selected and the image of the second one of the plurality of rooms of the real property that has been selected.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the broad reference to "one or more claims" suggests this possibility.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products, referring to them generally as "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). Given that the defendant is Tri Pointe Homes, Inc., a home builder, the accused instrumentalities are likely online systems, such as website-based design or visualization tools, that allow prospective buyers to view, customize, and select options for new homes.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the ’267 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). It further alleges that Defendant makes, uses, offers to sell, and sells these products, and that its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The complaint does not provide specific details on the functionality or market position of the accused products beyond these general allegations.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's products directly infringe the ’267 Patent (Compl. ¶11). However, the pleading provides its substantive, element-by-element infringement analysis in an external document, "Exhibit 2," which it incorporates by reference (Compl. ¶¶16-17). As Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint document, a detailed analysis of the specific infringement theory is not possible from the provided materials. The complaint's narrative allegations are conclusory, stating that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’267 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of representative Claim 1 and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis will likely raise several technical and legal questions for the court.
  • Scope Questions: What is the scope of an "immersive three-dimensional image"? Does the accused system’s display meet this limitation as it is defined in the patent? What technical characteristics are required for "seamlessly changing a view" between different rooms, and does the accused system's user interface perform this function?
  • Technical Questions: What specific "feature" in the accused system is the user enabled to "remove, add, and/or modify" as required by the final clause of Claim 1? Does this functionality map directly onto the claim element, or is there a technical distinction in its operation? For example, does simply selecting a pre-set color palette constitute "modifying a feature" in the manner claimed?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "immersive three-dimensional image"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 and is fundamental to the invention. The definition will be critical to determining infringement, as it sets the baseline technical standard for the required user experience. Practitioners may focus on whether a standard, navigable 3D model on a website is sufficiently "immersive," or if the patent requires more advanced features.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the user can "view the scene from any vantage point and at any angle," which could be argued to cover any standard 3D rendering that allows camera movement (’267 Patent, col. 2:51-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses more specific technologies for achieving immersion, such as using "stereographic images that trick the brain of the user," using glasses or goggles with separate displays for each eye, or using a "virtual 3-D camera" to create the scene (’267 Patent, col. 4:26-50). A defendant may argue these specific embodiments limit the term to more than just a simple 3D view.

• The Term: "seamlessly changing a view"

• Context and Importance: This term in Claim 1 describes the transition between viewing different rooms of the virtual property. Its construction will determine what kind of user interface transition meets the claim limitation. The dispute may center on whether a typical web hyperlink or menu click that loads a new page or model constitutes a "seamless" change.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may support a plain and ordinary meaning where any smooth, user-initiated transition from one view to another qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the experience as simulating "walking from one room to a connected room" and enabling a user to "seamlessly move from room to room" (’267 Patent, col. 9:31-33, 6:59-60). This language could support an interpretation requiring a continuous visual transition without abrupt cuts or loading screens, akin to movement in a first-person video game.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’267 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that its service "constitutes actual knowledge" and that Defendant's continued infringing activities "despite such actual knowledge" are willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

This case appears to center on the application of a 2008-era patent on virtual home visualization to a modern home builder's web-based marketing tools. The resolution will likely depend on the court's determination of two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the key terms "immersive" and "seamlessly"? Whether the accused website features, which likely did not exist in their current form when the patent was filed, fall within the scope of these terms will be a primary point of contention.

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming the complaint's conclusory allegations are eventually supported by the evidence in the referenced Exhibit 2, does the accused system's functionality for selecting options (e.g., countertops, flooring) constitute "enabling the user...to remove, add, and/or modify a feature" as required by Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch between selecting pre-packaged options and the modification contemplated by the patent?