Flick Intelligence LLC v. Adobe Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Adobe Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00356, W.D. Tex., 08/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Adobe XD Platform infringes a patent related to systems for using a wireless handheld device to interact with content on a separate multimedia display.
• Technical Context: The technology enables a "second screen" experience, where users can select specific elements within video content on one display to receive supplemental information on a personal device.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses but asserts that none were for the production of a patented article, which may be an attempt to preemptively address potential patent marking defenses.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,459,762 - “Methods, Systems and Processor-Readable Media for Bidirectional Communications and Data Sharing”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,459,762, “Methods, Systems and Processor-Readable Media for Bidirectional Communications and Data Sharing,” issued October 4, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge faced by viewers who become curious about specific people, places, or objects appearing in video content but lack a method to select a particular on-screen element and obtain information specifically about it. Existing solutions were described as too general. (’762 Patent, col. 2:44-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user can register a wireless hand held device (HHD), such as a smartphone, with a controller connected to a multimedia display (e.g., a television). The user selects a "profile icon" to serve as a personalized cursor on the main display. By manipulating the HHD, the user can move this cursor to select an on-screen element, which triggers the system to provide supplemental data about that element to the HHD or another display. (’762 Patent, col. 2:20-34, Fig. 23).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to create a more interactive and granular "second screen" experience, moving beyond general companion apps to allow direct, user-driven queries of specific visual content in real-time. (’762 Patent, col. 2:8-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20. (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • Selecting at least one profile icon for use as a first cursor during interaction of a first wireless hand held device with a multimedia display.
  • Registering a second wireless hand held device with a controller.
  • Selecting an additional profile icon for use as a second cursor for the second device.
  • Altering the appearance of the cursors so the second is visibly distinct from the first.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of claims 1-20 covers both independent and dependent claims within that range. (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Adobe XD Platform. (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Adobe XD Platform is an infringing instrumentality but provides minimal technical description of its functionality. (Compl. ¶16). It alleges that Defendant instructs customers on the use of "smart glasses and related systems" through its website and manuals, which causes infringement. (Compl. ¶17-18). The complaint does not specify how the Adobe XD Platform, a user interface and user experience design tool, relates to smart glasses or interaction with shared multimedia displays as described in the patent-in-suit.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary exemplary claim chart in "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not provided with the filed complaint. (Compl. ¶16). The narrative allegations state that Defendant makes, sells, and offers "Passthrough and related systems that infringe one or more claims of the ’762 patent." (Compl. ¶15). Without the claim chart, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: The lack of detailed factual allegations in the complaint suggests several potential points of contention will arise.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the patent's claims, which describe a system of a handheld device interacting with a separate "multimedia display," can be construed to read on a software application like Adobe XD, which typically operates on a single computer or device. The interpretation of what constitutes a "wireless hand held device" and a "multimedia display" in the context of the accused product will be critical.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not explain how the Adobe XD Platform performs the claimed steps, such as registering distinct handheld devices with a controller or using personalized "profile icons" as cursors for multiple users. A key factual question will be whether the accused software contains functionality that maps to these specific claim elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "wireless hand held device" (HHD)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the primary user interaction tool. The infringement case may depend on whether a general-purpose computer (e.g., a laptop) running the accused software can be considered an HHD in the context of the patent, which appears to describe a device like a smartphone or remote control used to point at a separate screen.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, including a "Smartphone, cellular telephone, a remote control device... a table computing device (e.g., 'iPad') and so forth," which suggests the term is not limited to a single type of device. (’762 Patent, col. 8:51-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The overall context of the invention involves a user holding a device to interact with a separate, typically larger, multimedia display. An interpretation could be advanced that limits the term to portable devices used in such a "second screen" context, as distinct from an all-in-one computer. (’762 Patent, Fig. 1).

• Term: "profile icon for use as a cursor"

• Context and Importance: This term is highly specific and appears to be a key feature of the claimed invention, linking a user's identity to an on-screen pointer. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused platform, a design tool, utilizes anything analogous to a personalized "profile icon" for multiple, distinct users interacting simultaneously with a shared display.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "cursor" is generally understood in computing, and a party might argue that any user-controlled pointer on screen meets this limitation, with "profile icon" being merely a preferred embodiment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links the profile icon to a specific user's profile and shows distinct graphical icons for different users (e.g., a dollar sign, a deer, a skull) interacting with the same screen, suggesting a feature tied to multi-user identification rather than a generic pointer. (’762 Patent, Fig. 20; col. 25:40-57).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant actively encourages infringement by instructing customers on how to use its products and services through its website and product manuals. (Compl. ¶17). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the accused product is not a staple commercial product and its only reasonable use is an infringing one. (Compl. ¶18).
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages, contingent on discovery revealing that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent’s claims, rooted in the context of a handheld device controlling a cursor on a separate multimedia display for content interaction, be construed to cover the functionality of a professional UI/UX design software platform operating on a single computer?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: What specific features within the Adobe XD Platform will Plaintiff identify as performing the claimed method steps, particularly the registration of multiple distinct handheld devices and the use of personalized "profile icons" as cursors on a shared display for each user?