Flick Intelligence LLC v. Seiko Epson Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Flick Intelligence, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Seiko Epson Corp. and Epson America, Inc. (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00449, W.D. Tex., 10/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the district, including an office in Round Rock, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartglasses, including the Moveria product line, infringe a patent related to augmented reality systems that allow users to interact with selectable, time-sensitive zones on a display.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue facilitates user interaction with video content through augmented reality devices, enabling the selection of specific on-screen elements to retrieve supplemental data.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and discloses prior settlement licenses related to its patent portfolio. It argues these licenses do not trigger patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), potentially preempting a defense that could limit damages.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-09-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,965,237 Priority Date
2018-05-08	U.S. Patent No. 9,965,237 Issued
2025-10-03	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,965,237 - Methods, Systems and Processor-Readable Media for Bidirectional Communications and Data Sharing

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,965,237, issued May 8, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a deficiency in existing interactive video systems, which provide general information about a scene but do not give users the ability to select a specific element within the scene to obtain information pertaining only to that element (’237 Patent, col. 1:50-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses systems and methods that allow a user to interact with a multimedia display using a wireless device, such as an augmented reality headset. The system can define specific, selectable zones on a display that are active for certain periods of time, corresponding to elements appearing in a video (’237 Patent, col. 8:50-63). By selecting a zone, the user can retrieve supplemental data. Independent claim 1 is directed specifically to an augmented reality device that uses markers to align its local display with a second, external display, and then presents annotation data corresponding to time-and-space-defined "selectable zones" (’237 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 27:46-col. 28:67).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to create a more granular and user-directed interactive viewing experience, a foundational concept for modern augmented reality applications and interactive media.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-16 (’237 Patent, col. 27:46-col. 30:25; Compl. ¶16).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’237 Patent recites the essential elements of an augmented reality device:
  • a local display;
  • a scene alignment module that locates a display position using at least one marker to map the local display to a second display;
  • an annotation data receiver that generates annotation selection data, which includes cursor coordinates and specifies at least one selectable zone;
  • the selectable zone is defined by a combination of selectable areas and time periods, with coordinates in both space and time;
  • the coordinates are specified as a series of discrete coordinates.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant’s smartglasses, including but not limited to the Moveria product line, as well as "Passthrough and related systems" (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products are smartglasses that support "bidirectional communications and data sharing" (Compl. ¶15). The infringement theory appears to be based on customers using the smartglasses and related systems in a manner that practices the methods claimed in the patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused products.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in an "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶17). In the absence of a claim chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations. The plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's Moveria smartglasses, when used as instructed, constitute an "augmented reality device" that infringes one or more claims of the ’237 patent (Compl. ¶¶16-18). The core of the direct infringement allegation is that the accused smartglasses embody the invention, and that infringement occurs when Defendant and its customers put these devices into service (Compl. ¶16).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the architecture of the Moveria smartglasses meets the specific claim limitations of an "augmented reality device." For example, does the accused product use a "scene alignment module" that relies on "at least one marker" to map its local display to a "second display" as required by claim 1?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not explain how the accused products create or manage "selectable zones" with coordinates "in both space and time." A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the Moveria products generate and process annotation data in the specific manner recited by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "scene alignment module that locates a display position... to map points on said local display to points on a second display" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the claimed invention's architecture, requiring a specific relationship between the augmented reality device ("local display") and an external screen ("second display"). The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused Moveria smartglasses perform mapping and alignment in this manner, or if they operate independently of a "second display."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "second display" simply as a "multimedia display" such as a television or movie screen, suggesting the term could encompass any external video source the AR device views (’237 Patent, col. 8:1-3, col. 11:1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 and its accompanying description show a system where the AR device specifically uses "markers" (153, 155, 157) on or around the second display to determine its location and distance, which could support a narrower construction requiring such explicit physical or digital markers (’237 Patent, col. 10:66-col. 11:2).

• The Term: "selectable zone" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical, as it requires coordinates "in both space and time" and is tied to "annotation selection data." Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a pre-defined data structure linking screen locations to video timestamps, or if it could be construed more broadly to cover any on-the-fly object recognition and selection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states a selectable zone is a "combination of selectable areas and time periods" and can change shape and size during a scene, which could support a flexible interpretation covering dynamically generated interactive areas (’237 Patent, col. 8:50-63).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that "annotation selection data specifies the times and screen locations at which certain scene elements... are displayed," suggesting a more structured, pre-authored data set rather than real-time generation (’237 Patent, col. 8:34-37).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant’s website and product instruction manuals actively encourage and instruct customers on how to use the smartglasses in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶18). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the products are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶19).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent. Instead, the prayer for relief requests a declaration that infringement is willful and an award of enhanced damages should discovery reveal that Defendant knew of the patent prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶VI.d-e).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: Does the operational architecture of the accused Moveria smartglasses map onto the specific modular structure of claim 1, particularly the "scene alignment module" that requires interaction between a "local display" and a "second display"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of data structure and functionality: What evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused products generate, receive, and process "annotation selection data" to create "selectable zones" that are defined by coordinates in both space and time, as the claims require?
• A significant legal question regarding damages may be the effect of prior licensing: Will the plaintiff's history of settling lawsuits against other defendants create a patent marking obligation under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), and if so, has the plaintiff met it? The complaint's proactive pleading on this issue suggests it will be a focal point of the case.