DCT

2:22-cv-00215

Eagle View Tech v. GAF Materials LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:21-cv-10669, D.N.J., 07/23/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant GAF Materials LLC maintains a regular and established place of business in the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GAF QuickMeasure aerial roof measurement products and services infringe nine U.S. patents related to generating roof reports from aerial imagery.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue facilitates the remote creation of detailed roof measurement reports by analyzing aerial images, a process critical to the efficiency and accuracy of the roofing, construction, and insurance industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that several of the patents-in-suit have survived challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, with multiple petitions for inter partes review (IPR) having been denied institution. The complaint also references prior litigation in the same district against a different defendant (Xactware Solutions, Inc.), in which a court allegedly found several of the asserted patents to be directed to patentable subject matter, a finding that may influence future proceedings in this case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-04-17 Earliest Priority Date for ’436, ’961, ’568, ’960 Patents
2008-01-01 EagleView launched its first remote aerial roof measurement service
2008-10-31 Earliest Priority Date for ’840, ’152, ’376, ’149 Patents
2009-05-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’880 Patent
2011-12-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,078,436 Issued
2012-05-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,170,840 Issued
2012-06-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,209,152 Issued
2013-09-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,542,880 Issued
2014-03-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,670,961 Issued
2015-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,129,376 Issued
2016-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 9,514,568 Issued
2020-01-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,528,960 Issued
2020-06-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,685,149 Issued
2021-05-04 Original Complaint Filing Date
2021-07-23 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,078,436 - "Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the traditional method of roof estimation as inefficient and costly, requiring contractors to physically visit a property to take measurements before preparing an estimate (Compl. ¶ 26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer system that automates this process by receiving and correlating at least two different non-stereoscopic aerial images of a roof—specifically a top-down ("top plan") view and an angled ("oblique perspective") view—to generate a three-dimensional model and a detailed roof estimate report without requiring a site visit (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28; '436 Patent, Abstract). The system generates a tangible report from these digital inputs, annotated with measurements for slope, area, and edges (Compl. ¶ 28).
  • Technical Importance: This technology was intended to increase the speed, safety, and accuracy of the roof estimation process, obviating the need for manual tape measurements (Compl. ¶ 11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('436 Patent, Claim 1; Compl. ¶ 46).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A computing system with a memory and a roof estimation module.
    • The module is configured to receive a first aerial image (top plan view) and a second aerial image (oblique perspective view) of a roof, where the images are not a stereoscopic pair.
    • Correlating the first aerial image with the second.
    • Generating, from the correlation, a three-dimensional model of the roof including planar roof sections with corresponding slope, area, and edges.
    • Generating and transmitting a roof estimate report that includes top plan views of the model, annotated with numerical values for slope, area, and edge length, using at least two different indicia for different roof properties.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of at least one claim of the patent (Compl. ¶ 45).

U.S. Patent No. 8,170,840 - "Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The invention addresses the challenge of accurately determining the pitch (slope) of various roof sections when working with two-dimensional aerial images, a critical variable for accurate roof modeling and cost estimation (Compl. ¶ 10; ’840 Patent, col. 1:15-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a computer-implemented method that displays an aerial image of a roof and overlays a "pitch determination marker" on it. An operator manipulates this interactive marker to indicate the pitch of a planar roof section. The system then receives this indication and modifies a model of the roof accordingly, integrating the user's input to refine the model's accuracy (Compl. ¶ 67; ’840 Patent, col. 3:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: This interactive approach allows for more efficient and accurate generation of 3D models and roof-estimate reports compared to purely manual or less interactive automated procedures (Compl. ¶ 29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('840 Patent, Claim 1; Compl. ¶ 67).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A computer-implemented method for generating a roof estimate report.
    • Displaying an aerial image of a building's roof with multiple planar roof sections.
    • Displaying a pitch determination marker overlaid on the aerial image.
    • Receiving, based on the marker, an indication of the pitch for one of the planar roof sections.
    • Modifying a model of the roof based on the received indication.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of at least one claim of the patent (Compl. ¶ 66).

U.S. Patent No. 8,209,152 - "Concurrent Display Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to methods for generating a roof estimate report that involve user interaction with aerial images. The system receives an indication of a roof feature from a user, modifies a 3D model based on that indication, and displays a projection of the modified feature (e.g., a line drawing) back onto the aerial images (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 87). This provides interactive feedback to the user during the modeling process.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 10, which depends from independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 86-87).
  • Accused Features: The accused QuickMeasure process is alleged to provide a user interface where a user can indicate features on an aerial image (such as corners) to modify a 3D wireframe model of the roof, with projections of that model being overlaid on the images (Compl. ¶¶ 93-98).

U.S. Patent No. 8,542,880 - "System and Process for Roof Measurement Using Aerial Imagery"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a process for determining roof attributes by first using a computer input field to receive location data, then providing a "straight down overhead view" of the location. A moveable visual marker is provided on the image for the user to precisely identify the building's location, after which the system provides access to one or more oblique images corresponding to the final coordinates of the marker (Compl. ¶ 109). This workflow guides a user from a general address to specific, relevant imagery.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 109).
  • Accused Features: The accused QuickMeasure order process allegedly requires a user to enter an address and then move a pin (a visual marker) on an overhead map to confirm the property location before the system generates a report that includes oblique images (Compl. ¶¶ 114-119).

U.S. Patent No. 8,670,961 - "Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods"

  • Technology Synopsis: The invention relates to a computing system that uses a plurality of aerial images taken independently at different times and dates, including both top-plan and oblique views. The system uses a calibration module to analyze the images, calculate a pitch for each roof section, and generate an output report including the pitch information and annotated top-plan views (Compl. ¶ 130).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 130).
  • Accused Features: The QuickMeasure system is accused of using a plurality of aerial images, which are allegedly taken at different times and dates, and using a calibration module to analyze them and calculate roof pitch for inclusion in its reports (Compl. ¶¶ 136-143).

U.S. Patent No. 9,129,376 - "Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method using a graphical user interface that includes an aerial image and an interactive "pitch determination marker." An operator manipulates the marker by moving it and adjusting its "arm" to align with a sloped edge on the image. The system then determines the pitch based on the marker's configuration and generates a report (Compl. ¶ 157).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 157).
  • Accused Features: The QuickMeasure system is alleged to employ a process where a user manipulates an interactive control (pitch determination marker) on an aerial image to specify the pitch of roof sections, which is then used to determine the measurements in the final report (Compl. ¶¶ 162-165).

U.S. Patent No. 9,514,568 - "Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a method for generating a roof report that includes correlating first and second aerial images by "registering pairs of points" corresponding to the same point on the roof. The method also involves displaying ridge and valley lines in different colors in the final report (Compl. ¶ 179).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 179).
  • Accused Features: QuickMeasure is accused of performing image analysis by correlating aerial images to generate a 3D model and of using different colors to indicate ridge and valley lines in its outputted reports (Compl. ¶¶ 190, 195-197).

U.S. Patent No. 10,528,960 - "Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a process of constructing a 3D model by using calibration information to convert pixel distances into physical lengths. The process involves identifying common reference points in different aerial images and triangulating them to identify a location in 3D space, which is then used to determine physical lengths between points (Compl. ¶ 209).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 209).
  • Accused Features: The QuickMeasure system is alleged to use calibration modules to analyze aerial images, convert pixel distances to physical lengths, and triangulate reference points to calculate the measurements included in its roof reports (Compl. ¶¶ 218-221).

U.S. Patent No. 10,685,149 - "Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method involving an interactive user interface control that an operator manipulates to align with the slope of a roof section. Based on this alignment, the system receives a pitch indication, modifies a roof model, and generates a detailed report including values for slope, pitches, total area, and measurements of ridges and valleys (Compl. ¶ 236).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 236).
  • Accused Features: The QuickMeasure system is accused of providing a user interface where an operator manipulates a control to specify pitch, which is then used to modify the roof model and generate the final report containing the claimed types of measurements (Compl. ¶¶ 242-246).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is identified as GAF QuickMeasure roof reports and the software used to generate these reports, collectively referred to as the "Accused Product" or "QuickMeasure" (Compl. ¶ 1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The QuickMeasure service provides roof measurement reports for residential, commercial, and multi-family buildings (Compl. ¶ 2). The system generates these reports by processing and analyzing multiple aerial images of a property, including both top-down and oblique views (Compl. ¶ 52). The complaint provides a screenshot from an example GAF report showing both a "Top View" and four different "Side Views" used for a single property (Compl. p. 19).
  • The process is computer-implemented and results in a tangible report that includes calculated measurements such as roof area, pitch, and the lengths of various edges like eaves, rakes, hips, and ridges (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 54). The complaint alleges that the process involves a user moving an interactive marker or control to specify features like pitch (Compl. ¶ 73) and that there is a "human QA at the end... to mak[e] sure the measurements, ... the lines are properly drawn by the computer" (Compl. ¶ 75).
  • The complaint positions the Accused Product as a direct competitor to Plaintiffs' products in the construction, government, insurance, and solar markets (Compl. ¶ 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,078,436 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A computing system for generating a roof estimate report, the computing system comprising: a memory; a roof estimation module that is stored on the memory... QuickMeasure uses a computer system with memory and a roof estimation module to generate reports. ¶¶ 47, 50, 51 col. 3:55-62
receive a first and a second aerial image of a building having a roof... wherein the first aerial image provides a top plan view of the roof and the second aerial image provides an oblique perspective view of the roof, and are not a stereoscopic pair; The QuickMeasure system receives and uses both top-down (top plan) and angled (oblique) aerial images that are not a stereoscopic pair to generate reports. ¶52 col. 4:1-9
correlate the first aerial image with the second aerial image; The system's roof estimation module correlates the top plan view and/or oblique images to calculate the measurements for the report. ¶53 col. 4:10-14
generate, based at least in part on the correlation between the first and second aerial images, a three-dimensional model of the roof that includes a plurality of planar roof sections that each have a corresponding slope, area, and edges; Based on correlating the different aerial images, the system generates a 3D model from which slope, area, and edge length measurements for all roof sections are derived and included in the report. ¶54 col. 4:15-21
generate and transmit a roof estimate report that includes one or more top plan views of the three-dimensional model annotated with numerical values... using at least two different indicia for different types of roof properties. The system generates and transmits a report that includes top-plan views of the 3D model, annotated with numerical values for slope, area, and edge length. Different colors and line styles are used as indicia for different roof features (e.g., ridges, valleys). ¶¶ 55, 56 col. 4:22-32

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The definition of "correlate" will be a central issue. The question may arise as to whether GAF's specific process for combining information from different images meets the claimed "correlation" step. A further question relates to "at least two different indicia." The complaint shows color-coding as one indicium (Compl. p. 27); what constitutes the second indicium will be a point of contention for the parties to argue.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product generates a full "three-dimensional model" as required by the claim, versus simply extracting 2D measurements and calculating dimensions from those? The complaint alleges the generation of a 3D model from which values are derived, but the nature and completeness of this model will be a focus of discovery (Compl. ¶ 54).

U.S. Patent No. 8,170,840 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A computer-implemented method for generating a roof estimate report, the method comprising: displaying an aerial image of a building having a roof comprising a plurality of planar roof sections that each have a corresponding pitch; The QuickMeasure system displays aerial images of a building's roof, which has multiple sections with corresponding pitches. This is shown in GAF's reports which include both top-down and oblique views. ¶72 col. 10:1-4
displaying a pitch determination marker operable to indicate pitch of a planar roof section, wherein the pitch determination marker is overlaid on the aerial image of the building having the roof; During the report generation process, a user is alleged to move a "pitch determination marker" that is overlaid on the aerial images used to create the final report. ¶73 col. 10:5-9
receiving, based on the displayed pitch determination marker, an indication of the pitch of one of the plurality of planar roof sections of the roof of the building; The system receives an indication of the pitch from the user's manipulation of the marker, which then determines the numerical pitch values included in the final report. ¶74 col. 10:10-13
modifying a model of the roof based on the received indication of the pitch of the one planar roof section. The 3D model of the roof is modified during the report generation process to reflect the actual pitch of the roof sections based on the user's input. ¶75 col. 10:14-16

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The term "pitch determination marker" will be critical. The question will be whether any interactive element in GAF's user interface that influences the final pitch calculation qualifies as the claimed "marker," or if the term is limited to a specific tool or structure described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question is the nature of the "modifying" step. Does a user's manipulation of a "marker" directly and algorithmically modify a digital model as claimed, or does the "human QA" process cited in the complaint (Compl. ¶ 75) represent a different, non-infringing workflow where the model modification is disconnected from the marker's input?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’436 Patent

  • The Term: "correlate the first aerial image with the second aerial image"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central technical step that enables the creation of a 3D model from 2D images. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether GAF's proprietary software process, which combines data from multiple images, falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on whether "correlate" requires a specific type of automated photogrammetric process or if it can be read more broadly to include processes involving significant human assistance.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, not specifying any particular correlation algorithm. The specification may describe the process in general terms, such as using reference points to "co-register the images and reconstruct the three dimensional geometry of the object" ('436 Patent, col. 5:17-21).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description may disclose specific algorithms or user-driven steps for identifying and matching points between images. For example, the specification discusses a user identifying reference points with an input device, which could be argued to limit the scope of "correlate" to a user-assisted process ('436 Patent, col. 6:31-36).

For the ’840 Patent

  • The Term: "pitch determination marker"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the interactive tool at the heart of the claimed method. Its definition will determine whether the interactive elements within GAF's workflow, which the complaint alleges a user manipulates to define pitch, constitute an infringement. The dispute may center on whether the term requires a specific visual representation (like a protractor) or simply any interactive graphical control used for the claimed purpose.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim refers to a "marker operable to indicate pitch," which could be argued to encompass any graphical user interface control that performs this function. The patent summary describes "interactive user interface components operable by an operator to perform various functions," suggesting the term is not limited to a single embodiment (’840 Patent, col. 2:42-45).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed descriptions and figures of specific embodiments, such as a "protractor tool" (Fig. 5B) and an "envelope tool" (Fig. 5C). A defendant may argue that the term "pitch determination marker" should be construed as being limited to these disclosed structures or their equivalents (’840 Patent, col. 13:9-15, col. 13:42-46).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that GAF induces infringement by its end users. This allegation is based on GAF providing "promotional, advertising, and instructional materials" that allegedly encourage users to use the Accused Product in a manner that performs the steps of the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶ 58-59, 77).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all patents-in-suit. The basis for this allegation is GAF's alleged knowledge of the patents prior to the lawsuit. This knowledge is purportedly based on the patents' identification on EagleView's website, substantial press coverage of Plaintiffs' patent portfolio and prior litigation, and the alleged similarity between the parties' products, which Plaintiffs claim suggests copying (Compl. ¶¶ 57, 59, 76, 78).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: does the accused GAF QuickMeasure process, which the complaint alleges involves "human QA," perform the specific, automated "correlation" and model "generation" steps recited in the patents in an infringing manner? The extent and nature of human intervention versus automated computer processing in GAF's system will be a central point of factual dispute.
  • A second key question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pitch determination marker," described in the context of specific "protractor" and "envelope" tools in the '840 patent, be construed broadly enough to cover the interactive elements within GAF's accused workflow? The outcome of claim construction on this and similar terms will be pivotal to the infringement analysis.
  • Finally, a critical question for damages will concern willfulness: given the public history of the patents-in-suit from prior enforcement actions, what was GAF's state of mind? The court will need to determine whether GAF had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and whether it proceeded with an objectively high likelihood of infringement without a reasonable, good-faith belief in its non-infringement or the patents' invalidity.