DCT

2:25-cv-00868

Flick Intelligence LLC v. Lucid Software Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00868, D. Utah, 09/29/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Utah based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district and committing alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Visual Collaboration Suite infringes a patent related to systems for interactive data sharing between handheld devices and multimedia displays.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for using a personal device to select and retrieve information about specific objects displayed on a shared screen, such as a television or monitor.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and discloses that it has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities, asserting that those licenses did not pertain to the production of a patented article, which may be an attempt to preemptively address issues related to patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,459,762 Priority Date
2016-10-04 U.S. Patent No. 9,459,762 Issues
2025-09-29 Complaint Filed

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. 9459762, “Methods, Systems and Processor-Readable Media for Bidirectional Communications and Data Sharing,” issued October 4, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for systems that allow a user to obtain information about a specific element within a video scene, as opposed to existing solutions that provide only general information about the entire scene (’762 Patent, col. 1:59-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user registers a wireless handheld device (HHD), such as a smartphone, with a controller connected to a multimedia display (’762 Patent, col. 2:20-23). The user can select a "profile icon" to serve as a cursor on the main display and use the HHD to move the cursor to select content being shown (’762 Patent, Abstract). Upon selection, supplemental data about that specific content is provided from the display or a remote database to the HHD or another screen (’762 Patent, col. 2:27-34; Fig. 21).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables real-time, object-specific information retrieval from video or other multimedia content, facilitating a more interactive viewing experience than traditional, passive media consumption (’762 Patent, col. 1:49-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • Selecting a profile icon for a first cursor associated with a first wireless handheld device (HHD) interacting with a multimedia display.
    • Registering a second wireless handheld device with a controller.
    • Selecting an additional profile icon for a second cursor associated with the second HHD.
    • Altering the appearance of the cursors so the second cursor is visibly distinct from the first.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies Defendant’s “Visual Collaboration Suite” as an accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality supports bidirectional communications and data sharing (Compl. ¶14).
  • The functionality is further described through references to Defendant's website, which allegedly provides instructions on how to use the products and services (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a more granular analysis of the accused product's specific technical operations.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not included with the complaint as filed (Compl. ¶16). The narrative allegations suggest that Defendant's Visual Collaboration Suite infringes by enabling interactive data sharing functionalities covered by the ’762 Patent. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the language of Claim 1, which explicitly requires the simultaneous use of a "first wireless hand held device" and a "second wireless hand held device" to create two distinct cursors on a single multimedia display, reads on the functionality of the accused software suite. The parties may dispute whether two users collaborating from separate computers constitutes the two distinct "hand held devices" interacting with a single "multimedia display" as contemplated by the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused software performs the claimed step of a user "selecting at least one profile icon for use as a... cursor." This raises the question of whether a standard operating system pointer in the accused software meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a user-customizable icon as depicted in the patent’s embodiments.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "first wireless hand held device" and "second wireless hand held device"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to the scope of Claim 1. The infringement analysis may depend on whether this phrase requires two separate physical devices (e.g., two smartphones) interacting with one screen, or if it can be interpreted more broadly to cover two users interacting in a shared software environment from their respective computers.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overall goal is to enable multi-user interaction with shared content, which could support an argument that any two distinct user-controlled endpoints in a collaborative session qualify as two "devices."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 18 and 20 depict multiple, distinct HHDs interacting with a single multimedia display, and the specification describes HHDs as devices like a "Smartphone, cellular telephone, a remote control device," or a "table computing device" (’762 Patent, col. 7:51-56; Figs. 18, 20). This may support a narrower construction limited to separate physical hardware.

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

  • Context and Importance: This term's definition will determine whether a standard computer cursor infringes or if a more specific, user-selected graphical representation is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused software likely uses standard cursors.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the icon to be used "as a cursor," which could suggest that any on-screen pointer fulfilling the function of a cursor meets the limitation (’762 Patent, col. 2:23-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of "profile icons" that users can select to represent themselves, such as a dollar sign, a deer, or a skeleton symbol (’762 Patent, col. 25:40-54; Fig. 20). This suggests the term requires a user-selectable, personalized identifier, not a generic pointer.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, asserting that Defendant’s website and product manuals instruct customers on how to use the accused product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶17). It also alleges contributory infringement on the grounds that the product is not a staple article of commerce and its only reasonable use is an infringing one (Compl. ¶18).
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiff requests a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages, conditioned 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 architectural mismatch: can the patent's claim structure, which recites two distinct physical "wireless hand held devices" interacting with a single "multimedia display," be mapped onto the accused "Visual Collaboration Suite," a software product where individual users typically interact via separate computers?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of definitional scope: does the term "profile icon for use as a... cursor," rooted in the patent's context of user-selected avatars, encompass the standard, non-personalized pointers likely used in Defendant's software, or is there a fundamental mismatch in this technical element?