Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. Jones Soda Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Jones Soda Co. and Jones Soda Co. (USA) Inc. (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Banie & Ishimoto LLP
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-01344, W.D. Wash., 08/30/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in Washington, maintains a regular and established place of business within the district, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Reel Labels" augmented reality feature, used with its soda products, infringes patents related to determining an object's absolute position and orientation (pose) in a three-dimensional environment using on-board optical sensors.
• Technical Context: The technology enables devices like smartphones to determine their precise location and orientation in the real world by optically detecting known features, a foundational capability for mobile augmented reality applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any pre-suit litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or prior licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 - Computer Interface For Manipulated Objects With An Absolute Pose Detection Component, issued January 29, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the need for a low-cost, robust, and accurate method for determining the absolute pose (position and orientation) of a manipulated object, such as a hand-held device, for the purpose of interfacing with a digital environment. Prior art solutions were often limited to relative motion (like a computer mouse) or were computationally expensive and complex (like multi-camera motion capture systems) (’559 Patent, col. 1:39-2:20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a manipulated object (e.g., a smartphone) uses an on-board photodetector (e.g., a camera) to detect high optical contrast features in the surrounding 3D environment. A controller on the object processes this visual data to identify a "derivative pattern," such as the pattern created by perspective distortion, which is indicative of the photodetector's position. This optical data can be supplemented by information from auxiliary sensors, such as an inertial measurement unit, to provide a complete and robust calculation of the object's pose (’559 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:26-6:11).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables absolute pose tracking to be performed on ubiquitous consumer devices without requiring complex external tracking hardware, which is a key enabler for accessible mobile augmented reality. (’559 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶8).
• Essential elements of Claim 1:
  • A manipulated object cooperating with a first plurality of high optical contrast features in a real three-dimensional environment.
  • a) A photodetector configured to detect the features and generate data representative of their positions.
  • b) A controller configured to identify a "derivative pattern" from the data, where the derivative pattern is indicative of the photodetector's position.
  • c) At least one auxiliary component, such as an auxiliary motion detection component, an active illumination component, or a scanning component.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 19, 24, and 25 (Compl. ¶¶11, 20).

U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 - Apparatus And Method For Determining An Absolute Pose Of A Manipulated Object In A Real Three-Dimensional Environment With Invariant Features, issued November 2, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related ’559 Patent, this invention addresses the technical challenge of accurately and efficiently determining the full six-degree-of-freedom absolute pose of a manipulated object with respect to a defined reference location in a real-world environment (’559 Patent, col. 1:39-2:20).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims an apparatus on a manipulated object that includes an "optical measuring means" (e.g., a camera) to optically infer the object's absolute pose by observing at least one "invariant feature" (e.g., a known marker) in the environment. A processor then prepares this pose data, identifies a required subset of it, and transmits that subset to an application via a communication link (’641 Patent, Claim 1; ’559 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This patent provides a system-level framework for a self-contained device to determine its own position and orientation within a known environment, a foundational capability for spatial computing and mobile augmented reality. (’559 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and claim 29 (Compl. ¶¶14, 17, 33).
• Essential elements of Claim 1:
  • An apparatus for processing absolute pose data from a manipulated object in a real three-dimensional environment.
  • a) At least one invariant feature in the environment.
  • b) An optical measuring means on the object for optically inferring its absolute pose using the invariant feature and expressing it as pose data (e.g., Euler angles and coordinates) with respect to a reference location.
  • c) A processor for preparing the pose data and identifying a subset of it.
  • d) A communication link for transmitting the subset to an application.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "labels and associated software and products," collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶9). This specifically concerns the "Reel Labels" feature, which involves an augmented reality experience triggered by scanning Jones Soda labels with a mobile application on a device such as an iPhone or Android phone (Compl. ¶¶9, 10, 16).
• Functionality and Market Context: The "Reel Labels" feature allows a user to point their smartphone's camera at a QR code on a Jones Soda bottle to "see it come to life through augmented reality video" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint provides a screenshot of Defendant's website instructing users to "SCAN The QR code," "POINT Your camera at the photo," and "WATCH The REEL LABEL video" (Compl. p. 3). The process is alleged to use the phone's camera as a photodetector, its processing unit as a controller, and its internal motion sensors (leveraging frameworks like Apple's ARKit or Google's ARCore) as an auxiliary motion detection component to facilitate the augmented reality experience (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,191,559 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the visual processing performed by a standard AR framework (like ARKit or ARCore) upon recognizing a QR code constitutes identifying a "derivative pattern" as claimed. The analysis may focus on whether the accused system merely recognizes a 2D marker to trigger a video overlay or if it computes a "pattern" (e.g., from perspective distortion) that is "indicative of the position of said photodetector" in a 3D coordinate system.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges cooperation with "high optical contrast features" in a "real three-dimensional environment", citing QR codes (Compl. ¶10). A photo in the complaint shows a user holding a phone over a bottle, illustrating the alleged infringement scenario (Compl. p. 4). A potential point of contention could be whether a single QR code on a movable bottle satisfies the claim's potential implication of using features distributed in the broader environment to establish a stable frame of reference.

7,826,641 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The term "invariant feature" may become a key point of dispute. The case may turn on whether a single QR code on a movable object like a soda bottle qualifies as an "invariant feature in said real three-dimensional environment" sufficient for inferring the device's "absolute pose" with respect to a "reference location."
  • Technical Questions: A factual question will be what data the accused app actually computes and uses. Does it infer the full "absolute pose data (φ, θ, ψ, x, y, z)" as required by the claim, or does it perform a more limited function, such as simply recognizing the QR code to trigger an event without calculating the phone's absolute position and orientation in world coordinates?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’559 Patent

• The Term: "derivative pattern"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's data processing step. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system's processing of camera data to enable the AR experience meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require more than simple feature detection; it suggests a subsequent analysis of the feature's appearance (e.g., its distortion) to determine the viewer's position.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the controller is "configured to identify a derivative pattern of light sources from the photodetector data. The derivative pattern is indicative of the asymmetric and generally linear pattern" (’559 Patent, col. 5:30-34). This could be argued to cover any pattern derived from the detected features.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification elaborates that as the pose changes, the feature pattern "undergoes a well-understood transformation (i.e., perspective distortion plus any optical aberrations...)" (’559 Patent, col. 5:35-39). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of geometric transformation analysis, not just feature recognition.

For the ’641 Patent

• The Term: "invariant feature"
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the entire pose inference process is based on it. Plaintiff alleges a QR code on a bottle is such a feature. The dispute may center on whether the term requires features to be fixed within the broader 3D environment to serve as a stable reference.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the related ’559 patent describes invariant features broadly as "high optical contrast features such as edges of objects, special markings, or light sources" (’559 Patent, col. 9:37-40), which could readily encompass a QR code.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the related patent depict multiple, distinct "invariant features" (B1-B7) distributed throughout a room, which are used to establish a world coordinate system (’559 Patent, Fig. 4). This may support an argument that the term, as used in the patent, implies a system of multiple, spatially fixed reference points, not a single marker on a movable object.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. It asserts that Jones Soda knowingly induces end-users to infringe by marketing the "Reel Labels" feature and providing explicit instructions on how to use it (e.g., "Scan The QR code," "Point Your camera"), which allegedly causes users to perform the claimed steps (Compl. ¶¶25-27, 39-40, p. 3).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents, based on knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement "since at least the date of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶23, 36). This establishes a basis for post-suit willfulness.

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

The resolution of this case may depend on the court's determination of two central issues:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "derivative pattern" be construed to cover the processing performed by a standard mobile augmented reality platform when it recognizes a QR code, or does the patent require a more specific type of geometric analysis of the feature's distortion to calculate the device's position?
2. A key claim construction question will be one of contextual meaning: Does the term "invariant feature in said real three-dimensional environment" read on a single marker (a QR code) located on a movable object (a soda bottle), or does the patent's disclosure limit the term to a plurality of features with a fixed, known relationship to a world coordinate system?