Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. Endeavor One Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Endeavor One, Inc. (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Banie & Ishimoto LLP
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-01834, W.D. Wash., 11/29/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in the State of Washington and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s virtual reality products, which utilize inside-out tracking on head-mounted displays, infringe a patent related to determining an object's absolute position and orientation using on-board optical sensors.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns six-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) pose tracking for virtual and augmented reality, a foundational technology for creating immersive user experiences without external sensors.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not contain information regarding prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 - "Deriving Input From Six Degrees Of Freedom Interfaces"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540, "Deriving Input From Six Degrees Of Freedom Interfaces," issued January 5, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for an efficient, low-cost method to determine the complete six-degrees-of-freedom (6-DOF) "absolute pose"—both position and orientation—of an item manipulated by a user in a three-dimensional environment (e.g., a gaming controller or wand) ('540 Patent, col. 4:31-56). This was presented as an alternative to complex, resource-intensive motion capture systems that rely on external cameras to track objects ('540 Patent, col. 5:26-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "inside-out" tracking system where a unit on-board the item, such as a camera, receives "non-collinear optical inputs" from at least one stationary object in the user's environment ('540 Patent, Abstract). By analyzing these optical inputs, the system can establish a "stable frame" of reference and calculate the item's absolute 6-DOF pose within that frame, which is then used to generate input for a software application ('540 Patent, col. 8:1-26). Figure 1A illustrates this concept, showing a user (102) holding an item (104) that optically observes a stationary television (126) to determine its pose.
• Technical Importance: This approach, where the tracked device sees the world rather than being seen by external sensors, is a key enabler for portable, self-contained virtual and augmented reality systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1.
• Claim 1 of the ’540 Patent recites:
  • An interface with a unit on-board a user's item, configured to receive non-collinear optical inputs from at least one stationary object in a 3D environment.
  • Processing electronics that employ a computer vision algorithm using a homography to recover the item's absolute pose from the optical inputs.
  • An application that uses a signal generated from the absolute pose as an input, where the pose comprises at least three translational and three rotational degrees of freedom.
• The complaint also asserts infringement of dependent Claims 2, 11-15, 17-18, 25, 32, 36, 37, 39, 40, 44-45, and 47-49 (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s products incorporating augmented or virtual reality, specifically Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays (VR HMDs), such as Oculus or other HMDs, that run Defendant's software (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The complaint provides screenshots of a game titled "Halo Recruit" as an example (Compl. p. 4, 7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused VR HMDs use "inside-out tracking systems" that employ on-board cameras and computer vision to determine a user's position in 3D space (Compl. ¶11, p. 4). This is allegedly achieved by tracking a user's environment to "lock" virtual content to physical locations, thereby using stationary objects to establish a stable frame of reference for the virtual experience (Compl. ¶11, pp. 4-5). A screenshot from a "Halo Recruit" gameplay video shows a user interacting within a virtual environment generated by the accused system (Compl. p. 4). Defendant’s website describes "Halo Recruit" as an experience that introduces users to the game's universe "through the power of Windows Mixed Reality" (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "homography," a specific mathematical tool in computer vision, is actually used "to recover said absolute pose" as claimed. A defendant could argue that while its system may use homography for ancillary tasks (e.g., plane detection), the primary pose recovery algorithm is based on other techniques, such as Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) or visual-inertial odometry, that do not meet this limitation.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the system uses "stationary objects in the environment" to establish a "stable frame" (Compl. pp. 4-5). An evidentiary question will be whether the dynamically generated and updated feature maps used by modern inside-out tracking systems constitute a "stable frame" derived from a "stationary object" as contemplated by the patent, or if there is a fundamental operational difference.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "using a homography to recover said absolute pose"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in element (b) of Claim 1 and is highly specific. The infringement analysis for this claim will likely depend on whether the accused computer vision algorithm performs the function of pose recovery in the precise manner claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern VR tracking systems often employ complex, multi-stage algorithms, and the specific role, if any, of a homography calculation will be a key technical fact.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint itself provides a definition of homography as an "aka projective or perspective transformation" (Compl. ¶11, p. 5), aligning it with its standard meaning in the field. The patent specification does not appear to provide a special definition, which may support an argument that the term should be given its ordinary meaning to a person skilled in computer vision.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide explicit language that narrows the term. A defendant’s argument for a narrower construction would likely rely on expert testimony to argue that, in the context of the patent's disclosure, the phrase implies that homography is the primary or sole mechanism for pose recovery, as opposed to one of several tools used in a more complex process like SLAM.

• The Term: "stable frame"

• Context and Importance: The invention requires establishing a "stable frame" from optical inputs to serve as the reference for determining the item's pose. The definition of what constitutes a "stable" frame will be critical for determining whether the dynamic, feature-based coordinate systems of modern VR tracking infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests some flexibility, stating that a stable frame "is typically not a stationary or even an inertial frame" but is defined by "stationary objects" ('540 Patent, col. 2:48-55). This could support a reading that covers locally consistent reference frames established during a user session.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly links the stable frame to "stationary objects" like a "ground plane, fixed points, lines, reference surfaces and other known features" ('540 Patent, col. 2:36-38). This language could support an argument that the "stable frame" must be tied to pre-existing, physically static, and identifiable objects, rather than an abstract map of arbitrary feature points that is created and updated dynamically by the accused system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by end-users and third parties through the design, marketing, and provision of instructions for its VR products (Compl. ¶¶19-23).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’540 Patent and its infringement "since at least the date of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶16), indicating an allegation of post-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of algorithmic specificity: does the evidence show that the accused VR tracking systems employ a "homography" as the mechanism "to recover said absolute pose," as strictly required by Claim 1, or do they utilize alternative computer vision frameworks (e.g., SLAM, visual-inertial odometry) that may achieve a similar outcome through a technically distinct and non-infringing pathway?
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "stable frame," which the patent describes as being established from "stationary objects," be construed to read on the dynamic, session-specific, and feature-based environmental maps that are generated and continuously updated by modern inside-out tracking systems?