DCT
2:25-cv-00066
Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. Green Family Entertainment LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Green Family Entertainment LLC D/B/A Monster Mini Golf Bellevue (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Banie & Ishimoto LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00066, W.D. Wash., 01/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant owns and operates a regular and established place of business in Bellevue, Washington, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s virtual reality (VR) gaming systems infringe a patent related to determining an object's complete position and orientation in a three-dimensional environment using on-board optical sensors.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) position and orientation tracking, a foundational technology for modern "inside-out" tracking systems that enable immersive virtual and augmented reality experiences.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-01-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 Priority Date |
| 2016-01-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 Issued |
| 2025-01-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- 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 the technical challenge of accurately and efficiently determining the "absolute pose"—the complete three-dimensional position and orientation—of an item manipulated by a user, such as a gaming controller or stylus. Prior art methods often relied on external tracking cameras or were limited to tracking relative motion, which could lead to "gradual drift and accumulating position and orientation error." (’540 Patent, col. 5:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a self-contained system where a unit on-board the user's item (e.g., a camera) receives "non-collinear optical inputs" from stationary objects in the user's environment. By processing these optical inputs, the system can calculate the item's full six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) pose relative to a "stable frame" defined by those stationary objects, and then use that pose information as input for a software application. (’540 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-26).
- Technical Importance: This "inside-out" tracking approach, where the device determines its own position in space, was a key development for enabling consumer-friendly VR and AR systems by reducing the need for external sensors and simplifying system setup. (’540 Patent, col. 4:56-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- An interface for producing an input from an absolute pose of an item in a 3D environment.
- A unit on-board the item configured to receive non-collinear optical inputs from at least one stationary object.
- Processing electronics that use a computer vision algorithm employing a homography to recover the item's absolute pose from the optical inputs.
- An application that uses the pose signal as input, where the pose comprises at least three translational and three rotational degrees of freedom.
- The complaint also asserts infringement of claims 2, 11-19, 25, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 44-49, but does not provide specific allegations for them. (Compl. ¶11).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are virtual reality games and experiences offered by the Defendant, including "Asphalt 9 VR" and "Virtual Rabbids." (Compl. ¶10). The infringement allegations focus on the underlying hardware and software systems, including Virtual Reality Headsets (VR HMDs) such as the HP Reverb and HTC Vive, and software platforms like MS Mixed Reality, Valve SteamVR, and OpenXR. (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused VR HMDs are wearable items equipped with on-board cameras. (Compl. ¶10). These cameras are alleged to track stationary objects in the physical environment to establish a stable reference frame, which allows the system to determine the headset's position and orientation (pose) in real-time. (Compl. ¶10). This 6DoF tracking enables a user to physically move within a room and have that movement translated into navigation within the virtual game world. The complaint includes a screenshot from a promotional video for the "Asphalt 9 Legends VR | Premium Virtual Reality Racing Simulator" to illustrate the accused user experience. (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’540 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An interface for producing an input from an absolute pose of an item associated with a user in a three-dimensional environment, said interface comprising: | The combination of a VR HMD (e.g., HP Reverb, HTC Vive) and its associated software platform (e.g., MS Mixed Reality, SteamVR) is alleged to be an interface that produces input for a VR game. | ¶10 | col. 8:1-5 |
| a) a unit on-board said item, said unit configured to receive non-collinear optical inputs presented by at least one stationary object in said three-dimensional environment... | The on-board cameras on the VR HMD are alleged to be the "unit on-board said item" that receives optical inputs from stationary objects (e.g., lighted and unlighted objects) in the user's environment. | ¶10 | col. 8:49-54 |
| b) processing electronics employing a computer vision algorithm using a homography to recover said absolute pose of said item from a geometrical description of said non-collinear optical inputs... | The system is alleged to use electronics with a computer vision algorithm that employs a "homography (homography aka projective or perspective transformation)" to determine the HMD's pose based on the inputs from the on-board cameras. | ¶10 | col. 90:9-14 |
| c) an application employing said signal in said input, wherein said absolute pose of said item comprises at least three translational degrees of freedom and at least three rotational degrees of freedom... | The VR game applications are alleged to use the full 6DoF pose signal from the HMD to allow the user to navigate in 3D space, providing an "immersive virtual reality attraction." The complaint provides a screenshot showing a user's reaction to the experience with the text "DUDE, THAT WAS AMAZING!" (Compl. p. 7). | ¶10 | col. 8:15-26 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "homography." The complaint equates it with "projective or perspective transformation," but a defendant may argue that modern VR tracking algorithms are more complex and do not meet the specific mathematical definition of a homography as understood in the art and required by the claim. (Compl. ¶10).
- Technical Questions: The complaint's assertion that the accused systems use a "homography" is stated conclusorily. (Compl. ¶10). A potential point of contention will be what evidence, if any, Plaintiff can produce to show that the specific computer vision algorithms implemented in platforms like SteamVR or MS Mixed Reality actually perform the claimed "homography" calculation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "homography"
- Context and Importance: This term is the technical core of claim 1(b) and appears to be the most specific limitation differentiating the claim from general concepts of optical tracking. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on how this term is construed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no detailed technical evidence of its use, instead defining it by way of an "aka" statement, which suggests a potential area for dispute. (Compl. ¶10).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "homography" in the specification. A party could argue this suggests the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art of computer vision at the time of the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification does not contain any examples or embodiments that describe implementing a "homography." A party could argue that the absence of descriptive support in the specification suggests the term should be construed narrowly, limited to specific, well-established homography-based pose estimation techniques known at the time, potentially excluding more modern or different algorithms.
The Term: "absolute pose"
- Context and Importance: The patent repeatedly distinguishes its invention, which recovers an "absolute pose," from prior art systems susceptible to drift. (e.g., ’540 Patent, col. 5:13-15). The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused VR systems, which perform inside-out tracking, are considered to recover an "absolute pose" as defined by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "absolute pose" as "both the position and the orientation of the item as described in a stable frame defined in that three-dimensional environment." (’540 Patent, col. 8:6-10). Plaintiff may argue that the accused systems meet this definition by establishing a "stable frame" relative to the user's room.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts "absolute pose" with systems that suffer from "gradual drift and accumulating position and orientation error." (’540 Patent, col. 5:13-15). A defendant may argue that all inside-out tracking systems are subject to some level of drift over time and therefore do not recover a truly "absolute" pose as contemplated and distinguished by the patent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’540 Patent, asserting that the Defendant knowingly encourages and instructs its customers (end-users) to use the accused VR systems in a manner that directly infringes. (Compl. ¶¶19-21).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on knowledge of the ’540 Patent "since at least the date of the filing of this Complaint," establishing a basis for potential post-suit willfulness. (Compl. ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: can the term "homography," a specific mathematical transformation, be construed to cover the complex, multi-sensor computer vision algorithms used in modern commercial VR tracking systems? The case may turn on a battle of experts over the precise operation of the accused software platforms.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual support: does the complaint's conclusory allegation that the accused products use a "homography" provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief, or will it be vulnerable to a motion to dismiss for failure to meet the pleading standards set forth in Iqbal and Twombly?