DCT
2:25-cv-00355
Electronic Scripting Products Inc v. AMP Creative
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: AMP Creative (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Banie & Ishimoto LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00355, W.D. Wash., 02/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Washington because the defendant, AMP Creative, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) solutions infringe three patents related to methods for determining the absolute position and orientation (pose) of manipulated objects in a three-dimensional environment.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using on-board optical sensors, such as cameras on smartphones or VR headsets, to track features in the real world to determine the device's precise location and orientation, a foundational capability for modern AR/VR applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-01-30 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 |
| 2004-01-30 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 |
| 2006-03-08 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 |
| 2010-11-02 | Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 |
| 2016-01-05 | Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 |
| 2019-01-29 | Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 |
| 2025-02-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559, issued on January 29, 2019 (the ’559 Patent). (Compl. ¶7).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a need for an efficient, accurate, and low-cost method of determining the absolute pose of hand-held objects used for interfacing with the digital world, noting that prior art systems often lacked robustness or were overly complex. (’559 Patent, col. 2:16-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses a manipulated object, such as a smartphone, equipped with an on-board photodetector (camera). The photodetector detects "high optical contrast features" in the surrounding real-world environment to generate data about its position. A controller on the object then processes this data, potentially supplemented by information from auxiliary motion sensors like an inertial measurement unit (IMU), to determine the object's position and orientation. (’559 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:30-44).
- Technical Importance: This approach enables common consumer devices like smartphones to perform robust real-world spatial tracking without requiring complex external camera systems, a key technological step for enabling mainstream augmented reality applications. (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 of the ’559 Patent. (Compl. ¶9).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A manipulated object that cooperates with a plurality of high optical contrast features in a real three-dimensional environment.
- A photodetector on the object configured to detect the features and generate data representing their positions.
- A controller on the object configured to identify a derivative pattern from the photodetector data, where the pattern indicates the photodetector's position.
- At least one component from the group of an auxiliary motion detection component, an active illumination component, or a scanning component.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 6, 10, 15, 16, 19, 24, and 25. (Compl. ¶11).
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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641, issued on November 2, 2010 (the ’641 Patent). (Compl. ¶12).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem with prior art interface devices that often functioned like "quasi three-dimensional mice" and could not determine their absolute pose. This limitation prevented true one-to-one motion mapping between real space and cyberspace and could lead to issues like positional drift. (’641 Patent, col. 1:49-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an apparatus with an on-board "optical measuring means" (e.g., a camera) that determines its absolute pose by observing at least one "invariant feature" (a stationary reference feature) in the environment. An on-board processor prepares this pose data, expressed in world coordinates, and a communication link transmits a subset of the data to an application. (’641 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-47).
- Technical Importance: This patent describes a self-contained system for a device to determine its full six-degree-of-freedom (6DoF) pose using its own optics, a foundational concept for creating immersive and accurately tracked AR/VR experiences without external tracking hardware. (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 of the ’641 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
- Claim 1 requires:
- An apparatus for processing absolute pose data derived from a manipulated object's pose in a 3D environment.
- At least one invariant feature in the environment.
- An on-board optical measuring means for inferring the absolute pose using the invariant feature and expressing it with absolute pose data (including rotational and translational coordinates).
- A processor for preparing the pose data and identifying a subset of it.
- A communication link for transmitting the subset to an application.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claim 29. (Compl. ¶17).
U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540 - "Deriving Input From Six Degrees Of Freedom Interfaces"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,229,540, issued on January 5, 2016 (the ’540 Patent). (Compl. ¶18).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses generating user input from the absolute pose of an item, such as a VR headset, associated with a user. It describes using an on-board unit with a camera to receive non-collinear optical inputs from stationary objects in the environment to establish a stable reference frame. Computer vision algorithms then recover the item’s full six-degree-of-freedom pose to generate a signal used by an application. (’540 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶20).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses AR/VR solutions, specifically wearable devices like VR headsets (HDMs), which use on-board cameras to track stationary objects like furniture. This tracking establishes a stable frame to determine the headset's pose, which is then used by an application to, for example, allow a user to navigate a virtual scene. (Compl. ¶¶21-22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "AR/VR solutions and associated software and products" ("Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶¶16, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are alleged to be mobile devices like iPhones and Android phones, as well as wearable items such as VR headsets (HDMs). (Compl. ¶¶10, 22). These devices are alleged to use their on-board cameras to detect and track visually distinct features in the user's real-world environment, such as the edges of a table, markings on a business card, or furniture in a room. (Compl. ¶¶10, 16, 22). The complaint alleges that this visual data, in combination with data from auxiliary motion sensors like an IMU, is processed using software frameworks such as Apple's ARKit or Google's ARCore to determine the device's precise position and orientation in six degrees of freedom. (Compl. ¶10, p. 6). This determined "pose" is then allegedly used by AR/VR applications to overlay virtual content onto the real world or to enable user navigation within a virtual scene. (Compl. ¶¶16, 22). The complaint provides an image of a user wearing a VR headset to illustrate the accused "wearable item" (Compl. p. 11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,191,559 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A manipulated object cooperating with a first plurality of high optical contrast features disposed in a real three-dimensional environment... | The accused manipulated object is a mobile device (iOS or Android) that cooperates with high contrast features in the environment, such as table edges or markings on business cards. A screenshot from the complaint shows a smartphone camera viewing a business card, with virtual contact information overlaid in an augmented reality application (Compl. p. 4). | ¶10 | col. 9:36-41 |
| a) a photodetector configured to detect said first plurality of high optical contrast features and generate photodetector data... | The accused device's camera functions as the photodetector to detect the high optical contrast features. | ¶10 | col. 5:35-44 |
| b) a controller configured to identify a derivative pattern of said first plurality of high optical contrast features from said photodetector data, wherein said derivative pattern is indicative of the position of said photodetector... | The processing unit of the accused iOS or Android device, using software like ARKit or ARCore, functions as the controller that identifies a pattern from the detected features to determine the device's position. | ¶10 | col. 6:30-35 |
| c) at least one component selected from the group consisting of an auxiliary motion detection component, an active illumination component and a scanning component. | The accused device contains an auxiliary motion detection component, such as an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). | ¶10 | col. 6:50-57 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that naturally occurring "edges of the table" qualify as "high optical contrast features." (’559 Patent, col. 9:38-40; Compl. ¶10). A potential point of contention may be whether the term, in the context of the patent, can be construed this broadly or if it implies more structured, artificial, or predefined features.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a controller that identifies a "derivative pattern" from the photodetector data. The complaint alleges that ARKit "recognizes notable features" and ARCore detects "feature points and planes." (Compl. ¶10). This raises the technical question of whether the functionality of these AR platforms, which build a general map of the environment, is the same as identifying a specific "derivative pattern" as required by the claim.
U.S. Patent No. 7,826,641 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus for processing absolute pose data derived from an absolute pose of a manipulated object in a real three-dimensional environment... | The accused apparatus is a mobile device, such as an iOS or Android device, that processes absolute pose data. | ¶16 | col. 3:39-44 |
| a) at least one invariant feature in said real three-dimensional environment; | The accused device uses at least one invariant feature, such as special markings on a business card. | ¶16 | col. 3:28-34 |
| b) an optical measuring means for optically inferring said absolute pose from on-board said manipulated object using said at least one invariant feature and expressing said inferred absolute pose with absolute pose data... | The camera on the accused iPhone or Android phone serves as the on-board optical measuring means to infer the device's absolute pose. | ¶16 | col. 4:20-25 |
| c) a processor for preparing said absolute pose data and identifying a subset of said absolute pose data; | The processing unit of the accused device acts as the processor that prepares the absolute pose data derived from the camera and other sensors. | ¶16 | col. 4:34-39 |
| d) a communication link for transmitting said subset to an application. | The accused device uses an internal communication link to transmit the pose data to an AR/VR application running on the device. | ¶16 | col. 4:40-47 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires "at least one invariant feature." A central question will be the scope of this term. The complaint identifies features like markings on a business card, which may have known dimensions, but also relies on general environmental features tracked by ARKit/ARCore. The dispute may focus on whether "invariant feature" requires a feature with properties known a priori to the system, as opposed to features that are merely visually tracked and mapped in real-time.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the apparatus to express the pose with specific "absolute pose data (φ, θ, ψ, x, y, z) representing Euler rotated object coordinates expressed in world coordinates." This raises a technical question about the precise format and coordinate systems used internally by the accused ARKit and ARCore platforms and whether they align with the specific formulation required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Patent: ’559 Patent
- The Term: "high optical contrast features"
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the infringement allegation for the ’559 Patent. The central dispute will likely be whether this term is limited to specially designed markers or is broad enough to cover naturally occurring features in an unstructured environment (e.g., "edges of the table") that the accused AR/VR systems track. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction determines whether the patent applies to modern, markerless tracking systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description states that "Invariant features...are high optical contrast features such as edges of objects, special markings, or light sources." (’559 Patent, col. 9:38-40). This language explicitly includes "edges of objects."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Many embodiments and figures in the patent focus on systems using active light sources, such as IR LEDs, as the features. (’559 Patent, col. 15:46-51, FIG. 4). A defendant may argue that the invention is properly understood as being directed to these more controlled, artificial features rather than any visually distinct element in an ambient scene.
Patent: ’641 Patent
- The Term: "invariant feature"
- Context and Importance: Similar to the term in the ’559 Patent, the scope of "invariant feature" is critical. If construed narrowly to mean only predefined features with known geometries, it may not read on the accused systems' ability to track arbitrary "feature points" in a room. If construed broadly, it could cover the functionality of ARKit and ARCore.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background defines the term broadly: "An object's pose in a real three-dimensional environment can be expressed with respect to stationary references such as ground planes, reference surfaces, lines, solids, fixed points and other invariant features". (’641 Patent, col. 1:33-37).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses the importance of the features' locations being "defined in world coordinates" and known to the system, suggesting the features are not arbitrary but are predefined references. (’641 Patent, col. 5:19-23). A defendant could argue this implies a requirement for a pre-mapped or predefined feature, not one discovered in real-time.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents-in-suit. The allegations state that the Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by end-users, asserting that the Accused Products "were and are designed and marketed" for the infringing purpose and that the Defendant provides "specific instructions or training regarding the use of those products." (Compl. ¶¶31-34, 44-47, 57-60).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents and its infringement "since at least the date of the filing of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶¶27, 29, 40, 42, 53, 55). This phrasing suggests the willfulness claim is based on post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "high optical contrast features" and "invariant feature," which are described in the patents with examples including specialized markings and light sources, be construed to cover the naturally occurring, unstructured environmental features (e.g., table edges, furniture corners) that the accused ARKit and ARCore systems are designed to track in real time?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: does the general-purpose environmental mapping performed by the accused AR/VR platforms—which allegedly "recognizes notable features" or detects "feature points and planes"—perform the specific functions required by the claims, such as identifying a "derivative pattern" (’559 Patent) or processing data from a pre-defined "invariant feature" (’641 Patent)? The case may turn on technical evidence detailing the precise algorithms used in the accused systems.
- A third question will concern indirect infringement liability: given that end-users directly operate the accused devices, the analysis will focus on whether the plaintiff can prove that the defendant, by marketing the AR/VR solutions and providing instructions, possessed the specific intent to encourage acts of infringement by those users.