Matterport Inc v. Appliance Computing III Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00936
• Patent #: 9,836,885
• Filed: May 13, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Matterport, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Appliance Computing III, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Image-Based Rendering of Real Spaces
• Brief Description: The ’885 patent is directed to systems and methods for rendering three-dimensional models of real estate spaces. The technology facilitates virtual tours of properties through a user interface that provides multiple viewpoints and navigation tools on a real estate webpage.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cowtan and Bell436 - Claims 1-18 are obvious over Cowtan in view of Bell436

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cowtan (Application # 2009/0031246) and Bell436 (Application # 2014/0043436).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Cowtan and Bell436 disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Cowtan taught an internet-based, dual-paned virtual tour system for real estate that used a plan-based navigation system (e.g., a 2D floorplan) alongside a main image display window. This system allowed users to view panoramic images from different locations within a property, identified by icons on the floorplan, and included labels for different rooms and floors. Petitioner asserted that Bell436, which is assigned to Petitioner, taught the underlying technology for capturing and processing images to reconstruct a three-dimensional scene. Bell436 disclosed using a 3D capture device to create 3D models and synthesized viewpoints from locations other than the original capture points. It also taught generating floorplans from the aligned 3D data. The combination allegedly met the limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 by using Bell436’s 3D reconstruction methods to generate the 3D visualizations and floorplans for the real estate virtual tour framework described in Cowtan. Key limitations, such as generating a virtual model, a map overlay, and a text overlay, were argued to be present in Cowtan's user interface, with the map overlay indicating the viewpoint position and the text overlay identifying the current space.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) seeking to implement the 3D visualizations for the real estate tour system in Cowtan would have been motivated to look to existing, known techniques for generating 3D models and scenes, such as those disclosed in Bell436. Both references shared the goal of using images to generate 3D scenes for virtual walkthroughs. The inventors of the ’885 patent had also acknowledged Petitioner’s own technology (disclosed in Bell436) as a pre-existing commercial example of image-based rendering used in real estate environments.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references because both described using similar known techniques (e.g., generating floorplans from image data) to yield predictable results in the context of web-based virtual tours.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "parcel outline": Petitioner noted that for the purposes of the IPR, it adopted the Patent Owner’s interpretation from co-pending litigation for the limitation "each of the plurality of spatial boundaries defining a parcel outline." This interpretation suggested that because multiple spaces (e.g., rooms) are arranged to form a real property by aligning adjacent boundaries, the boundaries of those individual spaces collectively define the parcel outline of the property. This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that generating a floorplan with room boundaries, as taught by the prior art, met this limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The petition asserted that several factors weighed against denial: the Petitioner was not a party to the parallel district court litigation; the trial date in that litigation was uncertain and likely to occur after the Final Written Decision (FWD) deadline; and the invalidity grounds presented in the IPR were different from those in the litigation. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that the strong merits of the petition, which relied on prior art not considered during prosecution, favored institution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’885 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.