Matterport Inc v. Appliance Computing III Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00939
• Patent #: 10,102,673
• Filed: May 13, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Matterport, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Appliance Computing III, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Image-Based Rendering of Real Spaces
• Brief Description: The ’673 patent is directed to methods and systems for 3D image-based rendering for real estate. The technology involves capturing images of a property, generating 3D virtual models from the images and geometry, and displaying the models to a user through an interface that facilitates virtual tours.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cowtan and Bell436 - Claims 1-19 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 Cowtan disclosed a web-based, dual-paned virtual tour system for real estate that used panoramic images displayed alongside interactive floor plans. Cowtan taught displaying multiple viewpoints on a floor plan and allowing a user to navigate a virtual space. Petitioner contended that Bell436 disclosed the missing technical details for creating the 3D models, teaching a system for capturing and aligning 3D scenes using images to reconstruct an environment. Bell436 specifically taught generating 3D models, creating point clouds, determining camera geometry, and defining spatial boundaries from image data, allegedly mapping to the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 13.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine these references to improve upon Cowtan’s virtual tour system. A POSITA seeking to implement the 3D visualizations and walkthroughs described in Cowtan would have naturally looked to known 3D modeling techniques, such as those detailed in Bell436, to generate the 3D scenes. Both references operated in the same field of 3D rendering of physical spaces and were intended for web-based browser viewing.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because it involved applying the known 3D scene generation methods of Bell436 to the established virtual tour framework of Cowtan, a predictable combination of existing technologies for their intended purposes.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Cowtan, Bell436, and Bell060 - Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 18, and 19 are obvious over Cowtan and Bell436 in combination with Bell060.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cowtan (Application # 2009/0031246), Bell436 (’436 application), and Bell060 (Application # 2013/0004060).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the arguments from Ground 1 and added Bell060 to provide further detail on aligning multiple 3D scenes. Petitioner argued that Bell060, which shares inventors with Bell436 and is referenced by it, explicitly taught merging information from multiple 3D scenes into a single coordinate space. It disclosed using point clouds, geometrical data, and metadata to create globally aligned models, providing additional support for claims related to panorama bundle adjustment heuristics (claim 3), initialization with metadata (claim 4), and generating panorama neighborhood graphs (claim 7).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Cowtan and Bell436, would have been motivated to consult Bell060 for more detailed techniques on 3D scene alignment. Bell436 itself referenced Bell060 for its "hole-filling process," directly guiding a POSITA to use Bell060's teachings to enhance the 3D model generation.
  • Expectation of Success: As Bell060 described the same underlying technology as Bell436 by the same inventors, integrating its more detailed alignment processes would be a straightforward and predictable step for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Cowtan, Bell436, and Triggs - Claims 3, 4, 7, 13, 18-19 are obvious over Cowtan, Bell436, and Triggs.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cowtan (Application # 2009/0031246), Bell436 (’436 application), and Triggs (a 2000 article titled "Bundle Adjustment — A Modern Synthesis").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Cowtan and Bell436 by adding Triggs to explicitly teach the "panorama bundle adjustment heuristic" required by claims 3 and 18. Petitioner asserted that Triggs was a well-known publication that surveyed various bundle adjustment techniques for refining a visual reconstruction to produce optimal 3D structure and camera parameter estimates. Triggs allegedly taught grouping panoramas based on pairwise overlap and other heuristics as claimed.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that since Bell436 was directed to alignment techniques for 3D images, a POSITA would have naturally looked to combine its methods with other known and fundamental techniques for improving 3D reconstructions, such as the bundle adjustment methods detailed in Triggs. Bundle adjustment was a standard tool in the field for the exact problems addressed by the patent.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in applying the well-established bundle adjustment algorithms from Triggs to the 3D data generated by the Bell436 system to achieve a more accurate and refined 3D model for use in Cowtan's virtual tour.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) for claims 1, 7, 8, and 13 based on Cowtan, Bell436, and Sun (Application # 2016/0255357), which taught generating spanning trees for image compression and alignment.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors. Key arguments included:
  • The trial date in the parallel district court litigation involving Petitioner's customer (Redfin) was uncertain due to court backlogs, weighing against denial.
  • Investment in the parallel proceeding was minimal, with discovery still pending and only a non-substantive claim construction order issued.
  • The invalidity grounds and prior art presented in the IPR were substantially different from those in the litigation.
  • Petitioner was not a party to the parallel litigation, and its interest in resolving invalidity extended beyond that single case to potential future litigation against itself or other customers.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’673 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.