United States: Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality Litigation Update: AR Design Innovations Litigations

In our Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality Litigation Update series, we provide continuous updates on legal proceedings involving AR/VR technology. As we follow these developing proceedings, we highlight the technologies involved, the intellectual property at issue, and the litigation strategies of the parties. 

AR Design Innovations LLC's Complaints
On May 12, 2020, AR Design Innovations LLC ("ARDI") sued three furniture companies—Ashley Furniture, Ethan Allen Interiors, and La-Z-Boy—in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that they infringe U.S. Pat. No. 7,277,572 (the '572 patent). These cases are captioned AR Design Innovations LLC v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 4:20-cv-392 (E.D. Tex. filed May 12, 2020); AR Design Innovations LLC v. Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc., 4:20-cv-394 (E.D. Tex. filed May 12, 2020); and AR Design Innovations LLC v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 4:20-cv-395 (E.D. Tex. filed May 12, 2020).

ARDI acquired ownership of the '572 patent in April 2020 (it was filed in October of 2003), but apparently is not producing any products using the patented technology.

ARDI's complaints, which are nearly identical, allege that the defendants both directly infringe and indirectly infringe (through inducement) the patented 3D interior design system disclosed in the '572 patent with their AR applications. Prior to the '572 patent, ARDI alleges, companies were using advanced systems for mapping. For example, some companies relied on 2D systems to map fabrics onto furniture and others relied on less advanced 3D systems that allowed for furniture to be placed in a room. According to ARDI, the inventors of the '572 patent conceived of an improved 3D system with a user-friendly graphical user interface ("GUI") capable of enabling manipulable renderings.

Each of ARDI's complaints concludes with a request for damages (past, present, and future) and attorneys' fees.

The '572 Patent
The '572 patent, titled "Three-Dimensional Interior Design System," discloses a system and method for creating photorealistic 3D perspective view images with 3D objects selectively positioned within a 3D scene. As the patent explains, the application is configured to allow a client to download 3D objects from a server and generate a manipulable 3D scene. The application relies on a GUI to make the editing and rendering easy for consumers. Figure 4, reproduced below, shows a representative screen display that a user would experience when creating a room plan.

In addition to a method of generating and rendering a 3D scene where clients can manipulate the placement of objects, the '572 patent claims that the application allows a user to apply different luminosity characteristics to simulate different lighting conditions.

The Accused AR/VR Products
The complaints accuse each of the defendants' downloadable applications of infringing claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 18 of the '572 patent. These claims relate to a method of generating and rendering a photorealistic 3D scene. As ARDI explains, the defendants' applications are downloadable to a user's device and allow consumers to create manipulable 3D renderings of the defendants' furniture in any space.

For example, ARDI alleges that La-Z-Boy's application allows a user to see how La-Z-Boy furniture would look in their home by pointing their device's camera towards the floor and taping a circular icon to make a La-Z-Boy product appear. The user can then manipulate the object by placing their finger on the screen and dragging the product across the screen to another location or turn the product to a different angle by twisting the product on the touch screen with their thumb and forefinger. To support its infringement claims, ARDI points to the defendant's applications and website descriptions.

Next Steps
If these cases don't settle, we may see the defendants answer the complaints, or perhaps move to dismiss the complaints as deficient in some respect. Other actions they may take include filing petitions for inter partes review challenging the patentability of the '572 patent. We will keep you posted of future developments in these AR/VR litigations. 

Interested in learning more about how IP affects certain industries? So are we. That's why our attorneys have formed special groups to focus on industries, such as textiles and consumer products. Sign up for Finnegan's insights on the industries that you are interested in here.