Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Techno View IP, Inc. v. Oculus VR, LLC

United States District Court, D. Delaware

August 30, 2018

TECHNO VIEW IP, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
OCULUS VR, LLC and FACEBOOK, INC., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          CHRISTOPHER J. BURKE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         In this action filed by Plaintiff Techno View IP, Inc. ("Plaintiff) against Oculus VR, LLC and Facebook, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"), Plaintiff alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7, 666, 096 (the '"096 patent") and 8, 206, 218 (the '"218 patent"). Presently before the Court is the matter of claim construction. The Court recommends that the District Court adopt the constructions as set forth below.

         I. BACKGROUND AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Court hereby incorporates by reference the summary of the factual and procedural background of this matter set out in its August 15, 2018 Report and Recommendation ("August 15 R&R"). (D.I. 74 at 1-3) It additionally incorporates by reference the legal principles regarding claim construction set out in the August 15 R&R. (Id. at 3-5)

         II. DISCUSSION

         The parties had disputes regarding eight terms or sets of terms (hereafter, "terms"). The August 15 R&R addressed the first four terms. The instant Report and Recommendation addresses terms five and six. The final two terms will be addressed in a forthcoming Report and Recommendation.

         A. "storing a[n] [videogame] image in [to] the [left/first] [back] buffer; determining [if/when] the [videogame] image is [in] a two-dimensional [format/image] or a three-dimensional [format/image]"

         Claims 1, 8 and 16 of the '096 patent recite the steps "storing a[n] [videogame] image in[to] the [left/first] [back]buffer; determining [if/when] the [videogame] image is [in] a two-dimensional [format/image] or a three-dimensional [format/image.]" The recitation of these steps is representative in claim 1, and for ease of reference the Court again reproduces that claim below, with these steps emphasized:

1. A method of displaying images in a videogame system that supports two-dimensional and three-dimensional display of the images, said method comprising the computer implemented steps of:
clearing left and right backbuffers in the videogame system; storing an image into the left backbuffer; determining if the image is in a two-dimensional format or a three-dimensional format, wherein when the image is in a three-dimensional format, calculating the coordinates of a second view position of the image and storing a second view position image into the right backbuffer; displaying the image stored in the left backbuffer onto one or more displays when the image is in a two-dimensional format; and simultaneously displaying the images stored in the left and right backbuffers onto the one or more displays to create a three dimensional perspective of the image to a user when the image is in a three-dimensional format.

('096 patent, col. 13:39-58 (emphasis added))

         The parties' sole dispute with respect to this claim term is whether these two steps (the "storing" step and the "determining" step) must be performed in the order in which they appear in the claim (i.e., that the storing step must be performed before the determining step). (D.I. 52 at 6; D.I. 53 at 6; Tr. at 75) Plaintiff asserts that they do not need to be performed in this order; Defendants argue that they do. (D.I. 52 at 6; D.I. 53 at 6)

         Federal Circuit caselaw states that "unless the steps of a method claim actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one." Mformation Techs., Inc., v. Research In Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, citation and brackets omitted); see also Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In determining whether steps "actually recite an order," a two-part test is used. Altiris, Inc., 318 F.3d at 1369 (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 256 F.3d 1323 (Fed Cir. 2001)). First, a court looks to the claim language to determine whether, as a matter of logic or grammar, the steps must be performed in the order written. Mformation Techs., Inc., 764 F.3d at 1398-99; Altiris, Inc., 318 F.3d at 1369. If not, then the court examines the rest of the specification, in order to assess whether it directly or implicitly requires such a construction. Mformation Techs., Inc., 764 F.3d at 1398-99; Altiris, Inc., 318 F.3d at 1370. If it does not, then the sequence in which such steps are written is not a requirement. Altiris, Inc., 318 F.3d at 1370.

         With respect to step one of this test, Plaintiff contends that there is no matter of logic or grammar that requires the storing step to be performed prior to the determining step. (D.I. 52 at 7)[1] Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the claim does not use language such as "first," "then," or "after," which would explicitly require such an order. (Tr. at 77) Plaintiff also points to a limitation in claim 1 that surely does make clear that an order is required-"displaying the image stored in the left backbuffer ... [.]" (D.I. 59 at 9) Obviously, the way this "displaying" step is written (i.e., that "the image [already] stored" is the thing to be displayed), it cannot occur until after the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.