Facts

Electronic Scripting Products Inc. (ESPI) owns a patent entitled "Computer Interface Employing a Wearable Article with an Absolute Pose Detection Component." HTC America manufactures headsets, also known as head-mounted displays, that were used in its Vive Pro and Vive Pro Eye products. The headsets operated in conjunction with virtual reality sets sold by Valve Corporation. Both ESPI's "wearable article" and HTC's headsets were meant for virtual reality systems, wherein it determines where users are and what direction they are looking so that users' movements and actions can be recreated within a virtual world. ESPI filed suit against HTC and Valve for patent infringement. Valve was voluntarily dismissed.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant infringed its patent. According to plaintiff, its patent and the accused headsets, both contained an onboard controller that identified a "derivative pattern" indicating the user's position, which fundamentally performed the essential functions of plaintiff's patent. Moreover, defendant's arguments as to what may happen in the external computer, in addition to the essential functions of the onboard controller, were irrelevant.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that its headsets merely collected data providing information. The data was then passed on to a separate computer, which then made the necessary calculations to determine the user's position. Furthermore, when defendant asked plaintiff to pinpoint its evidence for the infringement contentions, plaintiff disclosed: a series of hyperlinks to third party websites (journal article, Wikipedia article, and third-party YouTube videos); 13 documents of either screen captures or printouts of mainly third-party websites; and claim charts which, while prepared by plaintiff, referenced third-party websites. As plaintiff has the burden to establish infringement at trial, plaintiff's failure to provide admissible evidence to support at least a triable issue of fact as to infringement warranted summary judgment.

Result

Defendant's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was granted.