PatentNext Summary: Virtual Reality
(VR)-related patents are expected to rise with the onset of the
Metaverse. Given that VR is fundamentally a software technology,
how do courts review VR-related patents? Early cases show that
courts will apply similar scrutiny as for other software-related
technologies, where VR-related patents will need to satisfy current
patent eligibility standards, e.g., by showing an
“improvement” to underlying computing technology.
****
The “Metaverse” is an expansive online world that can
be experienced via multiple technological platforms – from a screen
of a mobile device to the lens of a virtual reality (VR) system. VR
systems typically comprise 3D-based software that controls a VR
device, such as a VR headset. A popular example of a VR headset is
the Oculus series of headsets as provided by Reality Labs and its
parent company Meta Platforms.
Patenting VR Technology
Given that VR is fundamentally a software technology, how do
courts analyze VR-related patents? As for other software
technologies, it is expected that VR patents will need to satisfy
current patent eligibility standards required under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 and pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.
See Are Software Inventions Patentable?
One way is to argue that a VR invention provides an
“improvement” to underlying technology compared to the
prior art. See How to Patent Software Inventions: Show an
“Improvement.” The below example case explores how
demonstrating an “improvement” can overcome a patent
eligibility challenge for a VR-related patent.
Example Patent Case Involving VR
technology
Early cases show that courts will apply similar scrutiny for
VR-related patents as for other software-related technologies,
where VR-related patents will need to satisfy current patent
eligibility standards, e.g., by showing an “improvement”
to underlying computing technology.
In one example case, AR Design Innovations LLC (“AR
Design”) asserted a VR-related patent against several
furniture manufacturers, including Ashley Furniture Industries,
Inc.’s (“Ashley”), La-Z-Boy Incorporated’s
(“La-Z-Boy”), and Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc.
(“Ethen Allen”) (collectively “Defendants”).
The cases were ultimately consolidated into a single action.
See AR Design Innovations LLC v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc.,
4:20-cv-392 (E.D. Tex. filed May 12, 2020).
The patent owner, AR Design, had asserted U.S. Pat. No.
7,277,572 (the “‘572 patent”) titled
“Three-Dimensional Interior Design System.” The ‘572
patent describes a “software application configured to reside
on a client computer, which is capable of manipulating 3-D object
representations in-situ with a user-selected or user-generated
interior design scene, and rendering photographic quality
perspective images of the composite scene. ‘572 Patent at
1:8-13.
Defendants (the furniture manufacturers) had each developed
mobile software applications that allowed customers to generate and
render photorealistic 3D objects (e.g., furniture) within a 3D
scene (e.g., a room). A user could rearrange or edit the objects
and scenes in real time.
Patent Owner, AR Design, alleged that the Defendants’
respective software infringed at least claim 1 of the ‘572
patent.
Claim 1 described a VR-related invention involving a
client-server computing environment for rendering 3D scenes:
- A method in a client-server computing environment for
generating and rendering a photorealistic three-dimensional (3D)
perspective view of a 3D object selectively positioned within a 3D
scene, the method comprising:
(a) communicably accessing a server
with a client;
(b) operating with the client, a
client application configured for scene editing and rendering,
including a graphical user interface (GUI);
(c) displaying a 3D scene with the
…….