IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Cal.: HTC prevails in infringement suit brought by VR headset patent holder, (Jan 18, 2022)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Summary judgment was granted against a patent holder because it produced no admissible evidence in response to an interrogatory request for all facts supporting its theory of infringement.

HTC America, a maker of virtual reality (VR) headsets, was entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement in a suit brought by patent holder Electronic Scripting Products, the federal district court in San Francisco has held. The patent holder failed to respond to an interrogatory request for all facts supporting the claim that the accused product contained a patented feature with any admissible evidence (Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., January 14, 2022, Seeborg, R.).

Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (ESPI) was the owner U.S. Patent No. 9,235,934 (the ’934 patent), which was directed at headsets used for virtual reality systems. The feature at issue was the ability of the headset to determine where the wearer is located and in which direction he or she is looking using circuitry aboard the headset. HTC America, Inc. (HTC) was a manufacturer of headsets which ESPI claimed infringed the ’934 patent. ESPI filed suit for infringement and HTC moved for summary judgment after the close of discovery.

Summary judgment. HTC asserted that its products did not infringe because they did not perform any calculation on board the headset as the patent required, but merely related data from sensors in the headset to a separate computer which performed the necessary calculations. In an interrogatory, HTC sought from ESPI all facts in support of ESPI’s contentions that HTC’s products contained a controller on the headset. ESPI provided only some third-party websites and no admissible information in response to this request. After ESPI refused to supplement the response, the magistrate judge assigned to discovery ruled that ESPI would be bound to its answer. Because there was no admissible evidence from which it could be found that HTC’s products actually contained the controlling circuitry in the headset necessary to infringe the patent, summary judgment of non-infringement was appropriate.

The Case is No. 3:17-cv-05806-RS.

Attorneys: Gary A. Angel (Law Offices of Gary A. Angel) for Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. Matthew Cook Bernstein (Perkins Coie LLP) for HTC America, Inc.

Companies: Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.; HTC America, Inc.

Cases: Patent CaliforniaNews GCNNews