1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

APPLIANCE COMPUTING III, INC. 

d/b/a SUREFIELD, 

Plaintiff,

v.

REDFIN CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 6:20-cv-00376

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Appliance Computing III, Inc. d/b/a Surefield (“Surefield”) alleges as follows 

against Defendant Redfin Corporation (“Redfin”).

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action concerns allegations of infringement of United States Patent No. 

9,836,885 (“the ’885 Patent”), United States Patent No. 10,102,673 (“the ’673 Patent”), United 

States Patent No. 10,510,111 (“the ’111 Patent), and United States Patent No. 10,592,973 (“the 

’973 Patent) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Surefield is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state 

of Delaware.

3. Defendant Redfin is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state 

of Delaware, with places of business in this Judicial District, including at 4030 West Braker Lane, 

Building 5, Suite 510, Austin, Texas 78759. Redfin’s registered agent for service of process in 

Texas is National Registered Agents, Inc., 1990 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 30
2

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This court has 

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

5. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant resides here, because Defendant has committed acts of 

infringement in this judicial district, and because Defendant maintains one or more regularly 

established places of business in this judicial district.

6. Redfin has established places of business in this state in Austin, San Antonio, Frisco 

and Houston.

IV. FACTS

A. Redfin’s Founding 

7. David Eraker (“Mr. Eraker”) founded Redfin in 2002. Mr. Eraker was later joined 

by co-founders Michael Dougherty and David Selinger. Redfin was started to transform the way 

real estate was bought and sold by leveraging technology. 

8. Redfin began offering internet search services for real estate in 2004 incorporating 

mapping elements that were unlike any real estate or mapping services at that time. Under the 

guidance and direction of Mr. Eraker, Redfin released a new form of interactive online mapping 

software identifying homes that were for sale.

9. Starting in 2004 and continuing into 2005, Redfin was the first and only company 

to combine satellite data, aerial-photography data, multiple-listing data, county-assessor data, sold 

data, tax-parcel data, and map data into a single, interactive, online interface and presentation.

10. In July 2006, Redfin was the recipient of the Innovator of the Year award by Inman 

News, a leading online news source for the real estate industry.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 30
3

B. David Eraker’s Intellectual Property Contributions to Redfin

11. On June 16, 2004, Redfin filed a provisional patent application, U.S. Patent 

Application Serial No. 60/580,0046, titled “Real Estate Data System and Method” and naming Mr. 

Eraker as first-named inventor, along with Adam M. Dougherty, Edward Smith, and Stephen Eraker 

(the “’046 application”).

12. The ’046 application discloses a number of ideas, concepts, and technical details 

related to implementing a system for map-based real estate search that originated with Mr. Eraker.

13. On February 1, 2005, Redfin filed a provisional patent application, U.S. Patent 

Application Serial No. 60/649,459, titled “Displaying Content Based on Geographic Queries,” and 

naming Mr. Eraker as first-named inventor, along with Adam M. Dougherty, Edward Smith, David 

Sellinger, Brad Cerenzia, Sameer Rayachoti, and Queena Yi (the “’459 application”).

14. The ’459 application discloses a number of ideas, concepts, and technical details 

related to implementing a system for map-based real estate search that originated with Mr. Eraker. 

15. While at Redfin, Mr. Eraker developed each of the concepts disclosed generally in 

the ’459 and ’046 applications further, working confidentially in coordination with Redfin 

developers and contractors.

16. On information and belief, after Mr. Eraker left Redfin, Redfin developers used or 

relied on Mr. Eraker’s confidential development work to reduce his disclosures and concepts to 

practice and to pursue additional patent coverage on Mr. Eraker’s confidential development work.

17. Both the ’046 and the ’459 applications serve as the foundation for several issued 

and pending patent applications assigned to Redfin. 

18. For example, at least the following issued patents assigned to Redfin claim the 

benefit of filing date of the ’046 application:

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 30
4

U.S. App. S/N Patent No.

11/154,263 9,213,461

11/154,937 9,105,061

12/700,736 8,838,504

13/754,808 9,760,237

13/754,833 9,576,317

15/436,443 10,078,866

19. Additionally, the following issued patents assigned to Redfin claim the benefit of 

the filing date of the ’459 application:

U.S. App. S/N Patent No.

11/154,263 9,213,461

11/154,937 9,105,061

12/700,736 8,838,504

12/759,718 9,436,945

13/754,808 9,760,237

13/754,833 9,576,317

15/224,297 9,852,447

15/436.443 10,078,866

20. David Eraker is named as an inventor on at least the following issued patents 

assigned to Redfin, each one claiming the benefit of either the ’046 application, the ’459 

application, or both:

U.S. Patent No. Issue Date

8,838,504 06-16-14

9,105,061 08-11-15

9,213,461 12-15-15

9,436,945 09-06-16

9,576,317 02-21-17

9,760,237 09-12-17

9,852,447 12-26-17

10,078,866 09-18-18

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 4 of 30
5

C. Surefield’s Patented 3D Rendering Technology

21. Surefield is an online real estate broker founded by David Eraker in August 2012. In 

April 2014, the company launched a brokerage service to sell homes using a new type of online 

home tour.

22. Surefield was the first company to offer commercial image-based rendering for the 

creation of online 3D home tours that combined photorealism and spatial navigation amongst other 

features. The company bundled the ability to create these image-based rendering tours with a 

brokerage service to market and sell homes in Seattle, Washington and Bellevue, 

Washington. Surefield went on to leverage these online 3D tours to successfully list homes in the 

multiple listing service without conforming buyers’ agent commissions and continues to offer this 

service today.

23. Surefield’s 3D tour enabled both spatial navigation and photorealism in the same 

user interface by leveraging multiple image-based rendering approaches to render panoramas and 

synthetic viewpoints in different locations as the user translated between different locations of an 

online model of a home. Using computer vision to extract 3D geometry from images and other 

sources, Surefield was the first to add these features to multi-room, virtual navigation synchronized 

with other views of the 3D model, such as top-down floor plan views or other projections such as 

aerial views of the home. Surefield’s first-to-market system utilized spatial data boundaries to add 

location-based navigation features into the user interface for different floors, rooms, and other 

spatial delineations involved in home sales.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 5 of 30
6

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 6 of 30
7

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 7 of 30
8

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 8 of 30
9

24. Surefield’s website has stated during relevant periods that “Surefield’s patentpending, 3D-home-tour system teleports buyers into your home with a virtual open house, saving 

you time and money in the process.”

25. Surefield is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. 

9,836,885 (“the ’885 Patent”); United States Patent No. 10,102,673 (“the ’673 Patent); United 

States Patent No. 10,510,111 (“the ’111 Patent); and U.S. Patent No. 10,592,973 (“the ’973 

Patent”), including all past, present and future claims for infringement of those patents against 

defendant Redfin.

26. Mr. Eraker is named as an inventor on the ’885, ’673, ’111, and ’973 Patents (the 

“Patents-in-Suit”).

27. Each patent is titled “Image-Based Rendering of Real Spaces.” The ’885 Patent was 

duly issued on December 5, 2017; the ’673 Patent was duly issued on October 16, 2018; the ’111 

Patent was duly issued on December 17, 2019; and the ’973 Patent was duly issued on March 17, 

2020.

28. Each of the Patents-in-Suit shares a common specification. The ’973 Patent issued 

from Continuation Application No. 16/681,287, filed November 12, 2019. The ’111 Patent issued 

from Continuation Application No. 16/130,555, filed on September 13, 2018. The ’673 Patent

issued from Continuation Application No. 15/832,653, filed on December 5, 2017. The ’885 Patent

issued from U.S. Application Serial No. 14/525,057, filed on October 27, 2014. All of the patents 

claim the benefit of the priority date of Provisional Application No. 61/895,978, filed on October 

25, 2013.

29. The shared specification explains that many real estate websites have a description 

of the real estate listed for sale, including text and pictures, however, for a variety of reasons, 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 9 of 30
10

traditional web-based real estate listings “have not eliminated the need to physically go to the 

property to understand how it is laid out.” This is because, according to the ’885 Patent, “without 

physically visiting the property to look at it, the property can only be seen from the viewpoint of 

the photographer and the lack of spatial navigation.”

30. According to the shared specification, real estate websites of the prior art attempted 

to solve the problem by creating “video tours” of the home, where an agent or the homeowner 

would walk through the property, recorded by a video camera. These video tours did not 

significantly lessen the need for physical property visits because they were recorded from the 

perspective of the videographer and did not permit a potential buyer to direct her own tour through 

the property.

31. According to the shared specification, “in an attempt to allow the viewer to have 

more control over what he can observe, some real estate websites have used panorama cameras to 

take panoramic photos of the properties.” These panorama photos allowed a viewer to rotate the 

viewpoint, which was an improvement, but “the location of the viewpoint [was] still restricted to 

the location at which the panorama photo was taken.”

32. In view of the numerous limitations of current real estate websites, particularly their 

inability to allow a potential buyer to tour a home without physically visiting the home, the 

inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit provide systems and methods for image-based rendering 

of 3D geometry capable of delivering a life-like virtual tour of real estate properties.

33. The ’885 Patent includes 18 claims; claims 1 and 10 are independent. claim 1 of the 

’885 Patent covers “[a] computer system for providing image-based rendering of real property” and 

it includes several components such as a computer processor, memory, and a user interface.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 10 of 30
11

34. According to claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, a series of program commands cause the 

processor to “obtain two or more photorealistic viewpoints from capture locations in a plurality of 

spaces of the real property using ground truth image data, the ground truth image data including 

images of the real property captured from the capture locations.”

35. According to claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, a series of program commands cause the 

processor to “combine and process two or more instances of ground truth image data to create a 

plurality of synthesized viewpoints.”

36. According to claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, a series of program commands cause the 

processor to “generate a virtual model of a current space from the plurality of spaces in the real 

property from the perspective of a current viewpoint, the current viewpoint being one of the 

plurality of photorealistic viewpoints or one of the plurality of synthesized viewpoints associated 

with the current space.”

37. According to claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, a series of program commands cause the 

processor to “identify the current space in the real property where the current viewpoint is located 

using metadata associated with the ground truth data.”

38. According to claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, a series of program commands cause the 

processor to “visually present the virtual model on a first portion of the user interface, a map overlay 

on a second portion of the user interface, and a text overlay on a third portion of the user interface, 

the map overlay indicating a position of the current viewpoint in the current space, the text overlay 

including a first label identifying the current space in the real property where the current viewpoint 

is located.”

39. According to claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, a series of program commands cause the 

processor to “generate a plurality of spatial boundaries of the plurality of spaces of the real property, 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 11 of 30
12

each of the plurality of spatial boundaries defining a parcel outline of a corresponding space among 

the plurality of spaces.”

40. According to claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, a series of program commands cause the 

processor to “generate the ground truth image data by annotating the images of the real property 

with second labels indicating the capture locations using the plurality of spatial boundaries.”

41. According to claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, the virtual model, the map overlay, and the 

text overlay “are functionally linked based on the position of the current viewpoint in the real 

property.”

42. Claim 1 of the ’885 Patent further recites “identifying the current space in the real 

property where the current viewpoint is located using the metadata associated with the ground truth 

data includes identifying the first label of the current space using the second labels indicating the 

capture locations.”

43. The ’673 Patent has 19 claims, claims 1, 10, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 of the 

’673 Patent covers a method relating to image-based rendering of 3D geometry combined with 

images of real-world scenes.

44. According to claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, the claimed method includes “receiving 

image data of a plurality of spaces in a property, the image data including a plurality of images 

captured from a plurality of viewpoints.”

45. According to claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, the claimed method includes “creating a 

plurality of panoramas of the plurality of spaces using the image data.”

46. According to claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, the claimed method includes “rendering a 

virtual model of a selected space among the plurality of spaces using the plurality of panoramas.”

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 12 of 30
13

47. According to claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, the claimed method includes “causing a 

device to display the virtual model with a first label indicating a location of the selected space.”

48. According to claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, the claimed method includes “defining 

spatial boundaries of the plurality of spaces in the property using the image data, the plurality of 

spaces including a plurality of rooms in the property.”

49. According to claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, “the image data includes metadata 

associated with the plurality of images, the metadata indicating capture locations of the images.”

50. According to claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, “rendering the virtual model of the selected 

space includes rendering a 3D scene of the selected space using the plurality of panoramas.”

51. According to claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, rendering the 3D scene includes 

“determining camera geometry using the plurality of images; receiving a selected viewpoint in the 

selected space; generating a point cloud of the 3D model; determining a geometric proxy for the 

selected viewpoint using the determined camera geometry and the point cloud; and generating the 

3D model using the geometric proxy.”

52. The ’111 Patent has 23 claims, claims 1 and 18 are independent. claim 1 of the ’111 

Patent covers a method relating to image-based rendering of 3D geometry that corresponds to 

locations within a real estate property.

53. According to claim 1 of the ’111 Patent, the claimed method includes “receiving 

image data of a plurality of spaces in a real estate property, the image data including a plurality of 

images captured from a plurality of viewpoints.”

54. According to claim 1 of the ’111 Patent, the claimed method includes “creating a 

plurality of panoramas of the plurality of spaces by processing and/or compositing the image data.”

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 13 of 30
14

55. According to claim 1 of the ’111 Patent, the claimed method includes “defining a 

plurality of spatial boundaries of the plurality of spaces in the real estate property using the image 

data.”

56. According to claim 1 of the ’111 Patent, “rendering a virtual model of the selected 

space of the one or more spaces delineated by a spatial boundary of the plurality of spatial 

boundaries that corresponds to the indicate location.”

57. According to claim 1 of the ’111 Patent, the claimed method includes “causing a 

device to display the virtual model with a first label indicating a location of the selected space in 

the spatial boundary that corresponds to the indicated location.”

58. The ’973 Patent has 23 claims, claims 1 and 18 are independent. claim 1 of the ’973 

Patent covers a method using computer-readable memory medium containing program commands 

for controlling a computer processor to provide image-based rendering of real property.

59. According to claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, the claimed method includes “obtaining 

two or more views from capture locations in a plurality of space of the real property using ground 

truth image data.”

60. According to claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, the claimed method includes “defining a

plurality of spatial boundaries of the plurality of spaces of the real property.”

61. According to claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, the claimed method includes “annotating 

the ground truth image data by annotating at least some of the captured images of the real property 

with information indicating a capture location of a corresponding image relative to a corresponding 

spatial boundary.”

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 14 of 30
15

62. According to claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, the claimed method includes “combining 

and processing two of more instances of the ground truth image data to create a plurality of 

synthesized views.”

63. According to claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, the claimed method includes “generating 

and rendering a virtual model of a current space within the plurality of spaces of the real property 

from a perspective of a current view.”

64. According to claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, the claimed method includes “identifying 

the current space in the real property where the current view is located using the capture locations 

indicated by the annotated ground truth image data.”

65. According to claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, the claimed method includes visually 

presenting “at least a portion of the virtual model, a map user interface element, and a text user 

interface element.”

66. According to claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, “the portion of the virtual model, the map 

user interface element, and the text user interface element are functionally linked based on the 

position of the current view in the real property.”

D. Redfin’s Willful Infringement of the Patents-in-Suit

67. On or around, August 21, 2014, Redfin released its own image-based, 3D rendering 

service in coordination and cooperation with another company, Matterport, Inc. (hereinafter 

“Matterport”). Using the Redfin-Matterport system, potential real estate buyers were able to 

virtually tour a home in 3D by navigating through a computer’s internet-connected user interface.

After collaborating with Redfin, Matterport released a 3D model for use by Redfin highly similar 

in visual presentation or appearance to Surefield’s. On information and belief, the visual 

presentation and underlying technology were copied from Surefield’s first-to-market service.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 15 of 30
16

68. For example, the Redfin-Matterport system employs the same or similar imagebased rendering approaches disclosed by Surefield to enable photorealism and spatial navigation 

by compositing images and rendering panoramas in the user interface itself and by using spatially 

defined labels, such as navigable text involving different floors, in combination with 3DR. 

Furthermore, this Redfin-Matterport user interface was not disclosed or used by Matterport or 

Redfin prior to Surefield and the Redfin-Matterport user interface also includes floor plan views 

and another 3D aerial projection called “dollhouse.”

69. Not only is the Redfin-Matterport image-based 3D rendering service similar in 

appearance to Surefield’s, but there is evidence that this service utilizes a strikingly similar technical 

implementation to the one first disclosed and used by Surefield, which is further indicative that it

was copied from Surefield’s first-to-market service. For example, the Redfin-Matterport system 

created both hardware and software to generate 3D models in a manner strikingly similar to 

Surefield’s technical implementation. And the Redfin-Matterport system used a plurality of 

cameras arrayed and configured to capture panoramas in a manner strikingly similar to Surefield’s 

first-to-market service. The Redfin-Matterport system, in a strikingly similar way, extracts 3D

geometry from images and uses the combined geometry to process 3D images to render its own 

image-based results. On information and belief, Redfin directed Matterport to implement features 

patented by Surefield which Matterport then incorporated into its primary product. 

70. The following images depict Redfin’s image-based 3D rendering service and Redfin 

3D Walkthrough, which is accused of infringement in this case (“the Accused Products and 

Services”).

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 16 of 30
17

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 17 of 30
18

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 18 of 30
19

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 19 of 30
20

https://www.redfin.com/TX/Austin/9342-Simmons-Rd-78759/home/31311909.

71. Mr. Eraker notified Redfin of the pending patent applications that issued as the 

Patents-in-Suit at least as early as September 2014. Mr. Eraker notified Redfin of the ’885 Patent

and Redfin’s infringement of it at least as early as January 2018, shortly after the ’885 Patent issued. 

On information and belief, Redfin became aware of the ’673 Patent by May 2019, and upon 

information and belief became aware of the ’673 Patent and the other Patents-in-Suit at or shortly 

following their issuance.

72. Despite knowing about the Patents-in-Suit, Redfin continues to offer the Accused 

Products and Services. 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 20 of 30
21

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

Cause of Action No. 1: Infringement of the ’885 Patent by Redfin

73. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations contained in the preceding 

paragraphs.

74. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, including 

through making, using (including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and 

articles infringing one or more claims of the ’885 Patent. Defendant Redfin is thus liable for direct 

infringement of the ’885 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 

75. Exemplary infringing products include Redfin’s image-based 3D rendering service 

and 3D Walkthrough.

76. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, including 

actively inducing infringement of the ’885 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements 

include without limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing 

consumers to use infringing articles and methods that Redfin knows or should know infringe one 

or more claims of the ’885 Patent. Redfin instructs its customers to make and use the patented 

inventions of the ’885 Patent by operating and interacting with Redfin’s website in accordance with 

Redfin’s specifications, instructions and terms of use. Redfin specifically intends its customers to 

infringe by causing their local device to display the rendered 3D images and 3D walkthrough, 

whereby ground truth image data is used at multiple capture points, the system generates a virtual 

model of a current space from the plurality of spaces in the real property from the perspective of a 

current viewpoint, visually presents the virtual model on a first portion of the user interface, a map 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 21 of 30
22

overlay on a second portion of the user interface, and a text overlay on a third portion of the user 

interface, wherein the virtual model, the map overlay, and the text overlay are functionally linked 

based on the position of the current viewpoint in the real property.

77. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’885 Patent, including 

contributory infringement of the ’885 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or § 271(f), either 

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into 

the United States, the infringing products. Redfin knows that the infringing products (i) constitute 

a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’885 Patent; (ii) are especially made or adapted to 

infringe the ’885 Patent; (iii) are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for noninfringing use; and (iv) are components used for or in its switches to implement, in the manner 

claimed, rendered 3D images and 3D walkthroughs for real estate properties, whereby ground truth 

image data is used at multiple capture points, the system generates a virtual model of a current space 

from the plurality of spaces in the real property from the perspective of a current viewpoint, visually 

presents the virtual model on a first portion of the user interface, a map overlay on a second portion

of the user interface, and a text overlay on a third portion of the user interface, wherein the virtual 

model, the map overlay, and the text overlay are functionally linked based on the position of the 

current viewpoint in the real property.

78. As a result of Redfin’s infringement of the ’885 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered 

monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for such 

infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.

CAUSE OF ACTION NO. 2: Infringement of the ’673 Patent by Redfin

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 22 of 30
23

79. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations contained in the preceding 

paragraphs.

80. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, including 

through making, using (including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and 

articles infringing one or more claims of the ’673 Patent. Defendant Redfin is thus liable for direct 

infringement of the ’673 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 

81. Exemplary infringing products include Redfin’s image-based 3D rendering service 

and 3D Walkthrough.

82. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, including 

actively inducing infringement of the ’673 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements 

include without limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing 

consumers to use infringing articles and methods that Redfin knows or should know infringe one 

or more claims of the ’673 Patent. Redfin instructs its customers to make and use the patented 

inventions of the ’673 Patent by operating and interacting with Redfin’s website in accordance with 

Redfin’s specifications, instructions and terms of use. Redfin specifically intends its customers to 

infringe by causing their local device to display the rendered 3D images and 3D walkthrough, 

whereby the system generates a virtual model of a current space from the plurality of spaces in the 

real property from the perspective of a current viewpoint, wherein rendering the virtual model of 

the selected space includes rendering a 3D scene of the selected space using panoramas, and 

rendering a 3D scene based on a selected viewpoint, a point cloud and determined camera geometry.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 23 of 30
24

83. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’673 Patent, including 

contributory infringement of the ’673 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or § 271(f), either 

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into 

the United States, the infringing products. Redfin knows that the infringing products (i) constitute 

a material part of the inventions claimed in the ’673 Patent; (ii) are especially made or adapted to 

infringe the ’673 Patent; (iii) are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for noninfringing use; and (iv) are components used for or in its switches to implement, in the manner 

claimed, rendered 3D images and 3D walkthroughs for real estate properties whereby the system 

generates a virtual model of a current space from the plurality of spaces in the real property from 

the perspective of a current viewpoint, wherein rendering the virtual model of the selected space 

includes rendering a 3D scene of the selected space using panoramas, and rendering a 3D scene 

based on a selected viewpoint, a point cloud and determined camera geometry. 

84. As a result of Redfin’s infringement of the ’673 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered 

monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for such 

infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.

CAUSE OF ACTION No. 3: Infringement of the ’111 Patent by Redfin

85. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations contained in the preceding 

paragraphs.

86. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’111 Patent, including 

through making, using (including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 24 of 30
25

articles infringing one or more claims of the ’111 Patent. Defendant Redfin is thus liable for direct 

infringement of the ’111 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 

87. Exemplary infringing products include Redfin’s image-based 3D rendering service 

and 3D Walkthrough.

88. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’111 Patent, including 

actively inducing infringement of the ’111 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements 

include without limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing 

consumers to use infringing articles and methods that Redfin knows or should know infringe one 

or more claims of the ’111 Patent. Redfin instructs its suppliers and customers to make and use the 

patented inventions of the ’111 Patent generating and using Redfin’s 3D Walkthrough in 

accordance with Redfin’s specifications, instructions and terms of use. Redfin specifically intends 

its suppliers and customers to infringe by practicing the patented methods using Redfin’s 3D 

walkthrough, including image data associated with a plurality of spaces that are captured from 

different viewpoints, creating panoramas by processing or compositing the image data, defining 

boundaries using the image data, receiving a user indication of a location, rendering a virtual model, 

and causing a device to display the model.

89. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’111 Patent, including 

contributory infringement of the ’111 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or § 271(f), either 

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into 

the United States, the Accused Products and Services. Redfin knows that the Accused Products and 

Services: (i) constitute a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 25 of 30
26

a material part of the inventions of the ’111 Patent; (ii) are especially made or adapted to infringe 

the ’111 Patent; (iii) are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for non-infringing 

use; and (iv) are components used for or in the manner claimed, to generate rendered 3D images 

and 3D walkthroughs for real estate properties, including image data associated with a plurality of 

spaces that are captured from different viewpoints, creating panoramas by processing or 

compositing the image data, defining boundaries using the image data, receiving a user indication 

of a location, rendering a virtual model, and causing a device to display the model.

90. As a result of Redfin’s infringement of the ’111 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered 

monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for such 

infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.

CAUSE OF ACTION No. 4: Infringement of the ’973 Patent by Redfin

91. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges the allegations contained in the preceding 

paragraphs.

92. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, including 

through making, using (including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and 

articles infringing one or more claims of the ’973 Patent. Defendant Redfin is thus liable for direct 

infringement of the ’973 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 

93. Exemplary infringing products include Redfin’s image-based 3D rendering service 

and 3D Walkthrough.

94. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, including 

actively inducing infringement of the ’973 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 26 of 30
27

include without limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing 

consumers to use infringing articles and methods that Redfin knows or should know infringe one 

or more claims of the ’973 Patent. Redfin instructs its customers to make and use the patented 

inventions of the ’973 Patent by operating Redfin’s website in accordance with Redfin’s 

specifications, instructions and terms of use. Redfin specifically intends its customers to infringe 

by supplying or generating computer readable media causing their local device to display the 

rendered 3D images and 3D walkthrough, including two or more views from capture locations using 

ground truth image data, incorporating a plurality of spatial boundaries within the model of the real 

property, annotating the ground truth data, combining and processing image data to create 

synthesized views, and visually presenting a portion of the model on a user interface.

95. On information and belief, Defendant Redfin, without authorization or license from 

Plaintiff, has been and is presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’973 Patent, including 

contributory infringement of the ’973 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) and/or § 271(f), either 

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into 

the United States, the Accused Products and Services. Redfin knows that the Accused Products and 

Services: (i) constitute a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting 

a material part of the inventions of the ’111 Patent; (ii) are especially made or adapted to infringe 

the ’111 Patent; (iii) are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for non-infringing 

use; and (iv) are components used for or in the manner claimed, to generate rendered 3D images 

and 3D walkthroughs for real estate properties, including two or more views from capture locations 

using ground truth image data, incorporating a plurality of spatial boundaries within the model of 

the real property, annotating the ground truth data, combining and processing image data to create 

synthesized views, and visually presenting a portion of the model on a user interface.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 27 of 30
28

96. As a result of Redfin’s infringement of the ’973 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered 

monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for such 

infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.

VI. JURY DEMAND

97. Plaintiff demand a trial by jury of all claims so triable.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for relief against Defendant as follows:

A. That the Court determine that one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit is 

infringed by Defendant Redfin, either literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents;

B. That the Court award damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the patent 

infringement that has occurred, including lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty 

at its election, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs, 

and an ongoing royalty for continued infringement; 

C. A permanent injunction against Redfin, stopping any further use, sale, or offers for 

sale of any service that infringes the ’885 Patent including the Accused Products and 

Services and any colorable imitations of the Accused Products and Services;

D. A permanent injunction against Redfin, stopping any further use, sale, or offers for 

sale of any service that infringes the ’673 Patent including the Accused Products and 

Services and any colorable imitations of the Accused Products and Services;

E. A permanent injunction against Redfin, stopping any further use, sale, or offers for 

sale of any service that infringes the ’111 Patent, including the Accused Products 

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 28 of 30
29

and Services and any colorable imitations of the Accused Products and Services;

F. A permanent injunction against Redfin, stopping any further use, sale, or offers for 

sale of any service that infringes the ’973 Patent, including the Accused Products 

and Services and any colorable imitations of the Accused Products and Services;

G. An order by the Court increasing any damages for patent infringement up to three 

times the amount found or assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; 

H. A finding that Redfin’s infringement was and is willful;

I. A finding that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and Surefield

is a prevailing party and therefore entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees 

and full costs; and

J. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 29 of 30
30

Dated: May 11, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Andrew G. DiNovo

Andrew G. DiNovo

Texas State Bar No. 00790594

Nicole E. Glauser

Texas State Bar No. 24050694

DINOVO PRICE LLP

7000 N. MoPac Expressway

Suite 350

Austin, Texas 78731

Telephone: (512) 539-2626

Facsimile: (512) 539-2627

adinovo@dinovoprice.com

nglauser@dinovoprice.com

Steven W. Fogg, WSBA No. 23528

(Pro Hac Vice to be filed)

Eric A. Lindberg, WSBA No. 43596

(Pro Hac Vice to be filed)

CORR CRONIN, LLP

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900

Seattle, Washington 98154-1051

Telephone: (206) 625-8600

sfogg@corrcronin.com

elindberg@corrcronin.com

Mark P. Walters, WSBA No. 30819

LOWE GRAHAM JONES, PLLC

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4800

Seattle, Washington 98104

Telephone: (206) 381-3300

walters@lowegrahamjones.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 6:20-cv-00376-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/11/20 Page 30 of 30