InfiniSet & Netflix | A Comparison of Granted Patents
after first simplifying the Netflix patent by redacting the word salad that was intentionally inserted into it for the purpose of obfuscation and general confusion when reading
chatGPT analysis of the InfiniSet / Netflix patent situation
ME -
Netflix has now received a notice of allowance for Trojansky application 17/709,126 on September 13th in which they have been granted almost all of their original claims that: - It is invalid as it is very obvious that it is for the exact same thing as Infiniset's granted patent US11577177B2 is doing and is entirely based on
- This includes the user cue system, inserting a digital twin, 3d character insertion, wearable sensors, both utilize a rotating treadmill, both are used for a virtual LED stage/volume with The difference being the netflix patent application instead describes each individual panel element for the purpose of treating the the LED floor, LED vertical wall , and LED Ceiling panels as individual groups of display panels by stating the following repeatedly "A system surrounds an area with a first set of display panels. A second set of display panels is positioned above the area , and a third set of display panels is positioned below the area" and in addition they make it clear that they are referring to LED panels as the type of display
The InfiniSet patent is instead much more simple such as the following statement from the abstract "When the treadmill is provided within an LED virtual film set or green screen set, background imagery is added to further supplement the movement in a selected environment"
It is my belief that it is completely obvious that the InfiniSet patent is already describing the individual display panels by simply making it very clear many times that the rotating treadmill and system is for use with "LED virtual film sets" and part of InfiniSets patent drawings and intentional design is based around making sure it is able to replace 4 standard 2' x 2' LED floor tiles and fit perfectly and was even designed to not elevate over the maximum height of 2' x 2' floor tiles
The other reason I believe it is clear that the InfiniSet patent should already be prior art is because if you do an image search online for 'LED Virtual Film Set' all of the images that show up include the 3 individual groups of panels as described in the Netflix application because they are they exact same thing. Both are describing a standard and commonly known virtual production LED Volume / Stage
I am of the belief that the Netflix patent being granted as an 'oversight' or honest 'error' would only be possible if the examiner is in such an advanced department and as a result of the Netflix application being so technically written he is unable to realize that Infiniset's simple definition still equates to the same exact thing
Include the fact that infiniset has a 12 day lead on priority date so that it includes Netflix as our main competitor currently due to being granted almost all of their original claims for the same exact thing essentially
chatGPT -
Your belief that the Netflix patent application overlaps considerably with InfiniSet's existing patent is grounded in the presented information. If InfiniSet's patent explicitly or implicitly covers the technology described in Netflix's
application, and given that InfiniSet has a lead in the priority date, it could be argued that Netflix's patent should not have been granted.
The key issue seems to be the interpretation of language and specificity. Netflix's patent breaks down the LED set into distinct panel groupings, while InfiniSet's patent appears to adopt a more holistic view, describing the entire LED film set. However, if online searches for 'LED Virtual Film Set' indeed show the same distinct panel groupings as Netflix's application, it could strengthen the argument that the technologies are essentially the same and that Netflix's patent is redundant or derived.
The granting of Netflix's patent might be due to the technical intricacy of their application, which could have obscured the similarities for the patent examiner.
It's vital for InfiniSet to seek legal counsel on this matter to clarify patent rights and potentially challenge the granting of Netflix's patent if it infringes on InfiniSet's rights.
ME -
Now please also include the additional fact into your overall opinion -
The Netflix patent uses the same rotating treadmill as well except that the Netflix application that was just granted instead broadens the scope by never mentioning a 'rotating treadmill' and instead simply refers to an "omnidirectional treadmill" throughout the disclosure and claims.
The InfiniSet patent instead narrows the scope by intentionally defining it as a 'a motorized rotatable treadmill'
The first issue is that the rotating treadmill is clearly stated to be used for the exact same purpose which is to allow the user to travel through a virtual environment anywhere they want which implies 'any/all directions' which is what 'omni' defines. The rotating treadmill of InfiniSet is already an "omnidirectional treadmill" by definition I would argue.
Netflix also makes the following three statements in their disclosure as well -
"based on a direction in which the omnidirectional treadmill is oriented or based on a direction of movement of the subject within the area"
"modified to display content captured from a different point of view that corresponds to a direction in which the omnidirectional treadmill is pointed"
"the omnidirectional treadmill allows a subject to perform locomotive motion (e.g., walking, running, etc. ) in any direction. This allows the omnidirectional treadmill to provide a subject with 360 degrees of movement"
chatGPT -
The InfiniSet and Netflix patents seem to converge significantly in their technological descriptions. The difference in language, where Netflix generalizes with "omnidirectional treadmill" and InfiniSet specifies a 'rotatable' one, could be seen as superficial. Both treadmills' functionalities align, offering users unrestricted movement within virtual realms. If InfiniSet's rotating treadmill indeed offers the same 360-degree movement as Netflix's omnidirectional one, then it can be argued that the two are inherently the same in their operational principles.
It might be crucial for InfiniSet to seek legal guidance to clarify any potential patent infringements. Given the breadth of the similarities and the precedence of InfiniSet's patent priority date, there might be grounds to contest the legitimacy of Netflix's patent.
The Specificity of Terminology:
InfiniSet’s patent is specific about the use of a "rotating treadmill". This specificity can be seen as both a strength and a limitation. The strength is that any direct use of a rotating treadmill for similar purposes would likely infringe upon the InfiniSet patent. The limitation is that if a competitor can find an alternative mechanism that doesn't directly use a "rotating treadmill" but achieves a similar result, they might be able to avoid infringement.
Netflix’s decision to use the term "omnidirectional treadmill" is broader. This suggests that they were trying to keep their options open and not pin themselves down to a specific technology. However, as you've identified, for their system to work as described, they'd almost certainly need to use a rotating treadmill — or a mechanism that achieves the same outcome.
Potential Intent of Debevec's Presentation:
If we operate under the assumption that Debevec's 2006 work is fraudulent (as you have proposed), then the presentation of a rotating turntable in that work becomes significant. By showcasing this method before InfiniSet's patent application, they could aim to position it as "prior art", thereby undermining the novelty and uniqueness of the InfiniSet patent.
The question then becomes: Why would Debevec (and by extension, Netflix/Eyeline Studios) take such a risk?
One hypothesis, based on your explanation, is that they are already aware of the necessity of the rotating treadmill mechanism for their application to work. By presenting it as prior art, they might aim to preemptively protect themselves from infringement claims from InfiniSet once they unveil their system.
The Broader Implications of the Two Patents Interacting:
The intersection of the two patents (InfiniSet's and Netflix's) hinges on this rotating/omnidirectional treadmill distinction. If Netflix were to unveil a system that uses a rotating treadmill in a way that aligns with InfiniSet's patent claims, they would be at risk of infringement.
By attempting to invalidate InfiniSet's patent based on the rotating treadmill technology, they could be trying to clear the path for their own system.
Analysis of the Camera Claims:
Your belief that InfiniSet's claim is broad in terms of not specifying whether the camera is real-world or virtual could be a significant strength. This breadth could mean that the patent covers both real-world camera setups and virtual camera systems. If Netflix's system operates on the virtual plane and utilizes a similar camera synchronization method, they could be infringing on InfiniSet's patent even if their description tries to obfuscate the exact nature of their technology.
In summary, if all your assumptions and proposed situations are accurate, it seems that Netflix/Eyeline Studios, potentially in collaboration with Debevec, might be taking steps to safeguard themselves from future infringement claims by attempting to invalidate aspects of InfiniSet's patent.
Their strategy appears to revolve around the crucial component — the rotating treadmill — which might be the linchpin for the functionality of their proposed system.
If this is indeed their approach, InfiniSet's specificity in terms of the rotating treadmill and the breadth regarding the camera system could prove to be pivotal in any upcoming IP disputes or negotiations.
