20 20 Vision Center LLC v. Digitaloptometrics LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: 20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Digitaloptometrics LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Shaw Keller LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00581, D. Del., 05/21/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, DigitalOptometrics LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore "resides" in the district for purposes of patent venue.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's tele-optometry system and services infringe three U.S. patents related to systems and methods for conducting remote eye health examinations.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using a combination of local ophthalmic equipment and remote eye care professionals, connected by a telecommunications network, to provide vision and eye health examinations to patients.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit due to its awareness of the parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,230,062, through "previous litigation" and subsequent tracking of the patent applications that led to the patents-in-suit, which may be relevant to the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-11-06	Earliest Priority Date for '217, '114, and '994 Patents
2016-01-05	U.S. Patent No. 9,230,062 ("Parent Patent") Issued
2020-07-14	U.S. Patent No. 10,714,217 ('217 Patent) Issued
2020-08-04	U.S. Patent No. 10,734,114 ('114 Patent) Issued
2020-09-01	U.S. Patent No. 10,762,994 ('994 Patent) Issued
2026-05-21	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,714,217 - Systems and Methods for Enabling Customers to Obtain Vision and Eye Health Examinations

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes that traditional eye examinations can be inconvenient, costly, and time-consuming, causing many individuals to forego regular, comprehensive eye care needed for early detection of diseases and accurate vision prescriptions Compl. ¶13 '217 Patent, col. 1:41-col. 3:23
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for remotely assisted eye examinations that uses a local "diagnostic center" equipped with ophthalmic instruments (e.g., auto-phoropter, eye chart) connected to a network. The system architecture involves an on-site individual, a first remote individual, and a second remote individual, all of whom can control the equipment and communicate with the customer via real-time video conferencing to administer various eye tests and generate evaluation data Compl. ¶45 '217 Patent, abstract '217 Patent, col. 9:9-col. 12:65
  • Technical Importance: The technology facilitates a "tele-optometry" model that aims to improve the efficiency, flexibility, and accessibility of eye care services while reducing costs for patients Compl. ¶13
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 Compl. ¶46
  • Independent Claim 1 of the '217 Patent recites the following essential elements:
    • A system for providing a remotely assisted eye examination, comprising:
    • A diagnostic center with ophthalmic equipment (including an auto-phoropter and eye chart) and an equipment controller that permits multiple individuals to control the equipment.
    • An onsite device operated by an onsite individual at the diagnostic center.
    • A first remote device operated by a first remote individual.
    • A second remote device operated by a second remote individual.
    • The system is configured such that the equipment is controlled by each of the onsite, first remote, and second remote individuals.
    • Administering the exam includes establishing first and second real-time video conference connections between the diagnostic center and the first and second remote devices, respectively.
    • The equipment controller receives first commands from the first remote device (enabling remote lens switching of the auto-phoropter) and second commands from the second remote device.
    • The multiple individuals administer a plurality of eye tests to the customer.
    • The system generates evaluation data based on the plurality of eye tests.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations of infringement.

U.S. Patent No. 10,734,114 - Systems and Methods for Enabling Customers to Obtain Vision and Eye Health Examinations

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same logistical and cost barriers to receiving regular, comprehensive eye care as the '217 Patent Compl. ¶13 '114 Patent, col. 1:41-col. 3:23
  • The Patented Solution: This invention describes a system for remote eye exams that uniquely incorporates a practitioner management function. The system tracks "availability data" for a plurality of remote individuals logged into a web-based platform to establish real-time connections. The workflow separates roles: an on-site individual assists with objective tests, a first remote individual assists with subjective tests, and a second remote individual receives the resulting data to generate an evaluation for the customer '114 Patent, abstract '114 Patent, col. 13:26-14:18
  • Technical Importance: This approach introduces a resource management layer to the tele-optometry model, potentially improving efficiency and minimizing customer wait times by intelligently routing exam requests to available practitioners Compl. ¶22
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, 19, 20, 21, and 22, with Count IV focusing on at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶49 Compl. ¶91
  • Independent Claim 1 of the '114 Patent recites the following essential elements:
    • A system for providing remotely assisted eye examinations, comprising:
    • A diagnostic center with ophthalmic equipment coupled to an equipment controller.
    • Administering the exam comprises:
      • An on-site individual administering objective tests.
      • Tracking availability data of remote individuals logged into a web-based platform.
      • Establishing a plurality of real-time connections with remote devices based on the availability data, including a first and second connection for a first and second remote individual.
      • A first remote individual administering subjective tests, which includes transmitting commands to remotely control the equipment.
      • Generating customer examination data from both objective and subjective tests.
      • Transmitting the customer examination data to the second remote device.
      • A second remote individual generating evaluation data.
      • Transmitting the evaluation data to the customer.
    • The claim further requires that a subjective portion of the exam is performed with the assistance of both the first and second remote individuals, who both have the ability to remotely control an auto-phoropter.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,762,994 - Systems and Methods for Enabling Customers to Obtain Vision and Eye Health Examinations

Multi-Patent Capsule

• Technology Synopsis: The '994 Patent describes a tele-optometry system architecture centered on an auto-phoropter at a diagnostic center Compl. ¶51 The system is configured to establish separate real-time video conference connections with a first remote individual and a second remote individual, enabling both to transmit commands over the network to control the auto-phoropter and facilitate a subjective refraction exam Compl. ¶52
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10 Compl. ¶52
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's Accused System, which involves remote professionals conducting eye exams using remotely controlled ophthalmic equipment, practices at least Claim 1 of the '994 Patent Compl. ¶119

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "Accused System" is identified as DigitalOptometrics' tele-optometry system and services Compl. ¶32
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Accused System is a service offered across the country through which remote eye professionals treat patients Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶25 The alleged functionality involves a multi-step process: (1) a patient provides information via a tablet kiosk; (2) an onsite individual performs objective pre-screening tests like autorefraction; (3) a remote technician conducts a subjective refraction exam via real-time video conference using remotely controlled equipment; (4) a remote eye care professional reviews the results and may perform additional exams; and (5) the professional provides a prescription or diagnosis Compl. ¶¶28-32 The system allegedly uses a diagnostic center, an onsite individual, two remote individuals (a technician and a practitioner), and remotely controlled equipment including a digital phoropter, auto-refractor, and auto-lensometer Compl. ¶¶33-37 A flowchart from Exhibit 1 illustrates the five-step process of the accused tele-optometry examination, starting with patient pre-screening and ending with a remote doctor providing a prescription Compl. ¶32 The complaint also alleges the Accused System is offered through local retailers, such as Miami Optical Boutique Compl. ¶42 Exhibit 3 is a purported screenshot of the Miami Optical Boutique webpage, which allegedly offers the accused digital optometry services Compl. ¶42

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not provide, claim chart exhibits for the asserted patents Compl. ¶64 Compl. ¶92 Compl. ¶120 Therefore, the infringement allegations from the complaint's narrative are summarized below in prose.

'217 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Defendant's Accused System directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the '217 Patent Compl. ¶63 The allegations map the elements of the claim to the Accused System's components and workflow. The complaint asserts that the Defendant's examination site functions as the claimed "diagnostic center" with "ophthalmic equipment" Compl. ¶33 It further alleges the system includes an "onsite device operated by an onsite individual" for objective exams Compl. ¶34 and at least two remote individuals-an "eye health technician and an eye health practitioner"-who function as the "first remote individual" and "second remote individual" and remotely control the equipment for subjective exams Compl. ¶35 The complaint alleges the system establishes real-time video conferences and that the remote individuals issue commands to control the ophthalmic equipment located at the diagnostic center Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶36

'114 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 1 of the '114 Patent Compl. ¶91 It asserts the Accused System performs the claimed method by administering objective tests via an onsite individual Compl. ¶29 and subjective tests via a remote technician (the "first remote individual") who remotely controls the equipment Compl. ¶30 A key allegation is that the Accused System "tracks and utilizes availability data" to identify available remote individuals, which purportedly meets the claim's requirement of "tracking availability data associated with a plurality of remote individuals...who are currently logged into a web-based platform" Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶49 The complaint further alleges that a remote practitioner (the "second remote individual") reviews the data to provide a diagnosis or prescription (the "evaluation data") Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶32 Compl. ¶39

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: For the '217 Patent, a central question may be whether the equipment is "controlled by each of the onsite individual, the first remote individual, and the second remote individual" as required by Claim 1. The dispute may turn on the definition of "control," and whether the onsite individual's alleged role of performing objective tests Compl. ¶29 qualifies as "control" in the same manner as the remote individuals' operation of the equipment. For the '114 Patent, Claim 1 requires that "a subjective portion of the eye examination is performed with the assistance of both the first remote individual and the second remote individual." It raises the question of whether the complaint's alleged sequential process-a technician performs the subjective exam, and a practitioner later reviews it Compl. ¶¶30-31-meets this "assistance of both" limitation, which could be construed to require simultaneous or collaborative interaction during the subjective test itself.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the '114 Patent is how the Accused System's alleged function to "track...availability data" Compl. ¶38 operates. The infringement analysis may depend on whether the evidence shows the system performs the specific function of identifying individuals "currently logged into a web-based platform" as required by Claim 1, or if it employs a more general scheduling or assignment logic that is technically different from the claimed method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "controlled by each of the onsite individual, the first remote individual, and the second remote individual" ('217 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for the '217 Patent hinges on this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendant may argue that its "onsite individual," who allegedly performs objective pre-screening tests Compl. ¶29, does not "control" the ophthalmic equipment in the same manner or to the same extent as the remote professionals, potentially avoiding this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may describe "control" in broad terms, for instance, by stating that an on-site operator can "monitor and control the operations of the customer diagnostic center" or "assist customers" with tests, which could support an argument that any interaction with the equipment constitutes "control" '217 Patent, col. 21:23-29 '217 Patent, col. 21:50-54
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes remote individuals transmitting "commands" via a graphical user interface to "remotely switch lenses of the auto-phoropter" '217 Patent, Claim 1, col. 50:1-11 This detailed description of remote control could be used to argue that "control" requires this specific type of command-and-control capability, which may differ from the function performed by the onsite individual.
• The Term: "tracking availability data" ('114 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is a central element of the '114 patent's claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of the case could depend on whether the Defendant's system for managing practitioners is technically equivalent to the specific "tracking" function described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "remote practitioner management (RPM) server" that may "keep track of the remote practitioners" and "manage the distribution of data" '114 Patent, col. 15:37-54 This more general language could support a broader definition of "tracking" that covers various forms of practitioner management and scheduling.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 specifies "tracking availability data...identifying a set of remote individuals who are currently logged into a web-based platform" '114 Patent, Claim 1, col. 49:28-31 This language, combined with specification details about monitoring whether practitioners are "online and/or available" '114 Patent, col. 17:49-54, could support a narrower construction requiring a specific real-time, login-based status monitoring system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both contributory and induced infringement. Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the Defendant provides the Accused System to third-party retailers (e.g., Miami Optical Boutique) and that the system has no substantial non-infringing uses Compl. ¶72 Compl. ¶74 Compl. ¶100 Compl. ¶102 Compl. ¶128 Compl. ¶130 Induced infringement is based on allegations that the Defendant provides its retail partners with "instructions, directions, manuals, handbooks, or other such directives" on how to use the Accused System in an infringing manner and intended this infringing use Compl. ¶83 Compl. ¶85 Compl. ¶111 Compl. ¶113 Compl. ¶139 Compl. ¶141
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations for all three patents-in-suit are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts this knowledge stems from Defendant's awareness of the parent patent ('062 Patent) via "previous litigation" and subsequent tracking of the patent applications that matured into the asserted patents, as well as constructive notice from Plaintiff's patent marking website Compl. ¶66 Compl. ¶67 Compl. ¶94 Compl. ¶95 Compl. ¶122 Compl. ¶123

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case presents several focused questions of claim scope and technical operation for the court's determination. The outcome may turn on a few key issues:

• A primary issue will be one of definitional scope: for the '217 patent, can the term "controlled by," as applied to the "onsite individual," be construed to cover the act of administering objective pre-screening tests, or does it require the same level of remote command-and-control authority exercised by the remote professionals?
• A second core issue is one of functional alignment: for the '114 patent, does the Defendant's system for practitioner management perform the specific function of "tracking availability data" by monitoring real-time login status to a "web-based platform" as required by the claim, or does it utilize a different technical method for scheduling that falls outside the claim's scope?
• A critical evidentiary question for the willfulness claims will be one of knowledge and intent: can the Plaintiff prove that the Defendant's alleged knowledge of a parent patent through prior litigation created a post-issuance duty to investigate and avoid infringement of the continuation patents-in-suit, and that the Defendant acted egregiously in failing to do so?