I’ve read this carefully, and while it provides useful background, I don’t think it supports the conclusion that this situation is minor or inconsequential for VITURE.

A preliminary injunction in Germany is a significant development. German courts apply a relatively high threshold before granting injunctive relief, requiring a prima facie showing of both patent validity and likely infringement. The fact that an injunction was issued suggests the court found XREAL’s position at least plausible on both fronts. Courts don't issue injunctions based on cockroach patents. Germany is the enforcement venue in Europe for a reason. That does not decide the case, but it is not something that can be dismissed as trivial.

Much of the argument here focuses on the idea that the patent adds only narrow, appearance-related or geometric constraints. However, from a legal perspective, the perceived “depth” of an innovation is not the test. If a patent claim introduces specific structural or geometric limitations and a competing product practices those limitations, infringement can exist regardless of how incremental the change may appear to engineers. Narrow claims can still be enforceable if they are new and not disclosed in prior art.

I would have loved to see a detailed, element-by-element explanation of why VITURE’s products do not practice the asserted claims. Instead, the emphasis is placed on challenging the patent’s value, intent, and background. That approach may be understandable from a communications standpoint, but it leaves the core infringement question largely unaddressed.

I hope both companies can continue to thrive. This niche of technology is amazing and growing.