RealD Sues Harkins Enterprises Over 3D Cinema Projection Patents.

The parties and the court

The case is RealD Inc. v. Harkins Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-13124 (C.D. Cal.). RealD Inc. filed the complaint on November 9, 2026. The caption names seven defendants: Harkins Enterprises, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Harkins Administrative Services, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Harkins Reel Deals, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, doing business as Harkins Theatres; and four Arizona limited liability companies, Harkins Moreno Valley, LLC, Harkins Chino Hills, LLC, Harkins Cerritos, LLC, and Harkins Redlands, LLC. RealD demands a jury under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).

The complaint alleges that RealD is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Louisville, Colorado. It alleges, on information and belief, that each defendant is organized under Arizona law with a principal place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona. It groups Harkins Enterprises, Harkins Administrative Services, and Harkins Reel Deals as the Harkins Management Defendants, and the four California theater companies as the California Theater Defendants. It alleges, on information and belief, that those theater companies own or operate Harkins theaters in Cerritos, Chino Hills, Moreno Valley, and Redlands, California.

Subject matter jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The complaint alleges that each defendant has committed acts of infringement in the Central District of California and has a regular and established place of business there at those four theaters, where the accused 3D showings are said to occur.

The two patents

The complaint asserts U.S. Patent 7,857,455, titled Combining P and S Rays for Bright Stereoscopic Projection, and U.S. Patent 8,220,934, titled Polarization Conversion Systems for Stereoscopic Projection. The '455 patent issued December 28, 2010, from application 11/583,243, filed October 18, 2006. The '934 patent issued July 17, 2012, from application 13/047,763, filed March 14, 2011, as a continuation of application 11/864,198, now U.S. Patent 7,905,602. Each patent lists RealD Inc. as assignee. USPTO assignment records list a recorded merger to RealD Inc. for each patent, and RealD alleges that it holds the entire right, title, and interest in both patents, including the right to sue for infringement.

Count I alleges infringement of at least claim 16 of the '455 patent. Count II alleges infringement of at least claim 2 of the '934 patent. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. The complaint recites claim 16 of the '455 patent and recites claim 2 of the '934 patent together with independent claim 1.

What the patents cover

U.S. Patent 7,857,455 covers a multiple-path stereoscopic projection system that receives image light energy, splits that energy into a primary path and a secondary path, uses a reflector on the secondary path, and uses a polarization modulator arranged to modulate the primary path of light energy. The patent also describes superimposing light from the two paths to enhance the brightness of stereoscopic images perceived by a viewer.

Claim 16 of the '455 patent covers a method of projecting stereoscopic images that includes receiving image light energy; splitting the received image light energy into a primary path of light energy transmitted along a primary path and a secondary path of light energy transmitted along a secondary path; receiving secondary path light energy and directing reflected secondary path light energy toward a surface; and uniformly modulating the polarization of the primary path of light energy into primary path modulated light energy, and transmitting that modulated light energy toward the surface.

U.S. Patent 8,220,934 covers a polarization conversion system for stereoscopic projection. The system uses a polarization beam splitter, a polarization rotating element, a reflecting element, and a polarization switch so that light from a projector is separated into first and second paths, the polarization of selected light is changed, and the paths are directed toward a projection screen to form a brighter stereoscopic image.

Claim 2 of the '934 patent covers a stereoscopic system that includes a polarization beam splitter operable to direct first light bundles having a first state of polarization along a first light path and second light bundles having a second state of polarization along a second light path; a polarization rotator located on the second light path and operable to translate the second state of polarization to the first; a polarization switch subsystem operable to receive the first and second light bundles and to selectively translate both polarization states to one of a first output state of polarization or a second output state of polarization; and a reflector located on the second light path, operable to direct second light bundles to substantially similar locations on a projection screen as the first light bundles.

Inter partes review of the asserted patents

Both patents were previously the subject of inter partes reviews filed by a third party. In IPR2015-00035, the Board instituted review of claims 1-23 of the '455 patent on April 23, 2015. In a final written decision entered April 20, 2016, the Board concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those claims were unpatentable, and it denied the request to cancel claims 1-23. An inter partes review certificate issued February 15, 2018, states that claims 1-23 are found patentable. The Board separately denied institution of IPR2015-00033 on April 22, 2015, and denied institution of IPR2015-00876 on September 16, 2015, both also directed to the '455 patent. Asserted claim 16 was among the claims reviewed in IPR2015-00035 and was not cancelled.

In IPR2015-00040, the petitioner challenged claims 1-20 of the '934 patent. The Board instituted review on April 15, 2015, as to claims 1, 6-10, and 18-20, and it did not institute review of claims 2-5 and 11-17, including asserted claim 2. In a final written decision entered April 14, 2016, the Board held that claims 1, 6-10, and 18-20 had been shown unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and it denied RealD's motion to amend. The Board denied a request for rehearing on September 1, 2016. An inter partes review certificate issued February 22, 2018, states that claims 1, 6-10, and 18-20 are cancelled. Claim 2, which depends from cancelled claim 1, was not instituted and was not cancelled.

The Board's final written decision in IPR2015-00040 identified related matters including No. 2:14-cv-02304 (C.D. Cal.), No. 2:14-cv-02303 (C.D. Cal.), and Investigation No. 337-TA-939. A notice of appeal from the IPR2015-00035 final written decision was filed on June 22, 2016, and a notice of appeal from the IPR2015-00040 final written decision was filed on November 3, 2016. The February 2018 certificates state the claim results described above.

The accused use

The complaint defines the accused use as the defendants' use of the DepthQ CineBright and of other 3D projection products that use the same, substantially similar, or other allegedly infringing technology. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants have used and continue to use the CineBright in their theaters, including the four theaters in this district, and that the CineBright is supplied by a third-party company and sold as a high-brightness passive polarization solution for 3D digital cinema.

The complaint alleges that the defendants advertise 3D showings at those theaters and promote DepthQ CineBright 3D as a premium format, including on the Harkins website. It also alleges that RealD previously pursued infringement proceedings in Germany concerning the CineBright, and that a German court found that the CineBright infringed the German parts of European Patents EP 2,067,066 and EP 2,469,336, which the complaint says are in the same families as the '934 and '455 patents, respectively.

The two counts and alleged willfulness

Count I is infringement of the '455 patent. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants have engaged in the accused use in this district and have directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the '455 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including at least claim 16, through use of 3D projection technology including the CineBright.

Count II is infringement of the '934 patent. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, the same direct-infringement theory under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) as to one or more existing claims of the '934 patent, including at least claim 2, through use of 3D projection technology including the CineBright.

Each count alleges that the infringement has been and continues to be willful. The complaint alleges that the defendants had actual knowledge of the asserted patents no later than a January 20, 2016 notice letter. It alleges that the 2016 letter informed Harkins that the United States International Trade Commission had issued an Initial Determination finding that certain 3D projection products infringed RealD patents, including the '455 and '934 patents. It alleges that a March 10, 2026 notice letter stated that DepthQ 3D systems operating at Harkins locations infringed one or more claims of identified RealD patents, including the '455 and '934 patents, and that an August 3, 2026 notice letter stated that use of the CineBright infringed those patents, including at least claim 2 of the '934 patent, and that continued use would constitute willful infringement. RealD also alleges that it has met its marking obligations under 35 U.S.C. § 287 by marking its patented articles with reference to a patents page on its website that identifies both patents.

Relief requested

The prayer asks for an adjudication that RealD's rights in the enforceable claims of the asserted patents are valid and enforceable; a judgment on the complaint in RealD's favor; a judgment that the defendants have infringed one or more claims of the asserted patents, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; an injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 283; damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, including lost profits and an amount not less than a reasonable royalty; a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages under § 284; an accounting for infringing acts not presented at trial; pre- and post-judgment interest; a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and any other relief the court deems just and proper.

What to watch next

Watch for issuance of summons and the defendants' response to the complaint. Watch also for any schedule the court sets. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.