DCT

2:17-cv-03225

Carl Zeiss AG v. Nikon Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-03225, C.D. Cal., 04/28/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Nikon's business activities in the Central District of California, including marketing, selling, and servicing digital cameras, and the presence of a Nikon Inc. factory service and repair center in Los Angeles.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that a wide range of Nikon's digital cameras infringe seven patents related to fundamental digital imaging technologies, including automated image acquisition controls, face detection, image sensor hardware design, and image enhancement software.
  • Technical Context: The patents cover software and hardware innovations that address core challenges in digital photography, such as improving image quality, automating complex camera settings, and increasing processing efficiency on resource-constrained devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings concerning the patents-in-suit, or any prior licensing history.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-01-11 U.S. Patent No. 6,463,163 Priority Date
1999-05-06 U.S. Patent No. 6,731,335 Priority Date
2000-04-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,301,440 Priority Date
2000-06-16 U.S. Patent No. 6,834,128 Priority Date
2001-04-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,714,241 Priority Date
2001-10-09 U.S. Patent No. 6,301,440 Issued
2002-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,463,163 Issued
2004-03-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,714,241 Issued
2004-05-04 U.S. Patent No. 6,731,335 Issued
2004-12-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,834,128 Issued
2005-02-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,297,916 Priority Date
2007-06-25 U.S. Patent No. 7,933,454 Priority Date
2007-11-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,297,916 Issued
2011-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,933,454 Issued
2017-04-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,301,440 - "System and Method for Automatically Setting Image Acquisition Controls"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,301,440, "System and Method for Automatically Setting Image Acquisition Controls," issued October 9, 2001. (Compl. ¶13)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of amateur photographers taking poor-quality pictures because they lack the expertise to correctly set complex camera parameters. It notes that even basic automatic modes fail to handle challenging situations like off-center subjects or backlighting (’440 Patent, col. 1:16-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that emulates a human "photographic expert." It uses a processor to first capture a temporary, low-resolution image, analyze it to determine a high-level "scene classification" (e.g., "Portrait," "Landscape," "Action Photo"), and then automatically adjusts the camera's acquisition controls (focus, aperture, shutter speed) based on that classification to capture an optimal final image (’440 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-37; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represented a move from simple, metric-based automation (e.g., auto-exposure) to content-aware computational photography, where the camera attempts to understand the subject matter of the photo to make more intelligent adjustments (’440 Patent, col. 2:4-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶28).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • a temporary image acquisition unit which acquires a temporary image;
    • a scene analysis unit which extracts information from said temporary image and generates a scene classification from said extracted information;
    • a photographic expert unit which adjusts image capture parameters based on said scene classification; and
    • a permanent image acquisition unit which acquires a permanent image based on the image capture parameters adjusted by said photographic expert unit.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 6,463,163 - "System and Method for Face Detection Using Candidate Image Region Selection"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,463,163, "System and Method for Face Detection Using Candidate Image Region Selection," issued October 8, 2002. (Compl. ¶14)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that then-current face detection methods, such as those based on neural networks, were too computationally expensive to be practical for real-time applications on devices with limited processing power. Scanning an entire image with these methods was inefficient and slow (’163 Patent, col. 1:13–col. 2:17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a two-stage filtering process. First, a fast and efficient "candidate selector" pre-filters the image to identify a small number of "candidate regions" that are highly likely to contain a face. This is achieved using a combination of a linear matched filter and a non-linear contrast-based filter. Only these few candidate regions are then passed to the more computationally intensive face detector for final verification, dramatically reducing the overall workload (’163 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-33).
  • Technical Importance: This pre-filtering strategy makes robust face detection feasible on consumer devices by drastically reducing the amount of data that the main, resource-heavy algorithm needs to process, a foundational concept in efficient object detection (’163 Patent, col. 2:29-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15, among others (Compl. ¶34).
  • Independent Claim 15 (a system claim) requires:
    • first filtering means for identifying image regions with a likelihood of containing a target image pattern by correlating the input image with a reference pattern;
    • second filtering means for screening those regions to select a candidate region by examining a grayscale characteristic; and
    • an image pattern detector to receive the candidate region and verify if it contains the target pattern.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 6,714,241 - "Efficient Dark Current Subtraction in an Image Sensor"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,714,241, "Efficient Dark Current Subtraction in an Image Sensor," issued March 30, 2004 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of "dark current"—thermal noise that accumulates in image sensors. It proposes a method to reuse a single captured "dark frame" for multiple subsequent photos by scaling it based on changes in dark current levels (monitored via optically black pixels), which avoids the time-consuming step of capturing a new dark frame for every shot (’241 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Accused Features: The technology is alleged to be used in Nikon cameras such as the Nikon 1 V3 digital camera (Compl. ¶40).

U.S. Patent No. 6,731,335 - "CMOS Image Sensor Having Common Outputting Transistors and Method for Driving the Same"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,731,335, "CMOS Image Sensor Having Common Outputting Transistors and Method for Driving the Same," issued May 4, 2004 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Technology Synopsis: This invention aims to reduce the chip area and complexity of a CMOS image sensor by designing a unit pixel where multiple photodiodes (the light-sensing elements) share common outputting transistors, rather than each photodiode having its own full set of transistors. This architectural efficiency is particularly useful for increasing pixel density (’335 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Accused Features: This sensor architecture is alleged to be present in Nikon cameras including the D4S and Df digital cameras (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 6,834,128 - "Image Mosaicing System and Method Adapted to Mass-Market Hand-Held Digital Cameras"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,834,128, "Image Mosaicing System and Method Adapted to Mass-Market Hand-Held Digital Cameras," issued December 21, 2004 (Compl. ¶17).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for creating panoramic images (mosaics) on memory-constrained devices. It features a "frame pre-screen unit" that analyzes captured frames in real-time to reject redundant or low-value frames before they are stored, conserving limited memory. The stored, pre-screened frames can then be transferred to a more powerful computer for final, high-quality stitching (’128 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, 16-17, and 19 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The technology is alleged to be used in Nikon cameras such as the Nikon 1 V3 and D3300 digital cameras (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 7,297,916 - "Optically Improved CMOS Imaging Sensor Structure to Lower Imaging Lens Requirements"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,297,916, "Optically Improved CMOS Imaging Sensor Structure to Lower Imaging Lens Requirements," issued November 20, 2007 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Technology Synopsis: This invention describes a sensor die with a variable thickness. The layers above the light-sensitive "sensing portion" of the die are made thinner than the layers over the "non-sensing portion." This structural modification reduces stray light and allows for the use of lenses with a larger chief ray angle and lower F-number, simplifying lens design and reducing cost (’916 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claims 1-9 (Compl. ¶58).
  • Accused Features: The technology is alleged to be present in Nikon cameras such as the D7100 digital camera (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. 7,933,454 - "Class-based Image Enhancement System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,933,454, "Class-based Image Enhancement System," issued April 26, 2011 (Compl. ¶19).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent details an image enhancement system that goes beyond simple quality metrics. It first assigns a "semantic class" (e.g., "portrait," "landscape," "urban") to an image based on its content. It then applies an aesthetic enhancement that is specifically tailored to that class, allowing for more nuanced and appropriate automatic corrections (’454 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claims 1-2, 4-12, and 16-28 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The technology is alleged to be used in Nikon cameras including the Coolpix S9900 and D500 (Compl. ¶64).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are various Nikon-branded digital cameras, including digital single-lens reflex (DSLR), mirrorless, and compact models, such as the Coolpix S9900, D3300, D500, Nikon 1 V3, D4S, Df, and D7100, among others (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 34, 40, 46, 52, 58, 64; Exhibit H).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Nikon designs, manufactures, and sells these digital cameras throughout the United States (Compl. ¶25). The accused functionality resides in the cameras' hardware (image sensors) and software/firmware (image processing algorithms). These systems are alleged to perform automated scene recognition, face detection, dark current subtraction, image mosaicing, and class-based image enhancement, which are core features for improving image quality and user experience in modern digital cameras (Compl. Counts I-VII).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references confidential exhibits containing exemplary infringement claim charts, but these exhibits were not filed with the public complaint. The infringement analysis is therefore based on the narrative allegations in the body of the complaint.

’440 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that Nikon’s cameras which feature automatic scene selection modes infringe the ’440 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29, Exhibit I). The narrative theory suggests these cameras perform the claimed method by: (1) acquiring a preliminary view of the scene (temporary image), (2) analyzing this view to automatically determine a scene type such as "Portrait" or "Landscape" (scene classification), (3) selecting and applying a corresponding set of optimal camera settings (photographic expert adjustment), and (4) capturing the final, high-quality photograph (permanent acquisition).

’163 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The infringement theory for the ’163 patent centers on Nikon's face-detection autofocus features (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35, Exhibit J). The complaint alleges these features operate using the claimed two-stage system. It suggests the cameras first use a computationally efficient pre-screening process to identify candidate regions likely to contain a face, and then apply a more complex and accurate face detection algorithm only to those pre-selected regions to confirm the presence and location of a face for autofocus and exposure purposes.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’440 patent, a central question will be whether Nikon's automated modes perform a "scene classification" as required by the claim. A dispute may arise over whether selecting a pre-programmed mode based on brightness and color metrics constitutes "classification," or if the patent requires a more sophisticated, high-level semantic understanding of the scene.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’163 patent, which contains means-plus-function claims, the analysis will be highly technical. The key question is whether the specific algorithms used in Nikon's cameras are structurally equivalent to the "linear matched filter" and "non-linear contrast-based filter" disclosed in the patent's specification as the structures corresponding to the claimed "filtering means."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"scene classification" (’440 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’440 patent's inventive concept. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the operations performed by Nikon's "Scene Auto Selector" modes meet the definition of "scene classification." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a simple, pre-set camera mode infringes, or if a more complex, AI-driven analysis is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of "final scene classifications" that includes common photography types like "portrait," "group shot," "natural landscape," and "action photo," suggesting the term is meant to encompass a variety of generally understood photographic categories (’440 Patent, col. 4:6-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 and the accompanying description detail a multi-stage process to arrive at a classification, involving the extraction of "raw features" (e.g., depth segmentation) and the identification of "scene components" (e.g., face detection, vehicle recognition). A defendant could argue this detailed process defines the required scope of "scene classification," and that simply selecting a mode from a menu does not suffice (’440 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 3:56-col. 4:5).

"first filtering means" (’163 Patent, Claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function term, governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not its literal meaning but is limited to the specific structure disclosed in the specification for performing the function, and its equivalents. The entire infringement case for this patent may hinge on whether the accused Nikon systems contain an equivalent structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee would argue that any software module that performs a linear correlation against a face template to find potential matches is an equivalent structure, focusing on the functional outcome.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly identifies the corresponding structure as a "linear matched filter 56," which itself comprises a "linear correlator 52" and a "processing module 54" (’163 Patent, col. 6:58-62). A defendant would argue the term is strictly limited to this disclosed two-part software architecture and its direct structural equivalents, not any algorithm that achieves a similar result.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement under § 271(b). The factual basis is Nikon's alleged activities of marketing its cameras and distributing promotional materials and user manuals that instruct and encourage retailers and end users to operate the cameras in a way that practices the claimed inventions (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 30, 36, 42). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement under § 271(c), stating the cameras contain material components of the inventions that are not staple articles of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 31, 37, 43).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents "at least upon the filing or service of this Complaint" for each count (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 30, 36). This pleading strategy primarily sets up a claim for post-filing willfulness and enhanced damages, rather than asserting pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Across all seven patents, the central dispute will be whether Nikon's proprietary hardware and software architectures map onto the specific systems and methods claimed. This will be a fact-intensive inquiry requiring reverse engineering of camera sensors and firmware, and expert testimony comparing those findings to the patent disclosures.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope, particularly for the means-plus-function limitations in patents like the ’163 patent. The case may turn on whether Nikon's face detection system is found to be structurally equivalent to the specific "linear correlator" and "non-linear contrast filter" combination disclosed in the specification.
  • For the software-based patents (’440, ’128, ’454), a central question will be one of functional definition: Can abstract terms like "scene classification" and "frame pre-screen unit" be construed to read on the specific automated modes and panorama-assist features implemented in Nikon's cameras, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their described operation?