DCT

2:17-cv-07084

Carl Zeiss AG v. Nikon Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-07084, C.D. Cal., 09/26/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because Defendant Nikon Inc. makes, offers to sell, and imports the accused digital cameras into the judicial district and maintains a regular and established place of business, specifically a factory service and repair center, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ digital cameras infringe five patents related to digital imaging technology, including automatic image acquisition controls, image sensor design, dark current correction, and image mosaicing for panoramic photos.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to foundational technologies in digital photography that aim to improve image quality, processing speed, and user experience in both consumer and professional cameras.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had actual notice of the patents-in-suit based on a prior federal court case ([Carl Zeiss AG](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/carl-zeiss-ag) v. Nikon Corp., 2:17-cv-03225) and a concurrent ITC investigation (No. 337-TA-1059), both filed approximately five months before the present action. The complaint notes that the prior federal case was dismissed in its entirety by the Plaintiffs. This history is asserted as the basis for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-04-13 ’440 Patent Priority Date
2000-06-16 ’128 Patent Priority Date
2001-04-25 ’241 Patent Priority Date
2001-10-09 ’440 Patent Issue Date
2004-03-30 ’241 Patent Issue Date
2004-12-21 ’128 Patent Issue Date
2005-02-22 ’916 Patent Priority Date
2007-06-25 ’454 Patent Priority Date
2007-11-20 ’916 Patent Issue Date
2011-04-26 ’454 Patent Issue Date
2017-04-28 Prior District Court case (2:17-cv-03225) filed
2017-04-28 ITC Investigation (337-TA-1059) filed
2017-09-26 Complaint Filing Date

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. ¶34).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of amateur photographers struggling with the complex controls of sophisticated cameras, often resulting in poor-quality photographs. Even fully automatic modes can fail because they cannot intelligently interpret a scene in the way a human expert would, for example, by compensating for backlighting or choosing an appropriate depth-of-field (’440 Patent, col. 1:20-43).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that mimics an expert photographer. It uses a "scene analysis unit" to analyze a temporary image, classify the scene into a category (e.g., portrait, landscape, action shot), and then employs a "photographic expert unit" to automatically set the optimal image acquisition parameters (like focus, aperture, and shutter speed) based on that classification before the final image is permanently captured (’440 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-34; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents an early approach to "computational photography," moving beyond simple, single-point automation (like center-point auto-focus) toward a system where the camera attempts to understand the content and context of a scene to make more intelligent exposure decisions (’440 Patent, col. 1:60-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-19, 21-28, 30-35, 37-44, 46-50, and 52-56, but the infringement narrative focuses on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶47, 56).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a system comprising:
    • 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.

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. ¶35).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Image sensors inherently generate "dark current," which is unwanted electrical noise that appears even in the absence of light and degrades image quality. The traditional method to correct this involves capturing a "dark frame" (with the shutter closed) for every "image frame" (with the shutter open) and subtracting the former from the latter. This process is slow and reduces the rate at which photos can be taken (’241 Patent, col. 1:23-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to reuse a single dark frame across multiple image captures. It achieves this by scaling the stored dark frame to account for real-time variations in dark current, which are measured using dedicated optically black pixels and "dummy samples" on the sensor. This avoids the time-consuming step of capturing a new dark frame for every shot (’241 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-50).
  • Technical Importance: This method enhances camera performance by increasing the speed of image capture, a particularly valuable improvement for burst shooting or video applications where rapid frame acquisition is necessary (’241 Patent, col. 1:39-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18, with the infringement narrative focused on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶69, 78).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a method comprising:
    • obtaining a dark frame from an image sensor;
    • reusing the dark frame for dark current subtraction by scaling the dark frame in response to changes in dark current levels in the image sensor;
    • wherein the scaling step includes determining a difference between dark current levels in an image frame and the dark frame in response to a set of dummy samples that represent a low charge level.

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. ¶36).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of creating panoramic images (mosaics) on memory- and processor-constrained devices like digital cameras. The solution is a "pre-screening" system that analyzes image frames as they are captured to reject frames with insufficient motion, thereby storing only the frames that contribute new visual information and conserving limited on-device resources (’128 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-62).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 17, 18, and 19 are asserted (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The "Easy Panorama mode" in Nikon cameras, which is alleged to combine multiple shots to create a panoramic image (Compl. ¶¶41, 94, 101).

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. ¶37).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a physical structure for a CMOS image sensor die designed to improve light-gathering efficiency and simplify lens requirements. It proposes a variable thickness across the die, with fewer layers over the light-sensitive "sensing portion" (pixels) compared to the surrounding "non-sensing portion" (circuitry). This structural difference reduces the stack height above the pixels, which allows for better light collection, especially at wide angles, and enables the use of simpler, less expensive lenses (’916 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:12-24).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 2 are asserted (Compl. ¶114).
  • Accused Features: The physical construction and layering of the image sensor die itself within accused Nikon cameras (Compl. ¶¶59, 123).

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. ¶38).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for automatically enhancing a digital image by considering both its technical "image quality" and its content-based "semantic class." The system first assigns a semantic class (e.g., portrait, landscape) to an image and then applies an "aesthetic enhancement" specifically tailored to that class and the image's quality metrics, rather than applying a generic, one-size-fits-all correction (’454 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-61).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 21, 22, 26, and 28 are asserted (Compl. ¶137).
  • Accused Features: The "Scene Auto Selector" feature in accused Nikon cameras, which allegedly applies different enhancements based on the automatically detected scene type (Compl. ¶¶70, 146).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Various Nikon digital cameras, including but not limited to the Coolpix S9900, D3300, D500, Nikon 1 V3, P900, and D5200 (Compl. ¶¶15, 22, 27, 39, 52, 63).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint targets multiple functionalities across the accused cameras. Key accused features include the "Scene Auto Selector," which automatically identifies a scene type (e.g., Portrait, Landscape) and applies corresponding settings, and the "Easy Panorama" mode, which stitches multiple images together (Compl. ¶¶56, 101, 146). Other allegations target the fundamental design of the cameras' image sensors, including their physical structure and methods for correcting electronic noise (dark current) (Compl. ¶¶78, 123). The complaint asserts Defendants are major participants in the U.S. digital camera market, with an organizational chart provided as evidence of a unified corporate structure controlling design, manufacturing, and sales (Compl. ¶¶17-18; Compl. Ex. D-1, p. 6). The provided diagram from Nikon's website shows a "General Shareholders' Meeting" overseeing a single "Board of Directors," which in turn supervises entities including "Each department / Group companies" (Compl. Ex. D-1, p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references infringement chart exhibits for the asserted patents (e.g., Exhibit M for the ’440 patent, Exhibit Q for the ’241 patent); however, these exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint. The analysis below summarizes the narrative infringement theories.

U.S. Patent No. 6,301,440: The complaint alleges that Nikon's "Scene Auto Selector" feature infringes claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶56, 70). The theory is that when a user partially presses the shutter, the camera's processor acquires a temporary image from the sensor, analyzes it to classify the scene (e.g., identifying faces to select "Portrait" mode), and then the camera's internal logic—the alleged "photographic expert unit"—automatically adjusts camera settings (aperture, shutter speed, etc.) according to that classification. The permanent image is then captured with these settings when the user fully presses the shutter (Compl. Ex. N-8; Ex. O).

U.S. Patent No. 6,714,241: The complaint alleges that the image sensors within the accused cameras, such as the Nikon 1 V3, inherently practice the claimed method of dark current subtraction (Compl. ¶¶69, 78). The theory posits that the sensor and its associated processor perform this correction by reusing and scaling a previously stored dark frame based on real-time measurements from optically black pixels and dummy samples, a process alleged to be non-optional during operation (Compl. ¶79).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’440 and ’454 patents, a central question may be whether selecting a pre-programmed "scene mode" from a limited menu (e.g., Portrait, Landscape) meets the claim requirements for a "photographic expert unit" that "adjusts image capture parameters" or a method that provides for an "aesthetic enhancement." Defendants may argue their feature is a simple mode selection, while Plaintiffs may argue that selecting a mode is functionally equivalent to adjusting the underlying parameters as claimed.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’241 and ’916 patents, the dispute will likely depend on highly technical evidence obtained through reverse engineering of Nikon's sensors. Key factual questions will be: Does Nikon's dark current correction algorithm actually "reuse" and "scale" a dark frame in the manner required by the ’241 patent, or does it employ a different, non-infringing method? Does the physical layout of Nikon's sensor die contain the specific differential layering between sensing and non-sensing portions as claimed in the ’916 patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "photographic expert unit" (’440 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’440 patent's infringement theory. Its construction will determine whether the claim covers systems that select from a list of predefined modes or if it is limited to systems that perform more complex, rule-based calculations to set individual camera parameters directly. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused "Scene Auto Selector" appears to function by selecting a mode, and the breadth of "photographic expert unit" will dictate whether that functionality infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the unit "embodies the domain knowledge of expert photographers as to which imaging parameters are appropriate to different types of subject matter" (’440 Patent, col. 5:30-34). This language could support a construction covering any logic, including a look-up table or mode selector, that maps a classified scene to appropriate settings.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the unit performs specific tasks like "determination of a focus setting for the subject matter," "choice of a proper exposure," and "selection of a shutter speed based on subject motion and camera stability" (’440 Patent, col. 5:46-51). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a system that actively calculates and sets individual parameters, rather than merely selecting a pre-packaged mode.
  • The Term: "scaling the dark frame" (’241 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The concept of reusing a dark frame by "scaling" it is the core of the ’241 patent's inventive concept. Whether Nikon's noise reduction algorithm infringes will depend heavily on whether its method of adjusting for dark current variations falls within the construed scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not recite a specific mathematical formula for scaling. This may support a construction that covers any method of modifying a stored dark frame in proportion to measured changes in dark current levels before subtraction.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific mathematical formula for the "scale factor" based on the average intensities of optically black (OB) and dummy (DUMMY) pixels from the image (I) and dark (D) frames: (I_OB - I_DUMMY) / (D_OB - D_DUMMY) (’241 Patent, col. 4:11-14). A defendant may argue that the term "scaling" should be limited to this specific multiplicative adjustment.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all five patents. The allegations are based on Defendants’ creation and distribution of product literature, user manuals, and promotional websites that allegedly instruct and encourage end-users to operate the cameras in an infringing manner, for example, by using the "Scene Auto Selector" or "Easy Panorama" modes (Compl. ¶¶49, 71, 94, 116, 139).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Defendants’ infringement has been willful. This allegation is based on alleged actual notice of the patents-in-suit provided by the filing of a prior district court complaint and an ITC complaint on April 28, 2017, five months before the current suit was filed. The complaint alleges that Defendants continued their infringing activities despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶50, 57, 72, 79).

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional scope: For the patents on software-driven features (’440, ’128, ’454), can claim terms like "photographic expert unit" and "pre-screening means" be construed to cover Nikon's consumer-oriented "Scene Auto Selector" and "Easy Panorama" modes, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the detailed analytical processes described in the patents and the likely heuristic-based operation of the accused features?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: For the patents on sensor hardware (’241, ’916), the case will turn on deep technical discovery. Does forensic analysis of Nikon's sensor hardware and firmware reveal the specific dark current scaling method and differential-layer physical structure required by the claims, or do they employ alternative, non-infringing designs?
  • A critical question for willfulness and potential damages enhancement will be the legal effect of notice via prior, dismissed litigation. The complaint's willfulness allegations hinge on notice from a prior federal case that Plaintiffs themselves voluntarily dismissed. The court's determination of whether such notice is sufficient to support a finding of objective recklessness for post-notice conduct will be a central legal battle.