DCT

2:19-cv-08630

Cedar Lane Tech Inc v. Hikvision USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-08630, C.D. Cal., 10/07/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, has an established place of business in the district, and is incorporated in the state of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s network cameras and surveillance systems infringe eight patents related to digital image processing, panoramic imaging, image compression, and object/face tracking.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue are foundational to modern digital video surveillance systems, a market driven by security, remote monitoring, and data analytics applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation involving the patents-in-suit, inter partes review proceedings, or a prior licensing relationship between the parties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-06-24 Earliest Priority Date (’708, ’425, ’087, ’832 Patents)
1998-08-07 Earliest Priority Date (’869 Patent)
1999-06-01 Earliest Priority Date (’527 Patent)
2000-06-30 Earliest Priority Date (’999 Patent)
2000-12-21 Earliest Priority Date (’790 Patent)
2001-12-18 U.S. Patent No. 6,331,869 Issues
2002-01-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,337,708 Issues
2002-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,473,527 Issues
2004-03-02 U.S. Patent No. 6,700,999 Issues
2005-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 6,924,832 Issues
2005-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 Issues
2007-07-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,242,425 Issues
2013-03-19 U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,087 Issues
2019-10-07 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,473,527 - "Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the cost and complexity associated with conventional JPEG compression hardware, which typically required an extra, external memory device (RAM) to buffer image data between the analog-to-digital (A/D) converter and the JPEG compression chip due to differing data rates ('527 Patent, col. 1:33-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an interface module that eliminates the need for this external RAM. The module reads a specific number of image lines from the A/D converter into an internal memory, where the memory's capacity is matched to the input requirements of the JPEG device's own built-in memory (e.g., 8 lines for an 8x8 pixel compression block). The module then forwards correctly sized image blocks directly to the JPEG device, managing the data flow without an external buffer ('527 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-18).
  • Technical Importance: This design aimed to reduce the component count, cost, and complexity of digital imaging devices like scanners and early digital cameras by removing a discrete memory chip from the system architecture ('527 Patent, col. 2:21-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts exemplary claim 8, an independent method claim (Compl. ¶25).
  • The essential elements of claim 8 are:
    • Sequentially reading a predetermined number of image lines from the data output of an analog/digital converting means.
    • Storing the image lines in a "memory means" that is capable of storing the same number of lines as a built-in memory device of a JPEG compression means.
    • Sequentially reading a predetermined size of image block from the memory means to the built-in memory device when the image data is determined to be compressed.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 - "Host interface for imaging arrays"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a technical challenge in directly connecting CMOS image sensors to host processors. Image sensors output a continuous, synchronized stream of pixel data at a fixed rate, whereas processors access memory in a random, non-continuous fashion. This mismatch typically required additional "glue logic" and memory buffers, which offset the cost advantages of using CMOS sensors ('790 Patent, col. 1:44-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an on-chip interface that decouples the image sensor from the host processor. The interface uses an internal memory (such as a FIFO buffer) to receive and store image data at the sensor's clock rate. When the amount of data in the buffer reaches a certain threshold, the interface generates a signal (e.g., an interrupt) to the host processor. The interface then manages the transfer of data from its buffer to the processor's system bus at a rate controlled by the processor, acting as a bridge between the two distinct clock domains ('790 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-14).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture enables more direct and efficient integration of CMOS image sensors with processors, reducing the need for external components, which in turn lowers system cost, size, and power consumption in devices like digital cameras ('790 Patent, col. 1:64-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts exemplary claim 1, an independent apparatus claim (Compl. ¶35).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • A memory for storing imaging array data and clocking signals at a rate determined by the clocking signals.
    • A signal generator that generates a signal for the processor system "in response to the quantity of data in the memory."
    • A circuit for controlling the transfer of data from the memory at a rate determined by the processor system.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,331,869 - "Method and apparatus for electronically distributing motion panoramic images"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a client-server system for efficiently distributing panoramic images over a network. The system transforms a panoramic image into an intermediate format, divides it into individual "tiles," and selectively transmits only the tiles requested by a client system to construct a particular view, thereby conserving bandwidth ('869 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 16, and 28 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hikvision's IR Fisheye Network Cameras infringe this patent (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 6,337,708 - "Method and apparatus for electronically distributing motion panoramic images"

  • Technology Synopsis: A related patent to the '869 Patent, this invention also discloses systems for distributing panoramic images. It includes methods where a server transmits image tiles over different multicast channels, and client systems subscribe to the specific channels needed to render a desired view, an architecture designed for efficient one-to-many distribution ('708 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 6 and 27 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hikvision's IR Fisheye Network Cameras infringe this patent (Compl. ¶55).

U.S. Patent No. 7,242,425 - "Panoramic camera"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes the physical design of a camera apparatus for capturing 360-degree panoramic images. The design involves a specific configuration of mirrors (such as a convex parabolic mirror) and lenses to capture a panoramic scene and record it as a two-dimensional annular (ring-shaped) image ('425 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hikvision's IR Fisheye Network Cameras infringe this patent (Compl. ¶65).

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,087 - "Presenting panoramic images with geometric transformation"

  • Technology Synopsis: This invention relates to the digital processing of panoramic images captured by systems like that of the '425 Patent. It describes methods for performing a geometric transformation on the captured two-dimensional annular image to convert it into a rectangular projection suitable for display on conventional screens ('087 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 2, 3, 23, and 29 (Compl. ¶75).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hikvision's IR Fisheye Network Cameras infringe this patent (Compl. ¶75).

U.S. Patent No. 6,700,999 - "System, method, and apparatus for multiple face tracking"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a system for automatically tracking multiple faces within a sequence of digital images. A key feature is the use of temporal filtering, which analyzes information across multiple frames to reduce both missed detections and false alarms, improving the robustness of the tracking ('999 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hikvision's DeepinView Face Capture Cameras infringe this patent (Compl. ¶85).

U.S. Patent No. 6,924,832 - "Method, apparatus & computer program product for tracking objects in a warped video image"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for tracking a user-selected or automatically-detected moving object within a "warped" video image, such as one from a panoramic or wide-angle lens. The system can also allocate network bandwidth preferentially to the tracked object's portion of the image to maintain a high-quality view of the object ('832 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 19 (Compl. ¶95).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hikvision's IR Fisheye Network Cameras infringe this patent (Compl. ¶95).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint names several categories of Defendant’s products: Hikvision's Network Cameras (including Pro Series, Ultra Series, Wireless, 6-Line, PanoVu and DeepinView), IR Fisheye Network Cameras, and DeepinView Face Capture Cameras (collectively, the "Exemplary Hikvision Products") (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 45, 85).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are described as network-connected video cameras used for surveillance and monitoring. Based on the allegations, their relevant functionalities include capturing digital images, compressing image data for transmission, processing panoramic/fisheye video streams, and performing analytics such as face capture and object tracking (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 45, 85, 95). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of these products or their specific position in the market.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the '527 and '790 patents but does not provide the claim chart exhibits it references (Exhibit 9 for the '527 Patent and Exhibit 10 for the '790 Patent) (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 42). In lieu of a claim chart summary, the narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

  • '527 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Hikvision Products" directly infringe at least claim 8 of the '527 Patent (Compl. ¶25). The narrative theory is that these camera products practice the claimed technology for interfacing an A/D converter with a JPEG compression means without requiring an external memory buffer (Compl. ¶31). The complaint asserts in a conclusory manner that the accused products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims but provides no specific factual allegations detailing how any particular component performs the claimed method steps (Compl. ¶31).
  • '790 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Hikvision Products" directly infringe at least claim 1 of the '790 Patent (Compl. ¶35). The infringement theory is that the accused cameras contain a host interface for their imaging arrays that meets the limitations of the claim, including a memory and a signal generator that responsively signals a processor based on the quantity of data in that memory (Compl. ¶41). As with the '527 Patent, the complaint alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" but offers no specific facts to support this conclusion beyond incorporating the unprovided claim chart (Compl. ¶¶ 41-42).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For both the '527 and '790 patents, a central question may be one of structural correspondence. It raises the question of whether the claimed "module" ('527 Patent) and "interface" ('790 Patent), described as discrete functional units in patents from the early 2000s, can be mapped onto the highly integrated System-on-a-Chip (SoC) architectures common in modern network cameras, where such functions may be deeply embedded and not exist as distinct components.
    • Technical Questions: For the '790 Patent, a key evidentiary question is whether the accused products' interface logic generates a control signal "in response to the quantity of data in the memory," as claim 1 requires. The complaint provides no evidence to show that the trigger for data transfer is quantity-based (e.g., a buffer high-water mark) rather than based on an alternative mechanism, such as fixed timing or end-of-frame signals, which may not meet the claim limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "memory means" ('527 Patent, Claim 8)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in a claim drafted before the 2015 Williamson v. Citrix decision, and its construction will be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6 (pre-AIA). Its scope is central to the infringement analysis, as it is not merely any memory, but one limited to the specific structure disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the function of storing image lines, plus structural equivalents thereof. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on whether the memory architecture inside Defendant’s modern SoCs is structurally equivalent to the specific embodiments disclosed in the 1999-filed patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "memory means," which could suggest an intent to cover any memory structure that performs the recited function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of a means-plus-function element is strictly limited to the corresponding structure in the specification. The patent abstract specifies that the "memory device can save the same number of image lines as the memory device built in the JPEG compression device," suggesting the structure is defined not just by its composition but by its specific, linked capacity ('527 Patent, Abstract).

  • The Term: "a signal generator for generating a signal for transmission to the processor system in response to the quantity of data in the memory" ('790 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core triggering logic of the claimed interface. The dispute will likely center on the phrase "in response to the quantity of data." This requires a causal link between the amount of data in the buffer and the generation of the signal. The case may turn on whether Defendant’s products use such a quantity-based trigger or an alternative timing-based trigger that would not infringe.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "signal generator" is broad, and parties might argue that any circuit that produces a signal after some data has accumulated meets this element.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The full phrase "in response to the quantity of data" implies a specific condition—that the signal is triggered by the data level (e.g., a buffer fill-level threshold), not merely by the passage of time or the completion of a frame capture. The patent's abstract reinforces this, stating the signal is generated "in response to the quantity of data in the memory" ('790 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendant distributing product literature and website materials that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 28, 39). The complaint also makes conclusory allegations of contributory infringement, stating that Defendant sells products to its customers for use in a manner that infringes (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 30, 40).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that its service upon Defendant constitutes actual knowledge of infringement for all asserted patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 27, 37). It further alleges that Defendant's infringement has continued despite this knowledge, forming a basis for post-suit willful infringement. The complaint does not allege any facts supporting pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint is entirely conclusory, relying on incorporating by reference eight unprovided claim chart exhibits. A threshold question for the case will be whether discovery uncovers the specific technical evidence required to show that Defendant’s highly integrated products operate in the precise manner claimed by patents filed one to two decades ago.
  • A key legal and technical question will be one of technological translation: Can the functional blocks described in the patents-in-suit (e.g., a "module," an "interface," a "signal generator") be demonstrably mapped onto the physical structures and logical operations of modern, complex System-on-a-Chip (SoC) hardware, or has the underlying technology evolved to a point where the accused systems are fundamentally different from what was patented?
  • A third core question will be one of claim scope: For patents covering panoramic imaging and object tracking, the dispute may focus on whether the specific algorithms and methods disclosed and claimed can read on the potentially more advanced and different techniques used in Defendant's current-generation Fisheye and AI-enabled cameras.