DCT

2:20-cv-05595

DigiMedia Tech LLC v. JK Imaging Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-05595, C.D. Cal., 06/24/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place of business and a regular and established place of business within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Kodak-branded digital cameras infringe three patents related to a microminiature zoom system and computer-vision-based head tracking for functions like autofocus.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for miniaturizing complex camera functions and improving automated subject tracking, key areas of development for compact digital cameras.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice of infringement to the Eastman Kodak Company, and that Defendant JK Imaging Ltd. responded, identifying itself as the responsible Kodak brand licensee. This forms the basis for the willfulness allegations. Notably, subsequent to the complaint's filing, U.S. Patent No. 7,715,476 underwent an inter partes review (IPR2021-00176), which resulted in the cancellation of all claims asserted in this litigation (Claims 21, 22, and 23), a development that raises questions about the viability of the infringement count on that patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-07-30 Priority Date for ’706 and ’476 Patents
2001-02-08 Priority Date for ’635 Patent
2005-07-05 ’635 Patent Issued
2008-04-08 ’706 Patent Issued
2010-05-11 ’476 Patent Issued
2020-06-24 Complaint Filed
2022-08-03 IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling Asserted ’476 Patent Claims

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,914,635, “Microminiature Zoom System for Digital Camera” (Issued Jul. 5, 2005)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of packaging traditional, often cumbersome, zoom lens mechanisms into the increasingly compact profiles required for devices like mobile phones (ʼ635 Patent, col. 1:5-16).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS)—a miniature mechanism fabricated on a silicon substrate—to achieve camera functions. Specifically, it discloses mounting the semi-conductor image sensor itself on a MEMS support, allowing the sensor to be moved relative to a lens system to provide functions like autofocus and zoom in a highly compact form factor (ʼ635 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-11; Fig. 1b).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a pathway for integrating sophisticated optical features like zoom and autofocus into small-form-factor electronic devices, where space is at a premium (ʼ635 Patent, col. 1:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • a lens assembly for receiving an image;
    • a micro-electromechanical (MEMS) system support mechanism for providing at least two positions of movement;
    • a semi-conductor image sensor mounted at the image plane for movement on the MEMS system support mechanism; and
    • the sensor being operatively associated with the lens assembly to generate a digital image.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,545,706, “System, Method and Article of Manufacture for Tracking a Head of a Camera-Generated Image of a Person” (Issued Apr. 8, 2008)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of accurately identifying a person's head in a video image, noting that any single technique (e.g., relying on shape, color, or motion) is fallible and can be confused by background images or other body parts (ʼ706 Patent, col. 1:52-62).
  • The Patented Solution: To improve reliability, the invention proposes a system that executes at least two distinct head tracking operations and then combines their outputs, each of which generates a "confidence value." By mediating between two different tracking techniques—for example, a background-subtraction method and a skin-color-based method—the system can achieve more robust head detection than either method could alone (ʼ706 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-11; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This dual-method approach enhances the accuracy of automated features in digital cameras, such as focusing on a person's face, which is a critical function for consumer photography (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 19 (Compl. ¶38).
  • The essential elements of Claim 19 (a computer-readable medium claim) include code segments for:
    • receiving video images;
    • executing a first head tracking operation to generate a first confidence value, where this operation includes identifying a point of separation between a torso and a head;
    • executing a second head tracking operation to generate a second confidence value; and
    • outputting both confidence values, where the depiction of the head is based on both values.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,715,476

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,715,476, "System, Method and Article of Manufacture for Tracking a Head of a Camera-Generated Image of a Person," Issued May 11, 2010 (Compl. ¶¶20, 24).
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '706 patent, this patent discloses a similar system for improving the reliability of head-tracking in a digital image. It recognizes that any single tracking technique is fallible and claims a solution wherein at least two distinct techniques are applied to identify a head, and the final detection is based on the results of both (Compl. ¶27).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 21, 22, and 23 are asserted (Compl. ¶46). As noted in Section I, all three of these claims were cancelled in a subsequent inter partes review proceeding (IPR2021-00176).
  • Accused Features: The head-detection and autofocus features of the Defendant's Kodak FZ152 and similar digital camera products (Compl. ¶46).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint names the "Kodak PixPro AZ401" in relation to the ’635 Patent and the "Kodak FZ152" in relation to the ’706 and ’476 Patents, as well as other "similar products" (Compl. ¶¶30, 38, 46).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are digital cameras that provide functions such as zoom, autofocus, and image stabilization (Compl. ¶12, ¶25). The infringement allegations target the internal mechanisms that enable zoom and autofocus in the AZ401 camera and the software-based head/face detection algorithms used for focusing in the FZ152 camera (Compl. ¶¶30, 38, 46). The complaint states that Defendant JK Imaging Ltd. is the "Kodak Brand licensee responsible for the digital camera equipment at issue" (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits D, E, and F, but these exhibits were not provided with the filed complaint document. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement allegations in the complaint body.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’635 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Kodak PixPro AZ401 camera infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’635 Patent because its zoom and autofocus system incorporates the claimed invention (Compl. ¶30). The core of this allegation is that the accused camera utilizes a MEMS-based support mechanism to move its image sensor relative to the lens system to achieve these functions. Without the claim chart, the specific components of the AZ401 alleged to meet each claim element are not detailed.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: What evidence will show that the AZ401 camera's actuator is a "micro-electromechanical (MEMS) system" and that it functions by moving the "semi-conductor image sensor" as required by Claim 1, rather than using a more conventional mechanism that moves only lens elements? Proving the internal architecture of the accused product will be a central evidentiary issue.
    • Scope Question: The definition of "MEMS system support mechanism" will be critical. A key question is whether the term should be limited to the specific "electrostatic resonator" embodiment disclosed in the patent or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other types of miniaturized actuators.

’706 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Kodak FZ152 camera infringes at least Claim 19 of the ’706 Patent through its head-detection feature, which is used to assist in focusing (Compl. ¶¶19, 38). The infringement theory posits that the accused camera's software executes two different head-tracking operations, generates separate confidence values from each, and bases its final determination on both, thereby practicing the claimed method.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: Does the FZ152's head-detection algorithm specifically perform the claimed step of "identifying a point of separation between a torso portion... and the head portion"? An analysis may find that many modern facial recognition algorithms focus exclusively on facial features and may not perform this specific claimed step.
    • Scope Question: Does the accused camera's software perform a "first head tracking operation" and a "second head tracking operation" as distinct processes? The dispute may center on whether two different analytical techniques executed within a single, integrated software module satisfy this limitation, or if the claim requires functionally or structurally separate operations as depicted in the patent's figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’635 Patent

  • The Term: "micro-electromechanical (MEMS) system support mechanism" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term is the technological heart of Claim 1. Whether the accused device infringes will depend almost entirely on whether its internal actuator assembly falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from conventional, non-MEMS camera actuators.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes MEMS in general terms as components fabricated using processes "similar to the manufacture of integrated circuit chips" on silicon wafers, which could support an argument that the term covers a wide range of miniaturized, silicon-fabricated actuators ('635 Patent, col. 1:22-26).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment disclosed is an "electrostatic resonator" that uses "electrostatic fingers" to create movement ('635 Patent, col. 3:8-15, Fig. 2). A party could argue that this detailed disclosure limits the claim term to such electrostatic structures or, at a minimum, to mechanisms sharing their key characteristics.

For the ’706 Patent

  • The Term: "a first head tracking operation" and "a second head tracking operation" (Claim 19).
  • Context and Importance: The novelty of the claimed system rests on using two distinct operations. The central infringement question will be whether the accused software's algorithm, however complex, can be characterized as comprising two separate "operations."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes a system architecture with two clearly separate modules: a "background subtraction head tracker" and a "free form head tracker," whose outputs are fed to a "mediator" ('706 Patent, Fig. 2). A party could argue this supports a construction requiring two independent modules or processes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discusses various underlying techniques like motion detection and color analysis that could be used ('706 Patent, col. 2:36-54). A party could argue that if an accused algorithm uses two of these distinct types of analysis (e.g., a shape analysis and a color analysis), it performs two "operations" even if they are part of a single, integrated function.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶34, 42, 50). The factual basis for this allegation is Plaintiff's claim of pre-suit notice. The complaint states that Plaintiff notified the Eastman Kodak Company of the infringement and that Defendant JK Imaging Ltd. subsequently responded, confirming it was the responsible licensee and had received the infringement claims (Compl. ¶¶33, 41, 49). Continued sales after this alleged actual notice form the basis of the willfulness claim.

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

  • Evidentiary Proof: A central challenge for the plaintiff will be one of technical evidence: can it obtain and present discovery on the internal hardware and software of the accused cameras sufficient to prove, first, that the AZ401 camera employs a MEMS-based system to move its image sensor ('635 patent), and second, that the FZ152's software executes two distinct head-tracking operations as required by the '706 patent claims?
  • Claim Scope: The outcome will likely depend on claim construction. For the '635 patent, the key question is definitional: does the term "MEMS system support mechanism" read on the specific actuator used in the accused camera? For the '706 patent, the question is functional: what constitutes two separate "head tracking operations" in software, and does the accused algorithm meet that standard?
  • Legal Viability: A threshold issue for the infringement count on the '476 patent is its viability post-IPR. Given that all asserted claims of the '476 patent have been cancelled by the USPTO, a key question is whether this count can proceed or if it will be dismissed as moot.