DCT
2:25-cv-02182
Contour IP Holding LLC v. SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Contour IP Holding, LLC (Utah)
- Defendant: SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. (China), DJI Europe B.V. (Netherlands), DJI Technology, Inc. (California), and six other related entities.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cole Schotz, P.C.; Call & Jensen
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02182, C.D. Cal., 08/19/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because multiple DJI defendants are California entities residing in the district, maintain regular and established places of business in the district (e.g., in Burbank and Cerritos), and have committed acts of infringement there. For foreign-domiciled defendants, venue is alleged to be proper in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s camera drone and handheld camera products infringe three patents related to portable point-of-view (POV) camera systems that feature remote wireless viewing, control, and the integration of non-video sensor data.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of "action cameras," compact and durable devices designed for capturing video from the user's perspective during activities, a market with significant consumer, professional, and industrial applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states the patented technology was developed by Contour, Inc. and implemented in its award-winning "ContourGPS" camera circa 2011. Notably, two of the patents-in-suit (the '694 and '954 patents) previously survived Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings initiated in 2015, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board confirming the patentability of the asserted claims. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of infringement via a letter received on March 4, 2025.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-12-DD | Alleged development of the patented inventions |
| 2010-09-13 | Earliest Priority Date for '694, '954, and '983 Patents |
| 2014-11-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,890,954 Issues |
| 2014-11-25 | U.S. Patent No. 8,896,694 Issues |
| 2025-01-21 | U.S. Patent No. 12,206,983 Issues |
| 2025-03-03 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2025-03-12 | Original Complaint Filing Date |
| 2025-08-19 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,896,694 - Portable Digital Video Camera Configured for Remote Image Acquisition Control and Viewing
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint states that early point-of-view (POV) cameras generally lacked the ability for users to preview a scene or remotely control the camera, making it difficult to frame shots correctly and ensure optimal settings before recording (Compl. ¶43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a camera system where a "viewfinderless" camera generates two simultaneous video streams: a lower-resolution stream transmitted wirelessly to a separate portable computing device (e.g., a smartphone) for live preview and remote control, and a higher-resolution stream that is recorded directly onto the camera's storage upon command from the remote device (Compl. ¶¶33, 46). This dual-stream architecture was designed to overcome the bandwidth and battery power limitations of the time, allowing a user to use their phone as a remote viewfinder without sacrificing final recording quality ('694 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶46).
- Technical Importance: This system architecture addressed a primary usability challenge for POV cameras by enabling users to leverage a separate, commonly-available device with a screen to frame shots and adjust settings on the fly (Compl. ¶44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1 and 3 as representative (Compl. ¶32).
- Independent Claim 1 is broken down into its essential elements:
- A point of view digital video camera system comprising an integrated, hands-free, portable, viewfinderless video camera and a wireless connection-enabled controller.
- The camera's processor is configured to generate video content simultaneously at a lower first resolution and a higher second resolution.
- The processor streams the first, lower-resolution content to the controller for preview.
- The processor receives control signals from the controller to adjust settings.
- In response to a record command from the controller, the processor stores the second, higher-resolution content at the camera.
- The system includes a mount for attaching the camera to a user's body, garment, or vehicle.
- The controller, on a separate portable computing device, is configured to receive and display the preview stream and generate control signals to remotely adjust camera settings.
U.S. Patent No. 8,890,954 - Portable Digital Video Camera Configured for Remote Image Acquisition Control and Viewing
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the '694 Patent, the technology addresses the difficulty of aiming and controlling early POV cameras that lacked integrated screens (Compl. ¶43).
- The Patented Solution: This patent, from the same family as the '694 Patent, focuses on the portable camera unit itself. The invention claims a camera with a processor that generates two distinct image data streams of differing quality. The processor uses a wireless protocol device to send the lower-quality stream to a personal portable computing device for display, while also receiving control signals back from that device to adjust camera settings ('954 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶37).
- Technical Importance: The technology enabled a new mode of interaction with POV cameras, transforming a paired smartphone into a smart remote control and live viewfinder, which significantly improved the user experience (Compl. ¶44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claim 11 as representative (Compl. ¶36).
- Independent Claim 11 is broken down into its essential elements:
- A portable, point of view digital video camera.
- A wireless connection protocol device configured to send image content to, and receive control signals from, a personal portable computing device.
- A camera processor configured to generate a first (lower quality) and second (higher quality) image data stream from the captured video data.
- The processor is further configured to cause the wireless device to send the first stream to the portable computing device for display.
- The processor receives control signals from the portable computing device and adjusts camera settings accordingly.
U.S. Patent No. 12,206,983 - Portable Digital Video Camera Configured for Remote Image Acquisition Control and Viewing
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need to capture contextual data alongside video footage from a POV camera (Compl. ¶43). The invention describes a camera system that includes non-audio data sensors (such as GPS) and a processor configured to combine the video data and the non-audio sensor data into a single, combined video stream where the data types are stored as distinct, time-synchronized tracks (Compl. ¶¶27, 40).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted as representative (Compl. ¶39).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by DJI products that use non-audio sensors like GPS, GNSS, and Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) to capture telemetry data and combine it with the video stream into a single MP4 or MOV file containing multiple, synchronized data tracks (Compl. ¶¶61, 62, 64).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "Camera Drone Products," which include the DJI Mavic, Mini, Air, and Inspire series, and "Handheld Camera Products," including the DJI Osmo Action and Osmo Pocket lines (Compl. ¶¶56, 79). The complaint also accuses related accessories and the software applications used to control the devices, such as the "DJI Fly App" and "DJI Mimo App" (Compl. ¶¶58, 81). The DJI Mini 3 Pro drone and DJI Osmo Action 4 handheld camera are presented as exemplary accused products (Compl. ¶¶59, 82).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are camera systems that wirelessly connect to a "Personal Portable Computing Device," which can be a smartphone running a DJI application or a DJI-provided remote controller with an integrated screen (Compl. ¶¶65-66). This connection enables users to view a live video feed from the camera, remotely control camera functions like zoom and recording, and adjust settings such as resolution and color balance (Compl. ¶¶66, 72-77). The products are also alleged to contain various non-audio sensors (e.g., GPS, GNSS, IMU) and to combine the data from these sensors with the video stream into a single media file (Compl. ¶¶61-64). The complaint alleges that DJI markets and sells these products widely in the United States through its own website, major online retailers like Amazon, and physical stores including Apple and Best Buy (Compl. ¶¶19-21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,896,694 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an integrated hands-free portable viewfinderless video camera...the image sensor producing real time video image data of the scene without displaying the scene to a user of the video camera | The DJI Mini 3 Pro includes a portable camera mounted on a drone that allows for hands-free, viewfinderless recording; the camera unit itself does not display the video scene to the user. | ¶¶59, 60 | col. 1:12-16 |
| the camera processor is configured to: generate the video image content simultaneously at a first resolution and at a second resolution... wherein the first resolution is lower than the second resolution | The Mini 3 Pro's processor is alleged to generate two video streams: a lower-resolution livestream sent to the remote controller and a higher-resolution video (e.g., 4K) that is recorded. A screenshot from the user manual shows the live camera view being transmitted to the controller. | ¶¶71, 72; p. 35 | col. 19:1-12 |
| stream the real time video image content at the first resolution using the wireless connection protocol device to the wireless connection-enabled controller | The Mini 3 Pro processor uses its wireless connection device to transmit the live video data to the user’s Personal Portable Computing Device (e.g., a smartphone with the DJI Fly App). | ¶66 | col. 20:8-12 |
| receive the control signals for adjusting image capture settings... and in response to a record command, cause the video image content at the second resolution to be stored at the video camera | The user can send commands from the DJI Fly App to adjust settings (e.g., zoom, resolution) and to start or stop recording the higher-resolution video onto the drone's memory card. | ¶¶67, 77 | col. 20:20-27 |
| a mount configured to be mounted to... a vehicle of the user of the video camera | The camera is coupled to a gimbal mount, which is mounted on the DJI Mini 3 Pro drone, alleged to be a "vehicle of the user." | ¶¶69, 70 | col. 19:26-31 |
| the wireless connection-enabled controller... on a personal portable computing device... to: receive... display... and generate the control signals | The DJI Fly App, operating on a smartphone or DJI remote controller, receives and displays the low-resolution livestream for preview and generates control signals to remotely adjust camera settings before and during recording. | ¶¶66, 72, 73-77 | col. 20:5-27 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for construction may be whether a remotely operated drone qualifies as a "vehicle of the user" in the context of a patent whose specification is focused on wearable cameras for action sports.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the processor "simultaneously" generating two streams of different resolutions. A key factual question will be whether the accused DJI products perform this specific dual-stream generation, or if they use a different technical method, such as generating a single high-resolution stream and then transcoding it for a lower-resolution wireless transmission.
U.S. Patent No. 8,890,954 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a portable, point of view digital video camera | The DJI Mini 3 Pro system includes a portable camera that captures video from the drone's point of view. | ¶59 | col. 1:12-16 |
| a wireless connection protocol device configured to send real time image content... to and receive control signals... from a personal portable computing device | The DJI Mini 3 Pro uses an 802.11 Wi-Fi protocol device to wirelessly transmit video to and receive control signals from the DJI Fly App on the user's device. | ¶65 | col. 5:48-55 |
| a camera processor configured to: ...generate from the video image data a first image data stream and a second image data stream, wherein the second image data stream is a higher quality than the first | The camera's processor is alleged to generate a lower-quality livestream (first stream) and a higher-quality recorded video (second stream) from the same scene. | ¶71 | col. 19:2-8 |
| cause the wireless connection protocol device to send the first image data stream directly to the personal portable computing device for display | The processor directs the wireless transmission of the livestream to the user's device running the DJI Fly App for real-time viewing. | ¶66 | col. 20:10-14 |
| receive the control signals from the personal portable computing device, and adjust one or more settings of the video camera | The processor receives commands from the DJI Fly App to change settings such as resolution, color, and lighting, and adjusts the camera's operation in response. | ¶¶76, 77 | col. 20:23-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The term "point of view" may be a subject of construction. A defendant could argue that the term, in the context of the patent, implies a camera physically attached to a user to capture their first-person perspective, potentially creating a distinction with a camera on a remotely operated drone.
- Technical Questions: Similar to the '694 patent, a factual dispute may arise over the precise technical method by which the accused processor "generates" the two separate data streams and whether it aligns with the method disclosed and claimed in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"viewfinderless video camera" ('694 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused systems use a remote screen as a viewfinder. The dispute will likely center on whether "viewfinderless" applies to the camera unit in isolation or to the system as a whole. A determination that the camera unit alone must be "viewfinderless" may support the plaintiff's infringement theory, as the camera on the drone itself does not have a screen (Compl. ¶60).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the camera to produce video "without displaying the scene to a user of the video camera," suggesting the limitation is focused on the physical camera hardware itself, distinguishing it from traditional camcorders with built-in screens ('694 Patent, col. 18:25-27).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's preamble recites a "camera system." A defendant may argue that the "system" includes the remote controller, which provides a viewfinder function, thereby making the system as a whole not "viewfinderless."
"generate... simultaneously at a first resolution and at a second resolution" ('694 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term describes the core technical mechanism of the invention. Infringement will depend on whether the accused processor's operation meets the definition of "simultaneously" generating two distinct streams. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a functional limitation that will require evidence of the accused product's specific internal architecture.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the invention as a solution to bandwidth and power limitations (Compl. ¶46). This purpose could support a construction of "simultaneously" that is functional, encompassing any method that achieves live preview and high-quality recording in a power- and bandwidth-efficient manner, even if not strictly concurrent at a hardware level.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "simultaneously" implies occurring at the same time. A defendant might argue this requires proof of two parallel processing pipelines originating from the image sensor, rather than a sequential process of capture followed by transcoding for transmission.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that DJI provides websites, product manuals, and user support that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., pairing a drone with the DJI Fly App to enable remote viewing and control) (Compl. ¶¶114-122). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the accused products and their associated applications are especially made for infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing purpose (Compl. ¶¶123-131, 141).
Willful Infringement
The willfulness allegation is based on alleged knowledge of the patents as of at least March 4, 2025, the date the complaint alleges DJI received a detailed notice letter from the plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶101, 144-152).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: does the evidence show that DJI's camera processors "simultaneously generate" two distinct video streams of differing resolutions as required by the claims, or do they employ a different, non-infringing technical method to provide a live preview while recording high-quality video?
- A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "vehicle of the user," originating in patents grounded in the context of user-worn action sports cameras, be construed broadly enough to cover a remotely operated aerial drone?
- Finally, a key factor underlying the dispute will be the strength of the patents: given that the '694 and '954 patents have already survived IPR challenges, they carry a strengthened presumption of validity, presenting a significant hurdle for the defendant's inevitable invalidity counterclaims.