DCT

8:24-cv-00681

GoPro Inc v. Arashi Vision Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:24-cv-00681, C.D. Cal., 03/29/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the district and maintain a regular and established place of business there, with Defendant Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC’s principal place of business located in Irvine, California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s action cameras and associated editing software infringe six patents related to aspect ratio conversion, virtual lens simulation for video reframing, electronic video stabilization, horizon leveling, and ornamental camera design.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns core image processing and design features for action cameras, a highly competitive consumer electronics market focused on capturing stable, high-quality, and immersive video during dynamic activities.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a parallel complaint asserting the patents-in-suit was filed in the International Trade Commission.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-08-22 ’413 Patent Priority Date
2015-05-20 ’052 Patent Priority Date
2015-11-17 D’435 Patent Priority Date
2017-06-13 D’435 Patent Issued
2018-05-18 ’894 Patent Priority Date
2018-07-03 ’413 Patent Issued
2018-09-19 ’840 Patent Priority Date
2018-10-01 Accused Product "One X" Released (approx.)
2019-08-30 ’832 Patent Priority Date
2020-01-07 ’052 Patent Issued
2020-01-01 Accused Products "One R" & "One R 1-Inch" Released (approx.)
2020-02-25 ’894 Patent Issued
2020-10-01 Accused Product "One X2" Released (approx.)
2021-03-23 ’840 Patent Issued
2021-01-01 Accused "horizon lock" feature released (approx.)
2021-11-22 Accused "Quick FlowState" feature released (approx.)
2022-03-01 Accused Product "One RS" Released (approx.)
2022-05-17 ’832 Patent Issued
2022-06-01 Accused Product "One RS 1-Inch 360 Edition" Released (approx.)
2022-09-01 Accused Product "One X3" Released (approx.)
2023-06-01 Accused Product "Go 3" Released (approx.)
2023-11-01 Accused Products "Ace" & "Ace Pro" Released (approx.)
2024-03-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,015,413 - "Conversion Between Aspect ratios in Camera"

  • Issued: July 3, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of converting images between different aspect ratios (e.g., from a 4:3 sensor format to a 16:9 display format) (Compl. ¶51; ’413 Patent, col. 1:6-10). Conventional techniques like cropping reduce the field of view by removing content, while linear scaling introduces perceptible distortion, making subjects appear "short and fat" (Compl. ¶51; ’413 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention applies a non-linear transformation to an input image to convert it to a target aspect ratio while preserving the full field of view (Compl. ¶53; ’413 Patent, col. 3:35-38). This is achieved by non-uniformly warping the image, which minimizes distortion in a central region of interest while concentrating the necessary stretching or compressing toward the outer edges and corners (Compl. ¶55; ’413 Patent, col. 4:15-31). The complaint references Figure 4 from the patent, which illustrates an original 4:3 image (402), a cropped 16:9 image (404) with lost vertical content, and the non-linearly warped 16:9 image (406) that retains the full field of view (Compl. ¶56, p. 12).
  • Technical Importance: This technique allowed cameras to capture footage using the full height of a 4:3 image sensor and output it in a widescreen 16:9 format, providing a more immersive, wide-angle perspective particularly useful for first-person action footage (Compl. ¶57-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 13 (Compl. ¶121).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • An image capture apparatus with an image sensor and one or more processors.
    • The processors are configured to obtain an input image, determine a portion within it, and apply a transformation to generate an output image with a different aspect ratio.
    • The transformation non-uniformly shifts pixels based on their positions along both a first and second axis.
    • The shift is such that differences between input and output positions for pixels in the determined portion are less than the differences for other pixels outside that portion.
  • The complaint reserves the right to identify additional infringing products and services during discovery (Compl. ¶121).

U.S. Patent No. 10,529,052 - "Virtual Lens Simulation for Video and Photo Cropping"

  • Issued: January 7, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: When cropping or zooming into a portion of a wide-angle video, the lens distortion characteristics of the resulting sub-frame can differ significantly from the original, uncropped frame, especially when the sub-frame is near an edge or corner (Compl. ¶67; ’052 Patent, col. 1:22-30). Combining these differently distorted sub-frames during panning or editing creates jarring and undesirable visual effects (Compl. ¶67; ’052 Patent, col. 1:30-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a "virtual lens model" that remaps the lens distortion from the original input image onto a selected sub-frame (Compl. ¶69; ’052 Patent, Abstract). This process transforms the sub-frame to have lens characteristics consistent with the original full field of view, creating the appearance that the camera was physically re-oriented to capture that specific cropped view (Compl. ¶70; ’052 Patent, col. 11:51-55). This remapping is based on a function of the original distortion, as well as the location and size of the sub-frame within the original image (Compl. ¶71; ’052 Patent, col. 12:23-31).
  • Technical Importance: The technology enables editors to perform digital reframing, panning, and zooming on wide-angle footage while maintaining consistent lens characteristics across all frames, which improves the final quality and viewing experience (Compl. ¶65, 74).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶139).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory storage medium with instructions.
    • The instructions cause the system to access input images with an existing input lens distortion.
    • The system selects sub-frames that have different lens distortion effects based on their position.
    • The system generates output images by remapping the input lens distortion to a desired lens distortion in the sub-frames, such that the desired and input distortions exhibit "consistent lens characteristics."
  • The complaint reserves the right to identify additional infringing activities during discovery (Compl. ¶139).

U.S. Patent No. 10,574,894 - "Systems and Methods for Stabilizing Videos"

  • Issued: February 25, 2020 (Compl. ¶76)

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the problem of shaky video footage resulting from camera motion during dynamic activities (Compl. ¶83; ’894 Patent, col. 1:11-14). The disclosed solution uses an internal position sensor to determine the camera's "observed trajectory" and then generates a stabilized "capture trajectory" by employing a "look ahead" technique, which analyzes subsequent camera motion to better distinguish between unintended shaking and the user's intended movements (Compl. ¶86-87; ’894 Patent, col. 9:18-28).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶158).
  • Accused Features: The in-camera video stabilization features in the Accused Camera Systems referred to as "Quick Flowstate" and "Flowstate 2.0" (Compl. ¶159).

U.S. Patent No. 10,958,840 - "Systems and Methods for Stabilizing Videos"

  • Issued: March 23, 2021 (Compl. ¶78)

Technology Synopsis

Also related to video stabilization, this patent describes generating a "smoothed trajectory" from an observed trajectory based on a look-ahead of the camera's motion (Compl. ¶86-87; ’840 Patent, col. 12:45-53). The invention improves upon prior methods by using a set of configurable parameters—including a "weight-balance parameter," a "low-light high-pass parameter," and a "stickiness parameter"—to finely tune the stabilization algorithm and balance the preservation of intentional motion against the removal of unwanted shakiness (Compl. ¶89; ’840 Patent, col. 21:17-25).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶177).
  • Accused Features: The in-camera video stabilization features in the Accused Camera Systems referred to as "Quick Flowstate" and "Flowstate 2.0" (Compl. ¶178).

U.S. Patent No. 11,336,832 - "Systems and Methods for Horizon Leveling Videos"

  • Issued: May 17, 2022 (Compl. ¶93)

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the technical problem of a tilted horizon in video caused by camera rotation during capture (Compl. ¶96; ’832 Patent, col. 1:12-14). The solution uses a position sensor to detect the camera's rotational position and then computationally rotates the captured visual content to compensate for the tilt. A "punch-out" (a cropped viewing window) of the corrected content is then generated to produce a final video with a consistently level horizon (Compl. ¶99-100; ’832 Patent, col. 10:54-62, 10:14-21). The complaint references Figure 5A from the patent, which illustrates the rotation of an image (514) to create a leveled image (516) from which an upright viewing window (502) is taken (Compl. ¶98, p. 22).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

  • Asserted Claims: At least Claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶195).
  • Accused Features: The "Horizon Lock" feature included in the Accused Camera Systems and Accused Editing Applications (Compl. ¶196).

U.S. Design Patent No. D789,435 - "Camera"

  • Issued: June 13, 2017 (Compl. ¶108)

Technology Synopsis

This design patent protects the ornamental design for a camera, which consists of its visual, non-functional features (Compl. ¶212; D’435 Patent, Claim). The complaint alleges this design has become iconic and is synonymous with the GoPro brand (Compl. ¶110).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

  • Asserted Claims: The single claim of the D’435 Patent (Compl. ¶213).
  • Accused Features: The ornamental designs of the Insta360 "Ace" and "Ace Pro" camera systems (Compl. ¶213).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the Insta360 "One X," "One R," "One R 1-inch," "One X2," "One RS," "One RS 1-inch 360," "One X3," "Go 3," "Ace," and "Ace Pro" camera systems (collectively, “Accused Camera Systems”), along with the associated Insta360 mobile applications and Insta360 Studio desktop editing software (collectively, “Accused Editing Applications”) (Compl. ¶3, 11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Systems are action cameras and editing software marketed as competitors to GoPro’s products (Compl. ¶3, 127). The complaint alleges they incorporate specific, patented GoPro technologies.
  • For the ’413 Patent, the Accused Camera Systems are alleged to have shooting modes (“FreeFrame,” “FreeCapture,” “ActionView”) that stretch a 4:3 captured image to a 16:9 frame while leaving the center unchanged (Compl. ¶122).
  • For the ’052 Patent, the Accused Systems allegedly perform video reframing operations (zooming, cropping, panning) that remap lens distortion to create the appearance of consistent lens characteristics (Compl. ¶140).
  • For the ’894 and ’840 Patents, the Accused Camera Systems are alleged to include in-camera stabilization features known as "Quick Flowstate" and "Flowstate 2.0" (Compl. ¶159, 178).
  • For the ’832 Patent, the Accused Systems are alleged to include a "Horizon Lock" feature to maintain a level horizon (Compl. ¶196).
  • For the D’435 Patent, the complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and images of the Accused "Ace" and "Ace Pro" products to allege that their ornamental designs are substantially the same (Compl. ¶214, p. 45). This visual evidence shows the accused Ace and Ace Pro cameras with similar form factors, lens placement, and body contours as the patented design (Compl. ¶214, p. 45).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the filing; the following summaries are based on the narrative infringement theories presented in the complaint.

10,015,413 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An image capture apparatus... The Insta360 Accused Camera Systems. ¶121 col. 2:45-50
...apply a transformation to the input image to generate an output image, the output image having a target aspect ratio different than the source aspect ratio... Accused shooting modes such as "ActionView" stretch an image captured in a 4:3 aspect ratio to fit into a 16:9 frame. ¶122 col. 2:8-14
...the transformation non-uniformly shifts the pixels from the input positions to the output positions based on (1) the input positions along the first axis, and (2) the input positions along the second axis... The accused modes allegedly stretch the sides of the image. ¶122 col. 3:9-14
...the transformation non-uniformly shifts the pixels such that differences between the input positions and the output positions of the subset of the pixels within the portion are less than differences between the input positions and the output positions of others of the pixels... The complaint alleges that the center of the frame remains unchanged, suggesting that pixel shifts in this central "portion" are less than the shifts at the sides ("others"). ¶122 col. 4:15-24

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: What is the specific algorithm implemented in the "ActionView" and other accused modes? The complaint’s allegation that the modes stretch the "sides" while the "center of the frame remains unchanged" provides a factual basis for infringement, but the actual technical operation will be a central question.
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused functionality meets the specific claim limitation that pixel shifts in a central "portion" are "less than" shifts for "others of the pixels." The definition and boundaries of this "portion" may be a point of contention.

10,529,052 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A system that simulates image distortion of a virtual lens in a video... The Accused Camera Systems and Accused Editing Applications. ¶139 col. 2:17-20
...selecting sub-frames representing portions of the input images... the sub-frames including different lens distortion effects... The accused products provide video reframing operations such as zooming, cropping, and panning, which inherently select sub-frames from input images. ¶140 col. 1:7-9
...generating output images based on a desired lens distortion... the desired lens distortion and the input lens distortion exhibiting consistent lens characteristics... The accused features are alleged to "remap input lens distortion in sub-frames... to create the appearance of consistent lens distortion across edited output images." ¶140, 141 col. 11:4-14

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: Does the accused remapping function operate as claimed by transforming distortion based on the sub-frame's size and location, or does it use a different, non-infringing method for distortion correction? The complaint alleges the functionality creates an "appearance" of consistency, raising the question of how the accused technology actually works.
  • Evidentiary Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products' functionality ensures the output and input distortions exhibit "consistent lens characteristics"? The allegation is based on "information and belief," suggesting discovery will be required to substantiate the technical details of the accused functionality.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’413 Patent:

    • The Term: "non-uniformly shifts"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to distinguishing the invention from prior art linear scaling. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused "stretching" methods perform a pixel shift that is mathematically "non-uniform" as construed from the patent. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires the specific types of warping functions disclosed in the specification or can be read more broadly.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the overall goal as preserving the "full field of view" while limiting "perceivable distortion to an acceptable level" (’413 Patent, col. 5:14-17), which could support construing the term to cover any method achieving this functional outcome.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific graphs (Figs. 5-6) and polynomial equations (’413 Patent, col. 7:1-50) representing the warp distortion. This may support an argument that "non-uniformly shifts" is limited to the specific mathematical relationships disclosed in these embodiments.

  • For the ’052 Patent:

    • The Term: "consistent lens characteristics"
    • Context and Importance: The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused products create an "appearance of consistent lens distortion" (Compl. ¶140). The definition of "consistent" is therefore critical. The dispute may turn on whether this requires the output distortion to be mathematically derived from the input distortion, or merely perceptually similar.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent frequently describes the goal as producing a "cohesive output video" where it is "not apparent to the viewer" that editing occurred (’052 Patent, col. 3:40-45). This language suggests a focus on the perceptual result, which may support a broader construction.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the output images to be "remapped from the input lens distortion... to the desired lens distortion." The detailed description further specifies that the remapping may be achieved via a "direct transformation function that describes a relationship between the input lens distortion... and the desired lens distortion" (’052 Patent, col. 12:23-28). This may support a narrower construction requiring a specific functional link, not just a visually similar outcome.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the asserted utility patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide instruction manuals and product support encouraging customers to use the infringing features (Compl. ¶129, 148, 167, 185, 203). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the Accused Systems are specially made to infringe and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶130, 149, 168, 186, 204).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for willfulness includes alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from GoPro’s open marketing of the patented features, GoPro’s practice of virtual patent marking, and an Insta360 IPO prospectus that allegedly names GoPro as a top competitor and contains a technical comparison of the parties’ products (Compl. ¶126-127, 145-146, 163-164, 182-183, 200-201, 217-218). The complaint also alleges an Insta360 affiliate cited a related GoPro patent in a Chinese patent filing (Compl. ¶165).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical evidence: For the utility patents on software features like video stabilization and virtual lens simulation, what factual evidence will demonstrate that the accused Insta360 software (e.g., "Quick Flowstate," "ActionView") operates using the specific methods claimed in the patents (e.g., non-uniform pixel shifting, look-ahead trajectory calculations) rather than alternative, non-infringing algorithms that produce a similar visual output?
  • A central question for the design patent will be the application of the ordinary observer test: Is the overall ornamental appearance of the Insta360 Ace and Ace Pro cameras "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'435 patent, to the point that it would deceive an ordinary purchaser?
  • A key issue shaping damages and potential willfulness findings will be one of knowledge and intent: What evidence will establish that Insta360 knew of GoPro’s specific patents and either copied the technology or proceeded with developing its features in conscious disregard of GoPro's patent rights, particularly in light of the alleged competitor analysis in Insta360's IPO prospectus?