DCT
3:17-cv-06457
Corephotonics Ltd v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Corephotonics, Ltd. (Israel)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 5:17-cv-06457, N.D. Cal., 04/11/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Apple residing in the Northern District of California, maintaining a regular and established place of business within the district, and having committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus, which feature dual-camera systems, infringe four patents related to miniature telephoto lens assemblies and dual-aperture image processing techniques.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves compact dual-camera systems for mobile devices, which are designed to provide enhanced optical zoom and image quality features, such as image fusion, within the thin form factor of modern smartphones.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges an extensive pre-suit history of interactions between the parties beginning in 2012, including meetings and technology demonstrations where Plaintiff allegedly disclosed its dual-camera technology, prototypes, and patent strategy to Defendant. The complaint further alleges that Defendant became aware of the patents-in-suit during the prosecution of its own patent applications, where it cited Plaintiff’s patents as prior art. Plaintiff filed its original complaint on November 6, 2017, after allegedly sending a notice letter to Defendant on October 31, 2017.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-11-28 | U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152 Priority Date |
| 2013-06-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,185,291 Priority Date |
| 2013-07-04 | U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032 Priority Date |
| 2013-07-04 | U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712 Priority Date |
| 2015-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. 9,185,291 Issue Date |
| 2016-07-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032 Issue Date |
| 2016-09-07 | Apple announces iPhone 7 Plus |
| 2017-01-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152 Issue Date |
| 2017-02-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712 Issue Date |
| 2017-10-31 | Corephotonics sends notice letter to Apple |
| 2017-11-06 | Original Complaint Filed |
| 2018-04-11 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032 - "Miniature Telephoto Lens Assembly"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032, “Miniature Telephoto Lens Assembly,” issued July 26, 2016. (Compl. ¶3).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional mobile camera lens assemblies are no longer sufficient for high-quality imaging and that existing five-element designs suffer from a total track length (TTL) to effective focal length (EFL) ratio that is too large for integration into thin devices. (’032 Patent, col. 1:28-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a five-element lens assembly designed to achieve a small TTL/EFL ratio of less than 1.0, enabling a telephoto lens to fit into a compact form factor. The solution is achieved through a specific arrangement of lens elements with defined positive and negative refractive powers, curvatures, and material properties (Abbe numbers), which collectively reduce the physical length of the lens assembly while maintaining a long focal length and correcting for optical aberrations. (’032 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-22).
- Technical Importance: This optical design approach allows for the incorporation of a true telephoto lens, and thus optical zoom, into thin smartphones without increasing the device's thickness. (Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least claim 15, which depends from independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶46).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A plurality of aspheric refractive lens elements arranged along an optical axis.
- A total track length (TTL) of 6.5 millimeters or less.
- A ratio of TTL to effective focal length (EFL) of less than 1.0.
- The plurality of elements comprises, in order, a first lens element with positive refractive power and a second lens element with negative refractive power.
- A focal length of the first lens element (f1) that is smaller than TTL/2.
- The complaint also presents infringement allegations for dependent claims 13, 14, and 15, which add limitations regarding the Abbe numbers of the first two lenses, the surface shapes of the lenses, and the lens assembly's F number. (Compl. ¶47).
U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712 - "Miniature Telephoto Lens Assembly"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712, “Miniature Telephoto Lens Assembly,” issued February 14, 2017. (Compl. ¶4).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’032 Patent, this patent addresses the need for a five-element optical lens assembly that provides a small TTL/EFL ratio and high image quality suitable for thin mobile devices like cellphones. (’712 Patent, col. 1:35-41).
- The Patented Solution: This invention also describes a five-element lens assembly but with a different structural configuration to achieve the desired compact telephoto effect. The claimed solution specifies an arrangement comprising a first positive lens element, followed by a pair of second and third lens elements that together have a negative optical power, and a combination of fourth and fifth elements. A key feature is a specifically defined large air gap between the third and fourth lens elements (greater than TTL/5), which assists in achieving the desired optical properties. (’712 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:1-8).
- Technical Importance: This design provides an alternative configuration for a compact, high-quality telephoto lens assembly suitable for integration into thin smartphones. (Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 15, 16, and 19. (Compl. ¶59).
- The essential elements of independent claim 15 include:
- A plurality of refractive lens elements arranged along an optical axis.
- A TTL smaller than the EFL.
- The plurality of elements comprises, in order, a first lens element with positive optical power.
- A pair of second and third lens elements having together a negative optical power.
- A combination of fourth and fifth lens elements.
- An air gap separating the fourth lens element from the third lens element that is greater than TTL/5.
- The complaint explicitly asserts dependent claims 16 and 19, which add limitations regarding the Abbe numbers of the first two lens elements and the TTL dimension. (Compl. ¶59).
U.S. Patent No. 9,185,291 - "Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,185,291, “Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera,” issued November 10, 2015. (Compl. ¶5).
The Invention Explained
- The patent addresses the challenge of providing zoom functionality in a dual-camera system (Wide and Tele lenses) by using different processing techniques for still and video modes. To manage computational load, the invention uses image fusion (combining data from both lenses) for high-quality still images but provides a "smooth transition" when switching between the two lenses in video mode "without fusion." (’291 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:32-51).
Key Claims and Accused Features
- Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 13 are asserted, including independent claims 1 (camera) and 12 (method). (Compl. ¶72).
- Accused Features: The accused functionality is the iPhone’s dual-camera system that allegedly combines image data from both lenses in still mode to create a fused image, while providing a continuous zoom in video mode by smoothly transitioning between the wide and telephoto cameras without using fusion. (Compl. ¶73).
U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152 - "High Resolution Thin Multi-Aperture Imaging Systems"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152, “High Resolution Thin Multi-Aperture Imaging Systems,” issued January 3, 2017. (Compl. ¶6).
The Invention Explained
- The patent describes a multi-aperture imaging system that generates a high-resolution output by fusing images from two cameras with different fields of view (FOV). Within a zoom range where the desired FOV is between that of the two cameras, the system designates the wider-angle image as "primary" and the narrower-angle image as "non-primary." A processor is configured to "register" the overlapping portion of the non-primary image to the primary image to produce the final output. (’152 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:3-16).
Key Claims and Accused Features
- Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 are asserted, including independent claim 1 (system). (Compl. ¶85).
- Accused Features: The accused feature is the Image Signal Processor in the accused iPhones, which is alleged to provide an output image from the point of view of the wide-angle camera when zoomed between 1x and 2x, and to register the overlapping area of the telephoto image to the wide-angle image to obtain the output. (Compl. ¶86).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the Apple iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus smartphones. (Compl. ¶7).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products incorporate a dual-aperture rear-facing camera system comprising a wide-angle lens and a telephoto lens. (Compl. ¶¶34, 73). This dual-lens hardware is allegedly controlled by an Image Signal Processor (ISP) located within Apple's A10 Fusion chip. (Compl. ¶73). The complaint alleges this system provides functionalities including optical zoom by switching between lenses, image fusion to improve image quality in still photos, and a smooth, continuous zoom in video mode. (Compl. ¶¶73, 86). A screenshot from Apple's website is provided as evidence that the iPhone 7 Plus telephoto lens has an F-number of ƒ/2.8. (Compl. p. 13). The complaint positions the introduction of the dual camera as a key feature for Apple and a core innovation derived from Plaintiff's technology. (Compl. ¶34).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of refractive lens elements arranged along an optical axis, wherein at least one surface of at least one of the plurality of lens elements is aspheric | The iPhone 7 plus telephoto lens consists of five aspheric refractive lens elements arranged along an optical axis. | ¶47 | col. 2:7-9 |
| wherein the lens assembly has a total track length (TTL) of 6.5 millimeters or less and a ratio TTL/EFL of less than 1.0 | The TTL of the iPhone 7 Plus telephoto lens is less than 6.0 mm and its EFL is greater than 6.5 mm, resulting in a TTL/EFL ratio of less than 1.0. | ¶47 | col. 1:56-62 |
| wherein the plurality of lens elements comprises, in order from an object side to an image side, a first lens element with positive refractive power and a second lens element with negative refractive power | The lens assembly includes a first lens element with positive refractive power and a second lens element with negative refractive power. | ¶47 | col. 1:47-51 |
| wherein a focal length f1 of the first lens element is smaller than TTL/2 | The focal length of the first lens element (allegedly < 2.7 mm) is less than half the TTL (allegedly > 5.8 mm). | ¶47 | col. 2:1-2 |
U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of refractive lens elements arranged along an optical axis | The iPhone 7 plus telephoto lens consists of five refractive lens elements arranged along an optical axis. | ¶60 | col. 9:45-47 |
| wherein the lens assembly has an effective focal length (EFL) and a total track length (TTL) smaller than the effective focal length (EFL) | The TTL of the iPhone 7 Plus telephoto lens (allegedly < 6.0 mm) is smaller than its EFL (allegedly > 6.5 mm). | ¶60 | col. 2:1-2 |
| the plurality of refractive lens elements comprising, in order from an object plane to an image plane...a first lens element having positive optical power, a pair of second and third lens elements having together a negative optical power... | The first lens element has a positive refractive power and the second lens element has a negative refractive power. | ¶60 | col. 9:49-52 |
| ...and a combination of fourth and fifth lens elements, the fourth lens element separated from the third lens element by an air gap greater than TTL/5 | The camera has a fourth and fifth lens element where the air gap between the third and fourth elements (allegedly 1.4 mm) is greater than TTL/5 (allegedly < 1.2 mm). | ¶60 | col. 9:52-56 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions (Hardware): For the ’032 and ’712 patents, the infringement analysis will depend on evidence obtained from technical analysis or reverse engineering of the accused iPhone camera modules. A central question will be whether the physical dimensions (e.g., TTL), optical properties (e.g., EFL, refractive powers), and material characteristics (e.g., Abbe numbers) of Apple's lens assembly match the specific numerical limitations of the asserted claims.
- Scope Questions (Hardware): For the ’712 patent, the complaint alleges the second lens element has negative power, whereas the claim requires "a pair of second and third lens elements having together a negative optical power." This raises the question of whether the complaint’s allegation is sufficient to meet this limitation, and whether the accused product's lens structure actually conforms to the claimed "pair" configuration.
- Technical Questions (Software): For the ’291 and ’152 patents, the analysis will turn on the operational details of Apple's ISP. Key questions will be whether the ISP’s code and behavior execute the specific steps of image fusion, "smooth transition," and image registration as defined by the claims. The complaint's citations to Apple's developer forums suggest that public-facing documentation may be a source of evidence on these technical functions (Compl. ¶¶73, 86).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "total track length (TTL)" (asserted in claims of ’032 and ’712 patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines a specific, numerical dimensional constraint for the lens assembly (e.g., "6.5 millimeters or less"). The precise start and end points for this measurement will be central to determining whether the accused lens assembly falls within the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for flexibility if the term is not explicitly defined with reference to a specific diagrammatic element in all embodiments.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ’032 patent specification defines TTL as "the total track length on an optical axis between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the electronic sensor." (’032 Patent, col. 1:62-65). This explicit definition may strongly favor a specific, narrower construction.
The Term: "smooth transition" (asserted in claims of ’291 patent)
- Context and Importance: This term describes the user experience when the camera system switches between the wide and telephoto lenses in video mode. Its construction will determine the threshold for what constitutes an infringing transition versus a non-infringing "jump." Practitioners may focus on this term because it is functional and not strictly defined by numerical parameters.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent contrasts the invention with "discontinuities in video mode" and "parallax artifacts," suggesting that any software-aided transition that mitigates these issues could be considered "smooth." (’291 Patent, col. 4:46-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that a "smooth transition" is one that "minimizes the jump effect" and "may include matching the position, scale, brightness and color of the output image before and after the transition." (’291 Patent, col. 10:15-22). A party may argue that these matching functions are required elements of a "smooth transition."
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four asserted patents. The factual basis for inducement is that Apple allegedly publishes promotional information and provides instructions to customers and end-users on how to use the infringing zoom features of the accused dual-camera systems. (Compl. ¶¶53-54, 66-67, 79-80, 91-92).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint contains detailed allegations supporting willfulness for all four patents. The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a multi-year business and technical relationship where Corephotonics disclosed its technology, patent plans, and prototypes to Apple. (Compl. ¶¶21-29, 48). The complaint further alleges that Apple gained knowledge of the patents through its own patent prosecution activities, where it cited Corephotonics' patents and applications in Information Disclosure Statements. (Compl. ¶¶39-44). The allegations also include post-patent-issuance conduct, such as Apple's refusal to review the patents during negotiations and its continued sales after the filing of the original complaint. (Compl. ¶¶49, 62, 75, 88).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical conformance: Does the physical construction of the telephoto lens assembly in the accused iPhones, as determined through technical analysis, meet the specific, multi-part limitations regarding dimensions (e.g., TTL/EFL < 1.0), optical powers, and material properties (e.g., Abbe numbers) recited in the claims of the ’032 and ’712 patents?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic function: Does the software operating on Apple's Image Signal Processor perform the specific methods claimed in the ’291 and ’152 patents, namely providing a "smooth transition" without fusion in video mode and "registering" the telephoto image onto the wide image within a defined zoom range?
- Central to the issues of willfulness and damages will be the question of scienter: Can Plaintiff prove, based on the extensive alleged pre-suit interactions and Defendant's patent prosecution history, that Defendant had knowledge of the asserted patents and proceeded to infringe in a manner that was wanton, deliberate, or egregious?