DCT
3:23-cv-03046
Longitude Licensing Ltd v. Google LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Longitude Licensing Limited (Republic of Ireland)
- Defendant: Google, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robins Kaplan LLP
- Case Identification: 5:23-cv-03046, N.D. Cal., 06/21/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant Google maintains its global headquarters and other regular and established places of business in the district, where it has allegedly committed acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Pixel smartphones, tablets, and associated photo-related software applications (Google Photos, Snapseed) infringe seven patents related to digital image generation, processing, and enhancement.
- Technical Context: The patents address foundational techniques in computational photography, such as automatically identifying a main subject in a photo and applying targeted corrections to improve image quality.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Google with actual notice of infringement for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,428,082, 7,486,807, and 7,945,109 on or around August 20, 2020. It further alleges notice was provided for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,668,365, 8,355,574, 7,454,056, and 8,482,638 on or around June 7, 2023. These allegations form the basis for claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-09-11 | ’109 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-05-07 | ’082 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-01-29 | ’807 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-03-08 | ’365 & ’574 Patents Priority Date |
| 2004-03-30 | ’056 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-09-23 | ’082 Patent Issued |
| 2008-11-18 | ’056 Patent Issued |
| 2009-02-03 | ’807 Patent Issued |
| 2010-02-23 | ’365 Patent Issued |
| 2010-12-22 | ’638 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-05-17 | ’109 Patent Issued |
| 2013-01-15 | ’574 Patent Issued |
| 2013-07-09 | ’638 Patent Issued |
| 2017-10-01 | Google Pixel 2 Launch (Introduced Portrait Mode) |
| 2020-08-20 | Alleged Actual Notice of ’082, ’807, ’109 Patents |
| 2021-10-01 | Google Pixel 6 Launch (Introduced Real Tone & Face Unblur) |
| 2023-06-07 | Alleged Actual Notice of ’365, ’574, ’056, ’638 Patents |
| 2023-06-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,668,365 - “Determination of Main Object on Image and Improvement of Image Quality According to Main Object,” issued February 23, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes two technical problems with automatic image quality adjustments: (1) misidentifying the main object in an image leads to poor quality adjustments, and (2) generalized, "across-the-board" processing techniques fail to account for "subtle differences in the main object," making it "inherently impossible to carry out a picture quality adjusting process that takes advantage of the subtle characteristics of the main object" (Compl. ¶¶ 44-45; ’365 Patent, col. 1:20-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that first identifies a "main object" by analyzing image data, such as pixel groups, using both color and position information. Once the main object is determined, the system acquires specific properties of that object's image data and corresponding correction conditions, which are then used to adjust the image quality for only that main object (Compl. ¶46; ’365 Patent, Abstract, col. 7:22-8:5). This targeted approach is intended to produce a more "attractive, natural visual appearance" without manual user intervention (Compl. ¶43).
- Technical Importance: The invention describes a method for moving beyond one-size-fits-all image filters toward more intelligent, content-aware image processing that automatically enhances the most important part of a photograph (Compl. ¶43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 5 and 32 (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 52).
- Independent Claim 5 (Device): An image processing device comprising:
- an image data acquiring module;
- an image data analyzing module that segments image data into areas;
- a position data acquiring module that acquires position data of the areas; and
- a main object determining module that determines the main object using the position data and analysis results, all executed by an integrated circuit.
- Independent Claim 32 (Method): An image processing method comprising:
- determining the main object image data corresponding to the main object;
- acquiring the properties of the determined main object image data;
- acquiring correction conditions corresponding to the acquired properties; and
- adjusting the picture quality of the main object image data using the acquired correction conditions, all executed by an integrated circuit.
U.S. Patent No. 8,355,574 - “Determination of Main Object on Image and Improvement of Image Quality According to Main Object,” issued January 15, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’365 Patent, the ’574 Patent addresses the same general problem of inaccurate main object identification and generalized image processing, but with a specific focus on images containing human faces (Compl. ¶¶ 56-57; ’574 Patent, col. 1:28-48). Prior systems either required manual modification or applied uniform adjustments that did not account for subtle variations in features like skin tone (Compl. ¶55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims methods and devices that specifically determine if an image contains a human face and, if so, treat that face as the main object. The system then adjusts specific image quality parameters—such as highlight, shadow, brightness, contrast, color balance, or memory color—using correction conditions tailored to the properties of that human face (Compl. ¶58; ’574 Patent, Abstract, claim 3). The specification gives examples of accounting for skin tone variations, such as "pale yellow flesh" versus "dark yellow flesh," to permit more suitable adjustments (Compl. ¶60; ’574 Patent, col. 18:63-19:3).
- Technical Importance: This technology represents a step toward solving the complex problem of accurately and aesthetically rendering diverse human skin tones in digital photography, a challenge that requires moving beyond simple, uniform color correction (Compl. ¶55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 3 and 7 (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 64).
- Independent Claim 3 (Method): A method of image processing comprising:
- determining a main object in an image, wherein the main object includes at least a human face, and the determining is implemented by determining whether the image includes the human face; and
- adjusting the image quality of the main object using correction conditions corresponding to properties of the determined main object, where the adjustment parameter is a highlight, a shadow, brightness, contrast, color balance, or memory color.
- Independent Claim 7 (Apparatus): An image processing apparatus comprising:
- one or more processors and memory;
- a determining module configured to determine a main object that includes at least a human face by determining whether the image includes the human face; and
- an image quality adjuster configured to adjust image quality using correction conditions corresponding to the main object's properties, where the adjustment parameter is a highlight, a shadow, brightness, contrast, color balance, or memory color.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,454,056
- Patent Identification: “Color Correction Device, Color Correction Method, and Color Correction Program,” issued November 18, 2008 (Compl. ¶66).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of conventional color balance techniques that adjust an entire image, which can undesirably alter the color tone of a specific subject (e.g., making a person's face appear red-tinged if the background is blue) (Compl. ¶69). The solution involves a system that determines a "specific subject area" (e.g., a face), calculates a characteristic value for that area (e.g., average flesh color), and then calculates and applies a color balance correction based on that specific subject's data, rather than the entire image (Compl. ¶70).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶166).
- Accused Features: The "Real Tone" and auto-enhancement features in Google's Pixel smartphones and Google Photos are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶165).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,428,082
- Patent Identification: “Update Control of Image Processing Control Data,” issued September 23, 2008 (Compl. ¶75).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of updating image processing control data (e.g., filters or presets like "sunset" mode) used by an image generator like a digital camera (Compl. ¶78). Prior systems attached this control data to each image file, making updates inefficient. The invention proposes storing the control data separately from the image data and provides a "storage manager" to update that control data based on specification data, allowing for new or improved processing modes to be added to the device (Compl. ¶79).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶188).
- Accused Features: The Google Snapseed application is accused of infringing, specifically its system for storing, applying, and creating custom filters or "Looks" (Compl. ¶¶ 187, 195-198).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,486,807
- Patent Identification: “Image Retrieving Device, Method for Adding Keywords in Image Retrieving Device, and Computer Program Therefor,” issued February 3, 2009 (Compl. ¶84).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses problems in classifying and retrieving digital images using keywords, noting that prior systems often required users to manually enter keywords, leading to inconsistencies (Compl. ¶85). The invention describes an image retrieving device that stores images and associated keywords, detects objects (like a human face) in a newly input image, matches that object to similar objects in its database, and proposes existing keywords to the user for confirmation, addition, or correction (Compl. ¶87).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶217).
- Accused Features: The Google Photos application is accused of infringing, specifically its feature for manual and automatic face tagging to classify and retrieve images (Compl. ¶¶ 217, 220).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,945,109
- Patent Identification: “Image Processing Based On Object Information,” issued May 17, 2011 (Compl. ¶94).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent identifies a problem where prior photo editing techniques assumed the "major object" of an image was in the center, which is often not the case (Compl. ¶¶ 97-98). The patented solution uses shooting scene information (e.g., "portrait mode") and location information of a person in the image file to more accurately identify the subject. When a portrait scene is indicated, the system increases the sharpness of the area where the person is located and decreases the sharpness (blurs) the area where the person is not located (Compl. ¶99).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claims 1-3, with claim 1 being independent (Compl. ¶256).
- Accused Features: The "Portrait Mode" feature in Google's Pixel smartphones is accused of infringing (Compl. ¶256).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,482,638
- Patent Identification: “Digital Camera Generating Composite Image from Main Image and Sub-Image, and Method for Manufacturing Same,” issued July 9, 2013 (Compl. ¶104).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical challenge of achieving sharp, in-focus images, explaining that prior systems required complex "double-image matching range finder" mechanisms (Compl. ¶106). The invention proposes a digital camera with two imaging units (a main and a sub-unit) that generate a main image and a sub-image. The system generates a composite image by combining the two, after magnifying at least one of them based on their focal lengths to "match substantially a size of the main image and a size of the sub-image" (Compl. ¶¶ 105, 112).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶281).
- Accused Features: The "Face Unblur" feature in Google's Pixel smartphones, which allegedly combines images from a main and an ultrawide-angle camera to create a sharper composite image, is accused of infringing (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 280).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Google's Pixel smartphones (from the original Pixel to the Pixel 7 line and Pixel Fold), Pixel tablets, the Google Photos application and service, and the Snapseed photo-editing application (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 25).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint targets specific computational photography features:
- Real Tone: A feature introduced with the Pixel 6 designed to improve the accuracy of how Pixel smartphones capture diverse skin tones by detecting a subject and adjusting properties like color and lighting. This functionality is also alleged to be present in the "auto-enhancement" feature of Google Photos (Compl. ¶19).
- Portrait Mode: A feature that identifies a subject (e.g., a person) and artificially blurs the background to create a shallow depth-of-field effect. This allegedly functions by using depth sensors to create a depth map that distinguishes the subject from the background (Compl. ¶20). An image from Google's product page shows the intended effect of adding "blur behind the scene" (Compl. p. 112).
- Face Unblur: A feature that reduces blur on faces in an image by combining a darker but sharper image from an ultrawide-angle camera with a brighter but blurrier image from the main camera to generate a sharper composite image (Compl. ¶21).
- Google Photos Face Tagging: The application's ability to group photos by person, allowing a user to apply a name (keyword) to a group of faces for easier searching and management (Compl. ¶22).
- Snapseed Custom Filters: The application's ability for users to apply, modify, and save sequences of edits as custom filters ("stacks" or "Looks") that can be applied to other images (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 23).
- The complaint alleges that U.S. sales of Pixel smartphones generated approximately $3.3 billion in revenue in 2022 (Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’365 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 32) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining the main object image data corresponding to the main object characterizing the image | The Pixel 7 Pro's Real Tone and auto-enhancement features determine the main object (e.g., a human face) by analyzing image data, including skin tone and lighting conditions. | ¶120 | col. 1:30-32 |
| acquiring the properties of the determined main object image data | The Real Tone and auto-enhancement features acquire properties of the main object, such as its color tone and lighting. | ¶121 | col. 4:17-19 |
| acquiring correction conditions corresponding to the properties that have been acquired | The features acquire correction conditions corresponding to the detected properties, such as color balance, brightness, exposure, shadow, and highlights. | ¶122 | col. 4:20-22 |
| adjusting the picture quality of the main object image data using the acquired correction conditions | The features adjust the picture quality using the correction conditions. A provided visual shows RGB histograms of an image before and after Real Tone is applied, illustrating adjustments to color balance (Compl. p. 49). | ¶123 | col. 4:26-28 |
| wherein each of the operations of the image processing method is executed by an integrated circuit | The functionality is allegedly executed by the Pixel 7 Pro's Google Tensor G2 system-on-a-chip, which is an integrated circuit. | ¶125 | col. 16:21-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the process performed by Google's AI-based "Real Tone" feature, which holistically analyzes an image, maps onto the patent's more discrete, sequential steps of "determining" an object, then "acquiring" its properties, then "acquiring" correction conditions. The defense may argue that an AI model does not perform these distinct, separable operations.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system acquires "correction conditions" as a separate step corresponding to "properties"? The complaint alleges this occurs (Compl. ¶122), but the distinction between analyzing properties and applying a resulting correction within a single AI process may be a point of dispute.
’574 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 3) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining a main object in an image generated by an image generating apparatus, wherein the main object includes at least a human face, and wherein the determining of the main object is implemented by determining whether the image includes the human face | The Pixel 7 Pro camera (an image generating apparatus) and Google Photos app determine when the subject of an image is a human face. A provided screenshot states, "Detecting a person's face is a key part of getting a great photo that's in focus" (Compl. p. 55). | ¶¶ 144, 145 | col. 14:19-25 |
| adjusting image quality of the main object using correction conditions corresponding to properties of the determined main object | Real Tone adjusts the image quality using correction conditions corresponding to the properties of the human face, such as skin tone and lighting conditions. | ¶146 | col. 14:33-37 |
| wherein a parameter used in adjusting the image quality is a highlight, a shadow, brightness, contrast, color balance, or memory color | Real Tone adjusts parameters including white balance (color balance), exposure (brightness), highlights, and shadows. | ¶147 | col. 20:23-25 |
| wherein each operation of the method of image processing is executed by one of a personal computer, a printer, or a display device | The Pixel 7 Pro is alleged to be a personal computer with a chipset, memory, storage, and a display. | ¶149 | col. 20:26-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the meaning of "correction conditions corresponding to properties." Plaintiff alleges Google uses different conditions for different lighting environments (e.g., nighttime vs. bright sunlit scenes) (Compl. ¶151). The question for the court will be whether this constitutes the claimed relationship between properties and conditions, or if it is merely a different mode of operation.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused "Real Tone" system make adjustments based on "properties of the determined main object" (e.g., a specific skin tone category), or does it apply a universal algorithm designed to work well across all skin tones without being tailored to specific, pre-defined properties as taught in the patent?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’365 and ’574 Patents:
- The Term: "acquiring correction conditions corresponding to the properties"
- Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the asserted claims of both lead patents. The infringement theory depends on showing that Google's system first analyzes "properties" (like color tone, skin tone, or lighting) and then separately obtains or derives "correction conditions" (rules for adjustment) that are specifically linked to those properties. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to describe a two-step, cause-and-effect process (property analysis -> condition acquisition) that may not map directly onto the integrated processing of a modern AI model.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specifications state that correction conditions are acquired "corresponding to the properties that have been acquired" ('365 Patent, col. 4:20-22) but do not narrowly define the mechanism of acquisition, which may support a functional interpretation where any adjustment based on an analysis of properties meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents describe embodiments with distinct modules and steps, such as a "correction condition acquiring module" (M14) that accesses a "standard color value" (M17) after a "main object classification module" (M16) has acted ('365 Patent, Fig. 13). This modular structure suggests a more defined, sequential process than a single, holistic AI function, potentially supporting a narrower construction requiring distinct operational steps.
For the ’082 Patent:
- The Term: "storage manager"
- Context and Importance: The infringement allegation against Snapseed hinges on its ability to create and save new, custom filters (Compl. ¶198). The claim requires a "storage manager configured to update at least a part of the image processing control data...based on specification data." Whether Snapseed's functionality for saving a new user-created "Look" meets this definition will be a key dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "storage manager" is functional. The specification describes it as managing data "by storing update data" ('082 Patent, col. 7:34-35), a broad description that could encompass any software routine that saves new filter settings.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's context is updating pre-existing control data from an external server ('082 Patent, col. 1:44-2:9, Fig. 3). This could support a narrower interpretation limited to updating or overwriting existing data sets, rather than simply adding new, user-generated data to a library.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Google induces infringement by providing the accused products to customers and end users with the knowledge and intent that they will use the infringing features (Compl. ¶¶ 32-38). Specific allegations point to Google's marketing materials, user guides, and support websites that instruct users on how to use features like Portrait Mode, Real Tone, Snapseed's custom filters, and Google Photos' face tagging (Compl. ¶¶ 132, 211, 250, 273, 296).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Google's continued infringement after receiving actual notice of the patents-in-suit. The complaint alleges notice for three patents occurred on or around August 20, 2020, and for the remaining four patents on or around June 7, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶ 29-31).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core technical question will be one of operational equivalence: do Google’s modern, AI-driven image processing systems (like "Real Tone") operate in a manner that is fundamentally different from the more structured, modular, and sequential methods described in the patents (e.g., discretely acquiring properties, then acquiring corresponding correction conditions, then adjusting)? The case may turn on whether a jury finds that a neural network's integrated process performs the same steps as the claimed inventions.
- A central issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can terms rooted in an earlier era of computational photography, such as "acquiring the properties" of an object or a "storage manager" that updates control data, be construed broadly enough to read on the functionality of today's sophisticated smartphone camera software and photo-editing applications?
- An evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused "Face Unblur" feature, which combines images from two different cameras, meets every element of the '638 patent's claims, particularly the requirement of a "magnification setting unit" that sets a magnification level to "match substantially" the size of the main and sub-images?