DCT
1:16-cv-01021
Ramot At Tel Aviv University Ltd v. Snap Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. (Israel)
- Defendant: Snap Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP; Mishcon De Reya New York LLP; THE SUCHYTA FIRM LLC
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-01021, D. Del., 11/02/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, where it allegedly commits acts of patent infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Snapchat application, specifically its "Lenses" feature, infringes a patent related to methods for resizing and retargeting digital images by identifying and preserving important regions.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns "video retargeting," a process for adapting images and videos for display on screens of different sizes or aspect ratios, a critical function for content delivery on mobile devices.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-23 | ’333 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-05-06 | ’333 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-11-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,718,333, "System, Method and a Computer Readable Medium for Providing an Output Image," issued May 6, 2014. (Compl. ¶9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of displaying images or video on screens that are smaller or have a different aspect ratio than the original format, such as showing a wide-screen movie on a 4:3 television or a sports game on a small cellular phone screen (Compl. ¶11; ’333 Patent, col. 1:20-33). Conventional methods like simple cropping or adding black bars are described as "not very effective" because they can remove important content or fail to preserve the resolution of key objects. (’333 Patent, col. 1:30-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that first analyzes an input image to determine an "importance value" for each pixel or region, and then applies a "conversion process" that intelligently resizes the image. (’333 Patent, Abstract). This process shrinks less important regions more than important ones, thereby preserving the content and aspect ratio of significant features like faces or moving objects while fitting the image to the target display. (’333 Patent, col. 2:58-65).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes an automatic and efficient method for "video retargeting" designed to preserve the viewer's experience by maintaining the information content of important regions in the frame. (’333 Patent, col. 2:53-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more claims, identifying independent method claim 5 as a representative example. (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19).
- The essential elements of independent claim 5 are:
- determining an importance value for each input pixels out of multiple input pixels of an input image;
- applying on each of the multiple input pixels a conversion process that is responsive to the importance value of the input pixel to provide multiple output pixels that form the output image;
- wherein the input image differs from the output image;
- wherein a distance between output image representations of a pair of adjacent input pixels is responsive to an importance of at least one of pair of adjacent input pixels.
- The complaint does not specify any dependent claims but reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "Snap's Snapchat app for iOS and Android devices" and, more specifically, a feature identified as "Lenses." (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused Snapchat app is installed and used on devices equipped with a camera, memory, and one or more processors. (Compl. ¶20). According to the allegations, these processors "determine importance values of pixels in an inputted image" and then "create an output image that differs from the inputted image by converting the inputted image based upon the importance values of the pixels." (Compl. ¶20). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the "Lenses" feature or its market position.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
The complaint provides a narrative infringement theory rather than a detailed claim chart. The core allegations for the representative claim are summarized below.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining an importance value for each input pixels out of multiple input pixels of an input image; | The processor(s) on devices running the accused app "determine importance values of pixels in an inputted image." | ¶20 | col. 2:45-47 |
| applying on each of the multiple input pixels a conversion process that is responsive to the importance value of the input pixel to provide multiple output pixels that form the output image; | The processor(s) "create an output image... by converting the inputted image based upon the importance values of the pixels." | ¶20 | col. 2:47-52 |
| wherein the input image differs from the output image; | The processor(s) "create an output image that differs from the inputted image." | ¶20 | col. 2:51-52 |
| wherein a distance between output image representations of a pair of adjacent input pixels is responsive to an importance of at least one of pair of adjacent input pixels. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, though it is encompassed by the general allegation that the conversion is "based upon the importance values of the pixels." | ¶20 | col. 4:40-49 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "importance value". The complaint does not specify what technical aspects (e.g., facial features, motion, color contrast) the Snapchat app allegedly treats as "important." The scope of this term will be critical in determining whether the functionality of the "Lenses" feature, which often involves facial recognition and augmentation, falls within the claims.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner that mirrors the claim language. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused "Lenses" feature performs the specific warping mechanism required by claim 5, namely, a "conversion process" where the "distance between output image representations of a pair of adjacent input pixels" is altered in response to pixel importance. It is an open question whether the accused feature operates via such a spatial re-mapping or through a different technique, such as a graphical overlay, that may not meet this limitation.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "importance value"
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the claimed invention, as the entire conversion process is responsive to it. The definition of what constitutes an "importance value" will likely be a focal point of the dispute, as it dictates the types of image analysis techniques covered by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is a broad measure of content significance, stating it can be a "combination of three factors: a simple, gradient based, local saliency; an off-the-shelf face detector; and a high-end motion detector." (’333 Patent, col. 3:25-30). This could support a construction that covers any numerical representation of a pixel's significance derived from various known analysis techniques.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides specific algorithms and mathematical formulas for calculating importance, such as using the "L2-Norm of the gradient" for local saliency or a specific cubic function for face detection scores. (’333 Patent, col. 4:30-38; col. 5:17-27). This may support a narrower construction limited to the specific methods disclosed or their equivalents.
The Term: "conversion process ... wherein a distance between output image representations of a pair of adjacent input pixels is responsive to an importance..."
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific technical mechanism for resizing the image. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires not just any image alteration, but a specific type of spatial warping. Proving that the accused "Lenses" feature performs this re-mapping of pixel distances will be crucial for the plaintiff's infringement case.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the invention more generally as a "transformation (conversion process) that respects the analysis" and "shrinks less important regions more than important ones." (’333 Patent, col. 2:62-64). This could support a construction covering any process that achieves this functional result.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description teaches a very specific method for this process, explaining that "a pixel with high importance is mapped to a distance of approximately one from its left neighbor, while a pixel of less saliency is mapped closer to its neighbor." (’333 Patent, col. 4:43-49). The specification further discloses that this is accomplished by "solving a sparse linear system of equations." (’333 Patent, col. 5:58-62). This could support a narrower construction tied to this specific mathematical approach to pixel re-mapping.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement theory is based on Snap allegedly encouraging and providing instructions to end users to operate the Snapchat app in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 24). The complaint alleges that Snap has knowledge of the ’333 Patent "at least by virtue of the filing of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶21).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Snap's continued infringing activities after "gaining knowledge of the ’333 patent." (Compl. ¶22). This suggests the claim for willful infringement is based on alleged post-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "importance value", as defined by a patent focused on image retargeting for display on different screens, be construed to cover the feature-detection and image-augmentation functions allegedly performed by the accused "Lenses" feature?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: can the plaintiff provide evidence that the accused product performs the specific spatial warping recited in claim 5—where the distance between output pixel representations is directly responsive to importance—or does the "Lenses" feature operate through a fundamentally different technical process, such as a graphical overlay, that does not meet this claim limitation?