Diversified Observation LLC v. Panasonic Corp Of North America

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Diversified Observation LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Panasonic Corporation of North America (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Toler Law Group, PC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01409, D. Del., 10/07/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has purposefully availed itself of the rights and benefits of Delaware law through systematic and continuous contacts.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s multifunction printers and document scanners infringe five U.S. patents related to the mechanical design, motor control, and image processing functions of scanners.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern the design of core components in modern flatbed and document-fed scanners, including the mechanisms for guiding the sensor, reducing friction, controlling motor torque, and automatically correcting image defects.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant has previously conceded to personal jurisdiction and venue in the District of Delaware in unrelated patent infringement cases.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,857,133 - Information Reading Apparatus Having a Contact Image Sensor

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,857,133, “Information Reading Apparatus Having a Contact Image Sensor,” issued January 5, 1999 (Compl. ¶8).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that scanners using a Contact Image Sensor (CIS) have a very shallow depth of field (approx. 0.3 mm), making it difficult to keep the document in focus if the scanner’s internal structure is not perfectly manufactured or aligned ('133 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a simplified and more robust mechanical design. It uses a single guiding means, such as a central rail, to both support and guide the moving CIS carriage. The carriage is actively pushed upwards against the scanner glass by elastic elements (e.g., springs) located beneath the guide rail, ensuring the CIS maintains a constant, tight contact and proper focus, even with minor structural distortions ('133 Patent, col. 2:1-12; Fig. 1A).
• Technical Importance: This design sought to simplify the scanner's internal assembly and improve image quality consistency for CIS-based scanners by directly addressing the technology's sensitivity to focus distance ('133 Patent, col. 2:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • An image information reading apparatus with a housing and a sheet table on top.
  • A CIS module carried by a carriage beneath the sheet table, with a plurality of slide-blocks on its top surface.
  • A "single guiding means" crossed over the carriage's bottom center, mounted on supports at opposite ends.
  • The guiding means holds the carriage so the CIS module contacts the sheet table tightly with the slide-blocks in between.
  • A "driving means" at one side of the guiding means moves the carriage reciprocally (Compl. ¶16).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,008,485 - Image Capturing Device Having De-Friction Function

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,008,485, “Image Capturing Device Having De-Friction Function,” issued December 28, 1999 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent notes that traditional CIS modules often use friction pads that create a "face contact" with the scanner platform. This large contact area generates significant frictional resistance as the sensor module moves during a scan ('485 Patent, col. 1:29-40).
• The Patented Solution: To reduce this friction, the invention replaces flat pads with "at least a spherical element," such as a ball bearing, on the surface of the sensor's accommodation base. These elements create a "point contact" with the platform, which minimizes friction. An elastic force (e.g., from a spring) biases the spherical elements against the platform, maintaining the necessary gap for focus while allowing the module to move more freely ('485 Patent, col. 2:45-62; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: By reducing frictional resistance, this design could enable smoother scanner operation and potentially allow for the use of less powerful or less energy-intensive drive motors ('485 Patent, col. 2:59-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • An image capturing device with a rectangular platform.
  • An image sensing module, which includes a sensor means and an accommodation base.
  • A supporting member beneath the module to drive it and provide an elastic force.
  • Wherein "at least a spherical element" is on the accommodation base's first surface.
  • The spherical element is biased against the platform by the elastic force, maintaining a gap between the sensor's contact surface and the platform (Compl. ¶30).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,414,461 - Scanner that Controls Stepping Motor Torque

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,414,461, “Scanner that Controls Stepping Motor Torque,” issued July 2, 2002 (Compl. ¶10).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the issue of scanner stepping motors producing a fixed, and often excessive, torque regardless of the required scanning speed, leading to noise and vibration ('461 Patent, col. 1:24-40). The invention discloses a control circuit that uses a memory storing a "torque table"; the circuit selects an appropriate torque value from this table based on a predetermined condition (e.g., scan resolution) and directs the motor to generate only the necessary torque for a given task ('461 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
• Accused Features: The Panasonic KX-MB2030's control circuit, including its processor and memory, is alleged to use a "Correspondent table of operation" from its service manual to select different torque values for its stepping motor based on scan resolution and color settings, as shown in a system schematic (Compl. ¶53, ¶55; Compl. p. 24).

U.S. Patent No. 6,449,397 - Image Processing System for Scanning a Rectangular Document

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,449,397, “Image Processing System for Scanning a Rectangular Document,” issued September 10, 2002 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent targets the problem of skewed images resulting from improper document placement or scanner misalignment ('397 Patent, col. 1:17-31). The solution is a software-based image processing system that detects both the overall "tilting angle" of a scanned document image and the "angle variation" of its corners. The program then uses this information to computationally correct the image, producing a properly aligned, rectangular final image ('397 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
• Accused Features: The Panasonic KV-S7075C scanner is accused in conjunction with its bundled RTIV software. The software's "Automatic Deskew" feature, which is alleged to digitally correct skewed documents, is identified as the infringing image processing program (Compl. ¶64, ¶68; Compl. p. 39).

U.S. Patent No. 6,522,432 - Image Scanner with Automatic Signal Compensation

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,522,432, “Image Scanner with Automatic Signal Compensation,” issued February 18, 2003 (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses signal instability caused by variations in a scanner's light source, such as a lamp warming up ('432 Patent, col. 1:10-20). The invention adds a "test region" (e.g., a white reference strip) inside the scanner. The image sensor reads both the document and this test region, generating an image signal and a brightness signal, respectively. A signal compensation circuit then uses the live brightness signal from the test region to adjust the image signal, compensating for any fluctuations in the light source ('432 Patent, col. 2:1-11).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶72).
• Accused Features: The Panasonic KX-MB2030's scanner module is alleged to include a test region and a CIS module that generates both image and brightness signals from the document and test region. Oscilloscope waveforms are provided as evidence of these signals (Compl. ¶81-84; Compl. p. 45-47). A specific integrated circuit (Wolfson WM8152) is identified as the infringing "signal compensation circuit" that processes and adjusts these signals (Compl. ¶88).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses the Panasonic KX-MB2030, a multifunction printer with scanning capabilities, and the Panasonic KV-S7075C, a document scanner (Compl. ¶15, ¶29, ¶43, ¶59, ¶72).

Functionality and Market Context

• The infringement allegations against the Panasonic KX-MB2030 focus on its internal hardware components. These include the mechanical assembly for the scanner (the CIS carriage, guide rail, and drive belt), the electronic motor control circuits, and the analog-front-end (AFE) integrated circuit used for signal processing (Compl. ¶17-25, ¶46, ¶88). An image from the complaint shows the internal drive mechanism, including a motor, belt, and guide rail, which is central to the allegations (Compl. ¶24; Compl. p. 10).
• The infringement allegations against the Panasonic KV-S7075C focus on the scanner operating as a system in conjunction with its accompanying software. Specifically, the "RTIV" software and its "Automatic Deskew" feature are alleged to perform the claimed image processing steps (Compl. ¶64, ¶68).
• The complaint does not provide detail for analysis of the products' commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’133 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "single guiding means." The defense could argue that other structures within the scanner contribute to guiding the carriage, and thus the accused device does not rely on a "single" means in the manner claimed by the patent, which emphasizes achieving balance with a single central structure.
• Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the contact between the slide blocks and the sheet table is "tightly" maintained because of the claimed configuration of the single guiding means and its supports, as required by the claim?

’485 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The primary dispute will likely concern the term "spherical element". Does this term, which the patent specification prefers to be a "ball bearing" made of "steel or rubby," read on the molded plastic nubs/sliders of the accused device? The answer will likely depend on claim construction.
• Technical Questions: Do the accused plastic nubs actually provide the "de-friction function" through "point contact" as described in the patent, or do they function more like low-friction slide blocks, which could create a factual dispute over the mechanism of operation?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Patent: ’133 Patent

• The Term: "single guiding means"
• Context and Importance: The patent’s asserted novelty rests on using a "single" means to achieve balanced support and guidance. The scope of this term is critical because if other components are found to contribute to guidance in a significant way, the accused device may not meet this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose material or structural limitations beyond being "single." The specification notes the means "can be a rail shaft, a transmission shaft or a guiding shaft" ('133 Patent, col. 3:16–17), suggesting some flexibility in form.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the means to be "crossed over the bottom center of said carriage for guiding said carriage." The specification further emphasizes that this arrangement is for "supporting the CIS carriage in balance" ('133 Patent, col. 3:18–20). A party could argue this requires a specific central location and balancing function that goes beyond merely having one guide rail.

Patent: ’485 Patent

• The Term: "spherical element"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of the patent's "de-friction function." The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused product's plastic nubs fall within the definition of "spherical element." Practitioners may focus on this term because there is a potential mismatch between the patent's preferred embodiment (ball bearings) and the accused feature (plastic sliders).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "spherical element" without specifying a material or requiring a perfect sphere. A party could argue that any element with a rounded contact surface that achieves "point contact" to reduce friction meets the definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that the element is "prefera[b]ly made of harder materials, e.g. steel or rubby" and that a "Ball bearing is preferred" ('485 Patent, col. 2:46–49). A party could argue that these statements limit the term to hard, rolling spheres, and that softer, non-rolling plastic nubs are excluded from the scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts for indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or (c). The infringement allegations are limited to direct infringement under § 271(a) (Compl. ¶15, ¶29, ¶43, ¶59, ¶72).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or plead facts that would typically support such a claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285," which relates to an award of attorneys' fees (Compl. p. 53, D).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "spherical element" from the ’485 patent, which the specification describes as a hard "ball bearing," be construed to cover the molded plastic nubs used in the accused scanner to reduce friction? This is a fundamental claim construction question with significant implications for infringement.
• A second key question will be one of structural and functional correspondence: does the accused scanner's single guide rod and support assembly meet the "single guiding means" limitation of the ’133 patent, which is described as uniquely providing balance and tight contact for the CIS carriage? The analysis may turn on whether other components in the accused device also contribute to guidance.
• Finally, an evidentiary question for the system-level patents (’461, ’397, ’432) will be whether the evidence from service manuals, marketing materials, and component datasheets is sufficient to prove that the accused products, as sold, necessarily operate in an infringing manner and meet every element of the respective claims.