DCT

1:23-cv-01012

ImmerVision Inc v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01012, D. Del., 09/15/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Apple Inc. having a regular and established place of business within the District of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iPhone 15, 15 Plus, 15 Pro, and 15 Pro Max smartphones infringe a patent related to miniature wide-angle imaging lenses.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns compact, high-performance wide-angle lens systems designed to maintain high image quality across the entire field of view in devices with physical size constraints, such as smartphone cameras.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that this action follows a prior lawsuit filed by ImmerVision against Apple in the same district (the "1570 Action") asserting the same patent against older iPhone models (13 and 14 series). ImmerVision alleges it provided Apple with detailed infringement contentions and claim charts in that prior case, placing Apple on notice of its infringement theories before the launch of the currently accused iPhone 15 products. This history is central to the complaint’s allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-12-23 '120 Patent Priority Date
2020-10-06 '120 Patent Issue Date
2021-11-03 Prior lawsuit filed against Apple (1570 Action) for iPhone 13
2022-09-16 Apple allegedly notified of infringement by iPhone 14 models
2022-11-01 Infringement Contentions for iPhone 13/14 served on Apple in prior suit
2023-05-10 Plaintiff's counsel allegedly emailed Apple's counsel re: willfulness
2023-08-24 Deadline to add new accused products to prior lawsuit passed
2023-09-12 Apple announced iPhone 15 series
2023-09-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,795,120, “Miniature Wide-Angle Imaging Lens,” issued October 6, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of designing wide-angle lenses for miniature applications like mobile devices, where there is a trend toward thinner lenses and larger image sensors ('120 Patent, col. 1:25-31). In conventional wide-angle lenses, image quality tends to degrade toward the edges of the field of view, suffering from lower "relative illumination" and a drop in the "modulation transfer function (MTF)," which measures sharpness ('120 Patent, col. 1:52-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a miniature wide-angle optical apparatus that uses a "non-linear targeted resolution" to counteract this edge degradation ('120 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:16-20). This involves intentionally creating a zone in the captured image with a different "object to image magnification" compared to a standard linear lens. This non-linear mapping is used to compensate, at least in part, for the drop in illumination or MTF, thereby creating a final image with more consistent quality across the entire field of view ('120 Patent, col. 7:20-28; col. 2:50-62).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the production of highly compact wide-angle lenses that can deliver the high and consistent image quality demanded by modern, high-resolution smartphone cameras ('120 Patent, col. 1:47-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • A light-receiving first surface and a focal plane.
    • A "miniaturization ratio" (total track length divided by image circle diameter) of less than 3.0.
    • An opening angle of light entering the apparatus of over 100°.
    • A "non-linear targeted resolution" that intentionally creates a zone in the image with a "lower or higher object to image magnification" compared to a linear system.
    • This non-linear resolution is used to "compensate, at least in part, for a lower image quality due to at least one of a drop of relative illumination or a drop of MTF in a zone of the image."
  • The complaint notes that dependent claims 3-5 and 7 were asserted in the prior litigation against similar products (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The iPhones 15, 15 Plus, 15 Pro, and 15 Pro Max (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these iPhone models contain an "ultra wide lens and camera assembly" (Compl. ¶25, 26). The infringement allegations center on the optical and functional characteristics of this specific camera system.
  • The complaint asserts that the assemblies in the iPhone 15 and 15 Plus are the "same" as those in the previously accused iPhone 14 and 14 Plus, and likewise for the Pro models (Compl. ¶25, 26). This assertion forms the basis for claiming Apple had pre-launch knowledge of infringement.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain an embedded claim chart or attached exhibits detailing the infringement allegations against the iPhone 15 models. Instead, it alleges that the new products infringe "in the same way" as the prior-generation iPhone 14 models, for which it claims to have provided detailed claim charts to Apple in a separate litigation (Compl. ¶32).

The narrative infringement theory is that the "ultra wide lens and camera assembly" in the accused iPhones meets all limitations of at least claim 1 of the ’120 Patent (Compl. ¶25-27, 32). The core of the allegation appears to be that the accused camera systems possess the claimed physical characteristics (e.g., a miniaturization ratio below 3.0) and, crucially, implement the claimed "non-linear targeted resolution." This implies an assertion that Apple’s camera systems intentionally vary the mapping of the image onto the sensor to actively compensate for known optical degradations like lower sharpness or brightness at the edges of the wide-angle view, as described in the patent ('120 Patent, col. 7:16-28).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: What evidence demonstrates that the accused iPhone camera systems implement the specific function of "non-linear targeted resolution" for the purpose of compensating for a drop in MTF or relative illumination? The case may turn on whether Apple's image processing can be shown to perform this claimed function, as opposed to correcting for other optical effects like geometric distortion using different techniques.
    • Scope Question: A central dispute may arise over whether the term "object to image magnification," as used in the patent, refers to a purely optical property of the lens elements themselves, or if it can be read to cover the effective pixel density created by a combination of optics and subsequent digital image processing.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "non-linear targeted resolution"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central inventive concept of claim 1 and is not a standard term of art. Its construction will likely be determinative of infringement, as it defines the specific functional improvement over the prior art.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be construed broadly to cover any intentional, non-uniform mapping of an image onto a sensor that is implemented "to compensate, at least in part, for a lower image quality" ('120 Patent, col. 7:26-28). The specification’s goal of producing "the optimal image quality for the whole lens plus camera system" could support a focus on the result rather than the specific method ('120 Patent, col. 2:57-62).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is limited by the patent's specific embodiments, such as the resolution curves shown in Figures 6 and 7, which depict a specific profile of pixel-per-degree resolution across the field of view ('120 Patent, col. 6:8-28). This interpretation would require the accused device to implement a similar, specifically engineered resolution profile.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Apple’s purported knowledge of the ’120 Patent and its infringement since at least November 3, 2021, the filing date of the first lawsuit (Compl. ¶15, 21). The allegations are strengthened by references to specific events, including the service of infringement contentions for similar products on November 1, 2022, and direct email communications with Apple's counsel regarding willfulness on May 10, 2023 (Compl. ¶18, 19). The core of the willfulness claim is that Apple proceeded to launch the iPhone 15 series with the "same infringing components" despite this detailed, pre-existing notice of infringement (Compl. ¶22).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "non-linear targeted resolution", which is central to the patent’s claims, be interpreted to cover the combination of optical design and digital image processing used in Apple’s iPhone cameras, or is its meaning confined to the specific optical design methodologies detailed in the patent’s embodiments?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: Can ImmerVision demonstrate through technical evidence that the accused iPhone camera systems intentionally vary the "object to image magnification" across the sensor for the specific purpose of compensating for drops in sharpness (MTF) or illumination, as required by the claim, rather than for other reasons such as correcting geometric distortion?
  • Finally, the extensive procedural history cited in the complaint raises a significant question regarding willfulness: Did Apple's alleged decision to release the iPhone 15 series with camera components it knew were already accused of infringement in a prior, ongoing litigation constitute the type of egregious conduct that warrants a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages?