DigiMedia Tech LLC v. GoPro Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DigiMedia Tech, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: GoPro, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Kent & Risley LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00069, D. Del., 01/23/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s incorporation and residence in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s action cameras and associated video processing functionalities infringe six patents related to head-tracking, immersive video displays, view path generation, and video compression.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve advanced digital video processing and encoding, core functionalities for the consumer and professional action camera market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff, through its agents and counsel, contacted Defendant on at least five occasions between March 2020 and January 2021, providing notice of the patent portfolio and, in some instances, sample infringement charts for patents-in-suit. Plaintiff claims Defendant never responded to these communications, a fact pattern central to the allegations of willful infringement. An inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2022-01182) resulted in the cancellation of claim 6 of the ’532 patent, on which the asserted claim 12 depends.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,715,476, "System, Method and Article of Manufacture for Tracking a Head of a Camera-Generated Image of a Person," Issued May 11, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty of reliably tracking a person’s head in a video image when relying on a single technique, as features like shape, color, or motion can confuse the head with other body parts (e.g., a hand) or background elements (Compl. ¶18; ’476 Patent, col. 1:65-2:7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to improve tracking reliability by applying at least two different techniques to identify the head. Each technique generates a separate confidence value, and the final determination of the head's location is based on a combination of these values, creating a more robust system than one relying on a single method (Compl. ¶20; ’476 Patent, col. 5:36-53).
• Technical Importance: This approach is described as a technical solution to improve automated camera features, such as auto-focus, particularly for untrained users capturing candid shots of moving subjects (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts dependent claim 13, which incorporates independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶21, 116).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • obtaining images of a subject;
  • generating a first confidence value representing a confidence that a first process has identified a location of a head portion;
  • generating a second confidence value representing a confidence that a second, different process has identified the location of the head portion; and
  • identifying the location of the head portion based at least in part on the first and second confidence values.

U.S. Patent No. 6,545,706, "System, Method and Article of Manufacture for Tracking a Head of a Camera-Generated Image of a Person," Issued April 8, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As the parent patent to the ’476 patent, the ’706 patent addresses the same technical problem: the unreliability of using a single method to identify a person's head in a video image due to potential confusion with other objects ('706 Patent, col. 1:65-2:7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides for executing a first head tracking operation to generate a first confidence value and a second head tracking operation to generate a second confidence value. The system then outputs both values, and the depiction of the head is based on these combined values, leveraging redundancy to improve accuracy ('706 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:36-53).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this technology provides a technical solution for focusing a digital camera, a task that is difficult for untrained users and for candid photography (Compl. ¶19, referenced by ¶40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶123).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • receiving video images;
  • executing a first head tracking operation for generating a first confidence value;
  • executing a second head tracking operation for generating a second confidence value; and
  • outputting the first and second confidence values, wherein the depiction of the head portion is based on both values.

U.S. Patent No. 6,567,086, "Immersive Video System Using Multiple Video Streams," Issued May 20, 2003

Technology Synopsis

• The patent addresses the challenge of increasing the resolution and quality of immersive or 360-degree video. The proposed solution uses a plurality of overlapping video streams, allowing a user to select a preferred "active" stream for a specific viewing angle, which is then decoded to generate a higher-resolution image for that view than would be possible with a single, all-encompassing video environment (Compl. ¶¶48-49).

Asserted Claims

• Independent claim 24 (Compl. ¶129).

Accused Features

• The video processing functionality of the Defendant’s GoPro Max 360 Camera (Compl. ¶¶129-130).

U.S. Patent No. 6,741,250, "Method and System for Generation of Multiple Viewpoints into a Scene Viewed by Motionless Cameras and for Presentation of a View Path," Issued May 25, 2004

Technology Synopsis

• The patent is directed to the technical problem of viewing portions of a wide field-of-view video stream without the distortion inherent in such wide-angle capture. The invention is a method of recording a video stream with distorted frames, designating a segment of that stream, and then specifying a "view path" through the segment to generate a view with reduced distortion (Compl. ¶¶68-69).

Asserted Claims

• Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶136).

Accused Features

• The video processing functionality of the Defendant’s GoPro Max 360 and Fusion Cameras (Compl. ¶¶136-137).

U.S. Patent No. 6,473,532, "Method and Apparatus for Visual Lossless Image Syntactic Encoding," Issued October 29, 2002

Technology Synopsis

• This patent addresses the technical problem of compressing video efficiently without creating visually detectable artifacts. The solution involves analyzing video frames to define "visual perception thresholds," classifying picture elements into subclasses based on these thresholds, and then transforming the elements according to their subclass to achieve visually lossless compression (Compl. ¶¶85-86). An inter partes review certificate issued March 28, 2024, states that independent claim 6 of this patent is cancelled (’532 Patent IPR Certificate, p. 2).

Asserted Claims

• Dependent claim 12, which depends from the cancelled independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶143).

Accused Features

• The "video recording functionality" of Defendant’s products (Compl. ¶144).

U.S. Patent No. 6,744,818, "Method and Apparatus for Visual Perception Encoding," Issued June 1, 2004

Technology Synopsis

• The patent aims to solve the problem of reducing "perceptual redundancy," a type of redundancy in video signals that standard compression techniques allegedly do not address well. The invention is a video encoding system that uses a visual perception estimator and a "compression dependent threshold" to filter pixels, which is claimed to enable smaller file sizes at a given level of quality and improve on prior art computing technology (Compl. ¶¶102-104).

Asserted Claims

• Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶150).

Accused Features

• Defendant’s GoPro cameras that utilize H.264/AVC encoding (Compl. ¶150).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s GoPro Hero 7, Hero 8, Max 360, and Fusion cameras, as well as their associated video recording and processing functionalities (Compl. ¶¶116, 129, 136, 144, 150).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these products incorporate specific technologies corresponding to the patents-in-suit. This includes "head-tracking functionality" in the Hero 7 and 8 models, video processing for immersive 360-degree video in the Max 360 and Fusion models, and specific "visual perception encoding" and "H.264/AVC encoding" methods across its camera lines (Compl. ¶¶117, 130, 137, 144, 150). The complaint does not provide specific details on the commercial importance or market positioning of these products beyond identifying them as GoPro products.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent but does not include them in the filing. The infringement allegations are therefore summarized from the complaint’s narrative.

• ’476 and ’706 Patent Allegations: The complaint alleges that the "head-tracking functionality" of the GoPro Hero 7 and Hero 8 cameras infringes these patents (Compl. ¶¶116-117, 123-124). The core of the infringement theory is that these cameras perform the patented method of using two different tracking processes, generating distinct confidence values from each, and then using both values to identify a person's head in the video feed.
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not explain how the accused head-tracking feature technically operates. A central question will be whether discovery reveals that GoPro’s cameras actually employ two separate and "different" processes as required by the claims, or if they use a single, integrated algorithm that may not map onto the claimed steps. The evidence supporting the use of two distinct "confidence values" that are subsequently combined will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a second, different process" (’476 Patent, Claim 1) and "a second head tracking operation" (’706 Patent, Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: The inventive concept of the ’476 and ’706 patents rests on the use of two distinct, redundant processes to achieve higher tracking accuracy. The construction of "different" is therefore central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute may turn on whether GoPro’s potentially integrated software feature can be conceptually divided into two "different" processes that meet the claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’706 patent discloses multiple distinct tracking methods, such as "background subtraction" and "free form head tracker," as examples of the two operations ('706 Patent, Fig. 2). A broad interpretation could argue that any two algorithmic approaches that are not mathematically identical, even if executed within the same software module, qualify as "different."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents illustrate the two operations as distinct functional blocks (e.g., "background subtraction head tracker 200" and "free form head tracker 202") whose outputs are fed to a separate "mediator 204" ('706 Patent, Fig. 2). A narrow interpretation could require evidence of two fundamentally separate and independent modules or routines, not merely different analytical steps within a single, unified feature.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all six patents. The factual basis asserted is that Defendant provides instructional and marketing materials that encourage and teach end-users to use the accused functionalities (e.g., head-tracking), thereby causing direct infringement by those users (Compl. ¶¶118, 131, 138, 151).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’476, ’086, ’250, and ’818 patents. The allegations are based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from a series of letters and emails sent to Defendant between March 2020 and January 2021. The complaint alleges these communications identified the patents-in-suit and that Defendant’s continued sales after receiving such notice constitute willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶6-9, 120, 132, 139, 152).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What technical evidence will emerge in discovery to demonstrate that the accused GoPro camera functionalities, described in general terms like "head-tracking," actually operate in the specific, multi-step manner required by the asserted claims? The viability of the infringement case for the head-tracking patents (’476 and ’706), for example, will depend on proving the use of two genuinely "different" processes.
• A dispositive threshold question will be one of patent validity: For U.S. Patent No. 6,473,532, can asserted dependent claim 12 be infringed when its underlying independent claim 6 was cancelled in a prior inter partes review? The answer to this question may determine the viability of an entire count of the complaint.
• A key question for damages will be willfulness: Did Defendant’s alleged failure to respond to a series of specific, pre-suit notice letters from Plaintiff constitute objective recklessness sufficient to support a finding of willfulness and potential enhancement of damages?