DCT
1:19-cv-24566
Cutting Edge Vision LLC v. BLU Products Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cutting Edge Vision, LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: BLU Products, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lalchandani Simon PL
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-24566, S.D. Fla., 11/04/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is incorporated in the Southern District of Florida and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s camera-enabled mobile devices infringe patents related to voice-controlled camera functions and the automatic uploading of pictures from a device.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns user interface enhancements for smartphone cameras, a critical area of functionality and market differentiation for mobile device manufacturers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a multi-year history of pre-suit contact, beginning with a notice letter on October 7, 2016. Plaintiff claims to have sent detailed infringement charts to Defendant on multiple occasions for the patent family. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff has licensed the technology to several major mobile phone manufacturers, including Samsung, LG, and Sony.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-10-17 | Earliest Priority Date for '827 and '761 Patents |
| 2010-04-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,697,827 Issued |
| 2016-10-07 | Plaintiff first notified Defendant of alleged infringement |
| 2017-12-05 | Defendant acknowledged Plaintiff's correspondence |
| 2018-08-28 | U.S. Patent No. 10,063,761 Issued |
| 2018-08-28 | Alleged infringement of '761 and '827 Patents begins |
| 2018-09-05 | Plaintiff sent Defendant notice and charts for the '761 Patent |
| 2019-11-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,063,761 - “Automatic Upload of Pictures from a Camera,” issued August 28, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes usability challenges with contemporary cameras, including the difficulty of remembering specific voice commands for different functions and non-optimal microphone placement for capturing a user's voice, particularly in self-portrait scenarios. (’761 Patent, col. 1:49-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a camera system with an improved user interface, incorporating features like gaze tracking, touchpad inputs, and enhanced voice recognition. (’761 Patent, Abstract). The asserted claims are directed to a system that automates the uploading of pictures to a remote service via a cellular interface, but with a controller that intelligently manages this process to avoid incurring "potential cellular network access fees," such as when a user is roaming. (’761 Patent, col. 17:1-3).
- Technical Importance: The technology seeks to streamline the photo-sharing process from mobile devices, a core user activity, while adding a layer of cost-management intelligence that is relevant to cellular data plans.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 17. The analysis focuses on claim 1, which is detailed in the complaint body.
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in essence:
- A camera system with standard components (lens, sensor, memory, cellular interface, touch display).
- A controller configured to receive a user's selection of an "upload option" that instructs the device to "confine automatic picture upload to periods without potential cellular network access fees."
- The controller is further configured to automatically upload designated pictures to a remote service after receiving three specific indications: (1) data confirming the upload is allowed per the selected option, (2) an indication the device is connected to the internet, and (3) an indication a user has designated a picture for upload.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-4, 9, 10, and 16. (Compl. ¶¶20, 22).
U.S. Patent No. 7,697,827 - “User-Friendlier Interfaces for a Camera,” issued April 13, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in prior art voice-operated cameras, such as the microphone being poorly placed for self-portraits (when the user is in front of the camera) and the rigid requirement that a user remember one specific command for one specific action. (’827 Patent, col. 1:35-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a camera system with at least two microphones facing in different directions. (’827 Patent, col. 2:50-55). A key aspect is a method for determining which microphone's signal to use for voice recognition, preferably based on the signal strength or sound level received by each. Figure 2 illustrates a circuit that uses an energy detector and a comparator to select the microphone signal with the "greatest energy" to pass to the voice recognition unit. (’827 Patent, col. 4:1-10; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to make voice control of cameras more robust and reliable regardless of the user's position relative to the device, facilitating hands-free operation.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 requires, in essence:
- A camera system with a lens, image sensor, at least two microphones, a voice-recognition unit, and a controller.
- The voice-recognition unit is configured to receive and process first and second sounds from the two microphones that correspond to the same utterance.
- Crucially, the voice-recognition unit is configured to apply a "voice-recognition algorithm based on the energy detected at each of two microphones."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the '827 Patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names a broad list of "camera-enabled mobile devices" sold by Defendant BLU, including the Bold N1, Vivo XL5, and Pure View series, collectively termed the "Accused Devices." (Compl. ¶4). For the infringement count on the '827 patent, the complaint specifically identifies "at least the Vivo XL+." (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Devices possess functionalities that map to the patent claims. For the '761 Patent, this is an "upload option that instructs the device to confine automatic picture upload to periods without potential cellular network access fees (e.g., to upload only when not roaming)." (Compl. ¶21). For the '827 Patent, this is the use of "at least two microphones" where the device is "configured to apply a voice-recognition algorithm based on the energy detected at each of these two microphones." (Compl. ¶28).
- The complaint alleges these devices are sold through Defendant's websites and major U.S. retailers like Amazon, Walmart, and BestBuy. (Compl. ¶4).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,063,761 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a controller configured to: (i) receive, via the touch sensitive display, a user selection of an upload option that instructs the device to confine automatic picture upload to periods without potential cellular network access fees | In each of the Accused ‘761 Devices, the devices include an upload option that instructs the device to confine automatic picture upload to periods without potential cellular network access fees (e.g., to upload only when not roaming). | ¶21 | col. 12:65-13:2 |
| (ii) automatically connect to a remote picture hosting service and cause an upload of...pictures...after receiving: (1) data from the cellular interface used...to determine that the upload is allowed based on the selected upload option, | The upload automatically occurs after the device confirms that upload is allowed during the current period... | ¶21 | col. 17:8-11 |
| (2) an indication that the system is connected to the internet via the cellular interface; and | ...receives an indication that the system is connected to the internet via the cellular interface... | ¶21 | col. 17:12-13 |
| (3) an indication from the local memory that a user has elected an option to designate at least one picture from the group of pictures stored in the local memory to be uploaded... | ...and receives an indication a user has elected an option to designate at least one picture to be uploaded (through a selection of device folders for upload). | ¶21 | col. 17:14-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a standard mobile OS feature, such as a "sync over Wi-Fi only" toggle, meets the specific limitation of confining upload to "periods without potential cellular network access fees." A defendant could argue this claim language implies a more complex determination than a simple network-type check.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the controller acts after receiving three distinct logical inputs. A point of contention may be whether the accused software architecture actually performs these three discrete checks in sequence as claimed, or if the functionality is achieved through a more integrated, singular process that does not map to the claim's step-by-step logic.
7,697,827 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a camera that is operable to take and store pictures, and that includes a lens, an image sensor, at least two microphones, a voice-recognition unit, and a camera controller | at least the Accused ‘827 Devices include a camera that is operable to take and store pictures, a lens, an image sensor, at least two microphones, a voice-recognition unit, and a camera controller. | ¶28 | col. 1:47-51 |
| the first and second sounds correspond to the same utterance, as spoken by a person at a specific time, detected at two microphones | Each of the Accused ‘827 Devices receives sound signals through at least two microphones corresponding to the same utterance... | ¶28 | col. 3:25-30 |
| the voice-recognition unit is configured to apply a voice-recognition algorithm based on the energy detected at each of two microphones. | ...and is configured to apply a voice-recognition algorithm based on the energy detected at each of these two microphones. | ¶28 | col. 4:8-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The key dispute will likely focus on the final element. While many modern smartphones use multiple microphones, they often do so for noise cancellation or beamforming, which involve combining or processing signals from all microphones simultaneously. The question for the court will be whether the accused devices' algorithm functions "based on the energy detected at each" microphone, which suggests the specific energy-based selection mechanism taught in the patent ('827 Patent, col. 4:8-10), or if they use a different, non-infringing multi-microphone technique. The complaint's allegation is conclusory and does not specify how the accused algorithm works.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '827 Patent:
- The Term: "a voice-recognition algorithm based on the energy detected at each of two microphones"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core technical mechanism of the invention. Infringement will depend heavily on whether the accused devices' use of two microphones for voice commands falls within this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification describes a very specific implementation, and modern multi-microphone systems often use alternative approaches like beamforming.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain words "based on" do not require energy to be the sole factor, and that any algorithm that considers the relative energy levels of the microphones as a component of its logic would be covered.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed embodiment where a comparator selects the single microphone output with the "greatest energy" to be passed to the recognition unit. (’827 Patent, col. 4:8-10; Fig. 2). A party could argue this disclosure limits the claim scope to this specific select-one-based-on-energy method, and excludes algorithms that combine or process signals from both microphones for purposes like noise cancellation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks an injunction against inducing or contributing to infringement, but the body of the complaint does not allege specific facts to support these theories, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials that instruct users to perform infringing acts. (Compl., Prayer ¶b).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges a basis for willfulness for both asserted patents. It claims Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of its alleged infringement based on years of correspondence, which included providing "detailed infringement charts." (Compl. ¶¶15-18). The allegations state that Defendant was first notified on October 7, 2016, and was specifically notified of the '761 Patent with charts on September 5, 2018, establishing a timeline for alleged knowledge that may support a finding of willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶15, 16, 24, 30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of algorithmic identity: does the voice recognition software in BLU's smartphones utilize the specific "energy-based" microphone selection method required by the '827 patent's claims, or does it employ more common, and potentially non-infringing, multi-microphone techniques such as noise cancellation or beamforming?
- A key question of evidentiary proof will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused devices' automatic photo upload feature performs the specific three-part sequence of logical checks recited in claim 1 of the '761 patent, or if the accused functionality arises from a different software architecture.
- Given the detailed pre-suit history alleged in the complaint, a significant question for the court will be one of willfulness: if infringement is found, did BLU's conduct after receiving notice and detailed claim charts from Plaintiff rise to the level of objective recklessness required to justify an award of enhanced damages?