Secure Cam LLC v. Lathem Time Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Secure Cam, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Lathem Time Corporation (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: KENT & RISLEY LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-02663, N.D. Ga., 05/30/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because the Defendant is incorporated in Georgia, maintains its principal place of business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Face Recognition Time Clock infringes patents related to automatically analyzing and categorizing digital images within an imaging device at the time of capture.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves embedding analytical capabilities within a digital imaging device to automatically generate and attach descriptive tags to images as they are taken, aiming to eliminate the need for manual post-capture sorting.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts two patents from the same family; U.S. Patent No. 8,531,555 is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,350,928, and they share a common specification. The patents claim priority back to a 1998 application, suggesting a long developmental and prosecution history.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,350,928 - Method and Apparatus for Automatically Categorizing Images in a Digital Camera

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,350,928, titled Method and Apparatus for Automatically Categorizing Images in a Digital Camera, issued on January 8, 2013. (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the "cumbersome and time-consuming task" of a camera user manually viewing, identifying, and tagging individual images to sort them into categories. (’928 Patent, col. 1:47-53). It notes that such manual systems lack efficiency, particularly as the number of images increases. (’928 Patent, col. 1:60-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a digital camera system that automates this process by performing image analysis at the moment of capture. (’928 Patent, col. 2:13-16). An "analysis module" within the camera examines the image data and automatically generates a "category tag," which is then stored in association with the image file, enabling subsequent automatic sorting and retrieval. (’928 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: This automated, on-device categorization was designed to provide a "significant improvement in efficient functionality" over prior art systems that relied on manual user input or post-capture processing on a separate computer. (’928 Patent, col. 2:3-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶20).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A digital camera for automatically categorizing captured image data, the digital camera comprising:
  • a processor within the digital camera for capturing image data;
  • an analysis module within the digital camera coupled to the processor and configured to perform image data analysis on the captured image data at the time of image capture by the digital camera and to automatically generate, responsive to the preformed image data analysis, a category tag for the captured image data; and
  • a memory for storing the generated category tag in association with the captured image data for categorizing the captured image data.

U.S. Patent No. 8,531,555 - Method and Apparatus for Automatically Categorizing Images in a Digital Camera

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,531,555, titled Method and Apparatus for Automatically Categorizing Images in a Digital Camera, issued on September 10, 2013. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '928 Patent that shares a common specification, the '555 Patent addresses the same problem of inefficient manual categorization of digital images. (Compl. ¶14; ’555 Patent, col. 1:37-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is claimed as a "device" comprising a "processing circuit" that automatically generates at least one tag for a captured image by analyzing associated data "at a time of image capture," and a "memory circuit" to store that tag with the image data for categorization. (’555 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The solution provides an "efficient system and method for automatically analysis and categorization of captured images in an electronic imaging device." (’555 Patent, col. 2:60-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶30).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A device, comprising:
  • a processing circuit configured to automatically generate at least one tag for an image captured using the device in response to analyzing data associated with the image at a time of image capture; and
  • a memory circuit configured to store the at least one tag with the data to thereby categorize the image.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "Face Recognition Time Clock, and other as-yet-unknown products with similar functionality." (Compl. ¶21, ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the technical operation or features of the Face Recognition Time Clock. Its allegations are limited to naming the product and asserting that it possesses functionality that infringes the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶21, ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that preliminary infringement claim charts for Claim 1 of the '928 Patent and Claim 1 of the '555 Patent are attached as Exhibits C and D, respectively. (Compl. ¶22, ¶32). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The infringement theory is therefore based on the general assertion that "each and every element" of the respective claims is found in the Accused Product(s). (Compl. ¶23, ¶33). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and lack specific factual support mapping elements of the accused device to the patent claims. A primary point of contention may be whether the allegations meet the plausibility standard for patent complaints established by Iqbal and Twombly, particularly given the absence of the referenced claim chart exhibits.
  • Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether a "Face Recognition Time Clock" is a "digital camera" as recited in Claim 1 of the ’928 Patent. The defense may argue that the patent teaches a general-purpose photographic device, whereas the accused product is a specialized device for security or human resources.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question is what analysis the accused time clock performs and what data it generates. The court will need to determine if identifying a person for a time log constitutes performing "image data analysis" to generate a "category tag" as those terms are used in the patents, which provide examples of categorization based on image content like "nature scenes" or "flesh tones." (’928 Patent, col. 6:41-49).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "digital camera" (preamble, Claim 1 of '928 Patent)

Context and Importance

• The applicability of the '928 Patent to the accused product hinges on this term's construction. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused "Face Recognition Time Clock" has a different primary purpose than a typical consumer camera.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation

• The patent defines a "digital camera 110" as comprising an "imaging device 114" and a "camera computer 118." (’928 Patent, col. 3:56-59). Plaintiff may argue this structural definition is broad enough to read on any device that captures and processes images, including the accused product.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation

• The specification's background discusses the problems faced by a "camera user" capturing "a number of digital images," suggesting a general photography context. (’928 Patent, col. 1:43-45). The detailed description and figures illustrate features common to consumer cameras, such as a "four-way navigation control button" and various user-selectable modes like "review mode" and "play mode," which may not be present in a fixed time clock. (’928 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 5:26-31).

The Term: "category tag" (Claim 1 of '928 Patent; implied in '555 Patent)

Context and Importance

• The definition of this term is critical to determining whether the function performed by the accused product is the same as that claimed by the patents. The dispute may turn on whether an employee identifier or a timestamp constitutes a "category tag."

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation

• The abstract states the tag is generated "for categorizing the captured image data." (’928 Patent, Abstract). Plaintiff could argue that any data tag that allows for sorting images into groups (e.g., by employee) meets this functional definition.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation

• The specification provides examples of "image category" types based on an analysis of the image's visual content, such as "person or groups of people," "nature scenes," "city images," and "indoor images." (’928 Patent, col. 6:41-49). Figure 9 further distinguishes "Category Tags (735)" from other tags like "User Tags (715)." (’928 Patent, Fig. 9). Defendant may argue that a "category tag" must be derived from the visual content of the image itself, rather than external metadata associated with it.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "digital camera," as used in the '928 Patent in the context of general photography, be construed to cover a specialized "Face Recognition Time Clock"?
• A key question will be one of functional equivalence: Does the data generated by the accused product (e.g., an employee ID) constitute the "category tag" taught by the patents, which describe tags generated from analyzing an image’s intrinsic visual content (e.g., detecting a landscape or cityscape)?
• An initial procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: In the absence of the referenced claim charts and specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations, does the complaint state a plausible claim for infringement sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss?