DCT

1:24-cv-03096

Illumafinity LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Illumafinity, LLC (Texas)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03096, N.D. Ill., 04/17/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' business activities directed toward consumers in Illinois through interactive commercial internet stores, specifically Amazon Storefronts.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ multi-camera capture systems, sold online, infringe a patent related to mechanical structures for aligning such systems to film a subject.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the creation of immersive, 360-degree video, a field relevant to event videography, social media content, and virtual reality, by providing a physical apparatus to avoid common video distortions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit was previously licensed to numerous U.S. and foreign companies. The patent has expired, and the lawsuit seeks damages for past infringement during the patent's term.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-07-27 '637 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2006-03-14 '637 Patent Issue Date
2021-07-27 '637 Patent Expiration Date (20 years from filing)
2024-04-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,012,637, "Capture structure for alignment of multi-camera capture systems," issued March 14, 2006.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In multi-camera systems used to create immersive or 360-degree videos, visible "seams" can appear where the fields of view from adjacent cameras are stitched together. When a moving subject crosses one of these seams, it can cause noticeable visual distortions that are difficult to eliminate through software processing ('637 Patent, col. 3:5-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a physical "capture structure" designed to prevent a subject from crossing a video seam. The solution involves mechanically constraining the subject and the camera system. In one key embodiment, a camera platform holding the camera system moves along a circular track that encompasses a "subject platform." This arrangement allows the camera to orbit the subject, keeping the subject centered within the field of view of a single camera and thereby avoiding a seam-crossing event ('637 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:13-26).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a mechanical method to solve the inherent parallax and seam-crossing problems in multi-camera video capture, aiming to produce higher-quality immersive content with less reliance on complex digital correction ('637 Patent, col. 4:20-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 8 and 15 ('637 Patent, Compl. ¶26).
  • Independent Claim 8 recites a capture structure comprising:
    • a circular track system;
    • a camera platform configured to hold the multi-camera capture system and move along the track; and
    • a subject platform encompassed by the circular track system.
  • Independent Claim 15 recites a method of operating a multi-camera capture system, comprising:
    • mounting the system to a camera platform; and
    • moving the camera platform along a circular track system while capturing a subject located within that track system.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" in a non-proffered Exhibit B and describes them generally as products that operate with a "circular track system and multi-camera capture system" (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26). These are commonly marketed as 360-degree photo or video booths.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are sold by the various Defendants through interactive Amazon Storefronts (Compl. ¶2). It further alleges that the products are "likely sourced from the same supplier" and share common features, such as the use of a circular track and multi-camera setup (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not included with the filing; therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 8 (a system claim) and claim 15 (a method claim) of the ’637 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27). The infringement theory for claim 8 is that the Accused Products embody the claimed "capture structure," which includes a "camera platform and a circular track system" (Compl. ¶21). The allegations suggest the products, as sold, are comprised of a circular track, a camera-holding platform that moves on that track, and a space for a person to stand that functions as the "subject platform" ('637 Patent, col. 8:46-53; Compl. ¶17).

For method claim 15, the infringement theory is that the Accused Products, "when placed into operation by Defendant or its end users," perform the claimed method (Compl. ¶27). This involves the steps of mounting a camera and moving the platform along the track to capture a subject, which is the intended use of a 360-degree photo booth ('637 Patent, col. 10:10-16).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused devices, which might simply use the floor as the area for a person to stand, contain a "subject platform" as required by claim 8. The defense may argue that the claim requires a discrete, structural element as shown in the patent's figures ('637 Patent, Fig. 7), not merely an open space.
    • Technical Questions: For both claims, a point of contention may be whether the accused devices' camera mounts are "configured to move along the circular track system" in the manner contemplated by the patent. The analysis may turn on the specific mechanical capabilities and design of the accused camera mounts, as compared to the embodiments described in the patent specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "subject platform"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 8 and is critical to the infringement analysis. If the accused devices are found to lack a "subject platform," they cannot infringe this claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products are likely 360-degree photo booths where users stand on the venue floor, raising the question of what constitutes the "platform."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify that the platform must be elevated or structurally distinct from the ground, only that it is "encompassed by the circular track system" ('637 Patent, col. 8:53). This could support an interpretation where any designated area for the subject to stand qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Every figure in the patent that illustrates this concept depicts a discrete, bounded structure labeled "subject platform 730" ('637 Patent, Figs. 7, 9, 10). Further, the abstract describes an embodiment where the subject platform is physically "connected" to the camera platform, suggesting a specific structural component rather than an undefined area ('637 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement occurs when the products are operated by "end user customers," which suggests a theory of induced infringement (Compl. ¶25). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the element of intent, such as referencing user manuals or instructions that direct users to perform the patented method.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" as an "interrelated group of infringers" (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 13). The complaint does not allege specific facts indicating pre-suit knowledge of the ’637 Patent, such as a cease-and-desist letter or prior litigation involving the same patent.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "subject platform," which is depicted as a discrete physical structure in the patent's embodiments, be construed to read on the floor area inside the circular track of the accused 360-degree photo booths?
  2. A second key question will be one of joinder and proof: can the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to treat the numerous foreign entities listed in "Schedule A" as a single "interrelated group" for purposes of liability, and can it meet its evidentiary burden to prove infringement against these disparate online storefronts?
  3. A final evidentiary question will be one of demonstrated use: for the asserted method claim 15, what evidence will Plaintiff offer to prove that the accused products were actually operated in an infringing manner (i.e., moving the platform to capture a subject), an act that may be primarily performed by end-users?