DCT
1:16-cv-11681
Rampage LLC v. Hewlett Packard Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rampage LLC (Massachusetts)
- Defendant: Hewlett Packard Company (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Steven N. Fox
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-11681, D. Mass., 08/17/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s offer to sell and sale of the accused digital presses within the District of Massachusetts.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HP PageWide digital presses, which incorporate a Raster Image Processor (RIP) from Global Graphics SE, infringe a patent related to print quality compensation for multi-level digital printing machines.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for improving high-quality commercial digital printing by calibrating the printing process to compensate for physical imperfections in print-head performance, thereby reducing visual artifacts.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter with a copy of the patent-in-suit to Defendant on June 16, 2016, providing notice of the alleged infringement. The complaint also notes a pending, separate action between Plaintiff and Global Graphics, the supplier of the accused software component, suggesting a two-front legal strategy.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-01-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,053,410 Priority Date |
| 2015-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,053,410 Issue Date |
| 2016-06-16 | Plaintiff letter providing notice to Defendant |
| 2016-08-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,053,410 - Raster Image Processor With Printhead Profile Compensation For a Multi-Level Digital Printing Machine, issued June 9, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "unwanted artifacts" in multi-level (i.e., grayscale) digital printing, which occur when print heads produce a stronger or lighter ink intensity than intended for a given input tone (Compl. ¶16; ’410 Patent, col. 2:11-22). This non-ideal performance can create visible flaws, particularly at the boundaries between different tone levels, a problem the patent refers to as "flattened tone contour artifacts" ('410 Patent, col. 2:27-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system and method that compensates for these real-world printing imperfections. Instead of dividing the input tone range into equal, contiguous segments for each dot size (e.g., small, medium, large), the patented solution uses a calibration process to measure the actual print strength of each dot size ('410 Patent, col. 7:40-51). Based on these measurements, the system "shifts" the boundaries ("transition tone values") between the tonal segments, or "sub-ranges," creating unequally sized ranges that correct for the non-ideal printer behavior ('410 Patent, col. 4:16-22; Fig. 16). This calibrated re-partitioning of the tone range is designed to produce a visually smoother and more accurate final print.
- Technical Importance: This method of dynamic calibration and "unequal quantization" allows digital presses to achieve higher print quality with greater tonal accuracy and fewer artifacts, even with print hardware that does not perform in a perfectly ideal manner ('410 Patent, Abstract).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 10 (Compl. ¶¶23, 33).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method): The core elements include:
- (a) creating first and second "tonal sub-ranges" corresponding to different printable tone levels, with a "transition tone value" at their boundary.
- (b) "shifting the position" of this transition value, resulting in the tonal sub-ranges having different spans.
- (c) producing a "modified output tone value" for each sub-range using modification functions.
- (d) producing a final multi-bit output value using the modified values as inputs to a half-toning algorithm.
- Independent Claim 10 (System): The core elements recite a raster image processor comprising a "computing device", "memory device", and a "screening module" containing sub-modules that perform the functions recited in claim 1, including a "tone sub-range module", a "shifting module", and a "pixel processing module".
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Hewlett Packard's digital presses sold under the mark "PageWide" ("Accused Digital Press") (Compl. ¶9). The infringement allegation centers on a software component within these presses, the "Harlequin Host Renderer 11" Raster Image Processor ("Accused RIP"), which is supplied by a third party, Global Graphics SE (Compl. ¶10). The specific accused functionality is the "Harlequin multi-level screening" method ("Accused Process") (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused RIP is an "essential component" of the HP PageWide presses (Compl. ¶12). Citing a Global Graphics white paper, the complaint asserts that the accused screening technology compensates for printing errors by "measuring the printed patterns," and then using that data to "fine-tune the halftone dot shapes and placement" and to "control and adjust the way different sizes are overlapped in the transitions between tones" (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint alleges infringement based on publicly available documents from Global Graphics, as Plaintiff notes it lacks access to the source code of the Accused RIP (Compl. ¶15, 23).
’410 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1 - Method)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) creating first and second tonal sub-ranges corresponding to the first and second printable tone levels, respectively, for the first colorant; each of said first and second tonal sub-ranges comprising beginning and ending boundary tone values... and a first transition tone value... | The Accused Process, when executed on the Accused Digital Press, is alleged to create first and second tonal sub-ranges for each colorant. | ¶25 | col. 18:8-18 |
| (b) shifting the position of said first transition tone value so that said first tone range span is different from said second tone range span; | The Accused Process is alleged to shift or adjust the position of the transition tone value, resulting in the first tone range span being different from the second. | ¶26 | col. 18:19-22 |
| (c) producing a modified output tone value for said first and second tonal sub-ranges by first and second tone modification functions, respectively; | The Accused Process is alleged to produce a modified output tone value for the tonal sub-ranges through tone modification functions. | ¶27 | col. 18:23-27 |
| (d) producing a single multi-bit output value corresponding to the first colorant for each printable position on the page by using the modified output tone values of said first and second tone modification functions as inputs to at least one bi-level half-toning algorithm. | The Accused Process is alleged to produce a final multi-bit output value for each printable position by using the modified tone values as inputs into a bi-level half-toning algorithm. | ¶28 | col. 18:28-34 |
’410 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 10 - System)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a screening module comprising: a tone sub-range module configured to create first, second, and third tonal sub-ranges... | The Accused Digital Press allegedly has a screening module with a tone sub-range module configured to create the claimed tonal sub-ranges. | ¶36-37 | col. 19:57-64 |
| a shifting module configured to shift the position of said first and second transition tone values... | The screening module allegedly has a shifting module configured to shift the transition tone values so that the tone range spans are different. | ¶38 | col. 20:5-11 |
| a pixel processing module... comprising a tone modification sub-module configured to produce a modified output tone value... and an output sub-module... | The screening module allegedly has a pixel processing module with a tone modification sub-module and an output sub-module that perform the claimed functions. | ¶39 | col. 20:12-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are based "upon information and belief" and rely on interpretations of third-party marketing materials and technical papers rather than direct evidence of the accused software's operation (Compl. ¶15, 24). A central question is whether discovery will confirm that the accused "fine-tuning" and "adjusting" of overlaps (Compl. ¶20) is achieved by the specific method of creating and shifting the boundaries of "tonal sub-ranges" as required by the claims, or by another, technically distinct method.
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether the general concept of "adjust[ing] the way different sizes are overlapped" (Compl. ¶20) falls within the scope of the specific claim limitation of "shifting the position of said first transition tone value" ('410 Patent, cl. 1). The court may need to determine if a mere adjustment to an overlap region is the same as a fundamental re-partitioning of the underlying tonal ranges.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "shifting the position of said first transition tone value" (cl. 1)
Context and Importance: This term appears to capture the core of the inventive concept. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether the accused product's "fine-tuning" and "adjusting" process (Compl. ¶20) is legally equivalent to the claimed "shifting."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself states the purpose of the shift is so "that said first tone range span is different from said second tone range span" ('410 Patent, cl. 1, col. 18:20-22). A party may argue that any process that results in unequally sized tonal ranges meets this limitation, regardless of the specific calculation method.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes calculating the shift based on measured optical densities from a calibration process and using the Murray-Davies equation ('410 Patent, col. 9:57-col. 10:4). Practitioners may focus on whether this detailed disclosure limits the claim scope to this specific implementation, as it is the primary embodiment described for achieving the shift.
The Term: "tonal sub-range" (cl. 1)
Context and Importance: The claims are structured around the creation and modification of these sub-ranges. Their definition is fundamental to the infringement analysis.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the invention in general terms as employing "Unequal quantization of the input range" ('410 Patent, Abstract). This could support an interpretation where any method of partitioning the input tone scale into segments for processing could be considered a "tonal sub-range."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, such as Figure 16, consistently depict the tonal sub-ranges (1602, 1610, 1620) as distinct, contiguous segments of the input tone scale that are defined by specific beginning and ending boundary values. This may support an argument that the term requires discrete, sequential partitions of the full tone range.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include a formal count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that on June 16, 2016, Plaintiff sent Defendant a certified letter that included a copy of the ’410 Patent (Compl. ¶13). This allegation establishes a factual basis for pre-suit knowledge, which could be used to support a future claim for enhanced damages for any post-notice infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following key questions:
A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint acknowledges a lack of access to the accused source code (Compl. ¶15), will discovery reveal that the accused "Harlequin multi-level screening" process actually implements the specific claim requirements of creating and "shifting" discrete "tonal sub-ranges", or does it achieve print quality improvements through a technically different, non-infringing method?
A key legal question will be one of claim scope: Can the term "shifting the position of said... transition tone value," which implies a re-partitioning of the input tone scale itself, be construed to cover the accused functionality described as "adjust[ing] the way different sizes are overlapped in the transitions between tones" (Compl. ¶20)? The case may depend on whether the court views the accused method as a fundamentally different approach to managing tone transitions.