DCT
1:19-cv-10931
Canon Inc v. Avigilon USA Corp Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Canon Inc. (Japan)
- Defendant: Avigilon USA Corporation, Inc. (Delaware) and Avigilon Corporation (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-10931, D. Mass., 04/23/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant Avigilon USA Corporation, Inc. having a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically a regional office in Somerville, MA, where it conducts sales and development activities related to the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ video surveillance systems, which use High Definition Stream Management (HDSM) 2.0 technology, infringe a patent related to efficiently streaming tiled video data.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive video streaming, specifically methods for transmitting only the necessary portions (tiles) of a high-resolution video feed to a client, which is significant for reducing bandwidth in surveillance applications where users frequently zoom into regions of interest.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendants have previously brought suit against Canon in the same district, suggesting a history of legal disputes and potential awareness of each other's technology portfolios.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-10-12 | U.S. Patent No. 10,135,952 Priority Date |
| 2018-11-20 | U.S. Patent No. 10,135,952 Issued |
| 2019-04-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,135,952 - "Method and Corresponding Device for Streaming Video Data"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,135,952, "Method and Corresponding Device for Streaming Video Data", issued November 20, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of streaming very high-resolution video (e.g., 4K2K) to devices, particularly mobile applications, that may only need to display a smaller portion or "sub-part" of the full image. Conventional streaming methods, even under the DASH standard, are described as inefficient for this "tiled video" use case, as they can require downloading extra initialization data, leading to delays and unnecessary data consumption (’952 Patent, col. 2:1-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a server transmits a description file (e.g., a DASH manifest) to a client that explicitly includes data about the spatial position and organization of the video's sub-tracks or "tiles." This allows the client device to be immediately aware of the video's tiled structure and to directly request only the specific tiles corresponding to a chosen Region of Interest (ROI), thereby limiting the number of requests and improving efficiency (’952 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:6-18).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to streamline the process of interactive, region-of-interest video streaming by embedding spatial layout information directly into the primary control file, reducing latency and bandwidth usage for applications like live surveillance monitoring (’952 Patent, col. 2:5-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 19 (’952 Patent, col. 25:20-26:21; Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of independent claim 19 are:
- An apparatus comprising a hardware processor and memory.
- The memory stores instructions for:
- transmitting, to a client, a notification including (i) spatial position information and (ii) spatial size information for each of "n" spatial regions of a video.
- receiving, from the client, information identifying one or more of the "n" spatial regions to be transmitted.
- transmitting to the client the video data for the identified spatial regions.
- The claim further requires that the pixel position of each spatial region is represented by a value based on the number of pixels between a reference position and the top-left corner of the region.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendants’ "Accused Systems," which include a range of H4A and H4 Pro cameras, HD NVR recorders and appliances, and the Avigilon Control Center (ACC) software, particularly when utilizing the "High Definition Stream Management 2.0" (HDSM 2.0) functionality (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the HDSM 2.0 technology in the Accused Systems is designed to manage bandwidth by intelligently streaming video (Compl. ¶21). The system is described as separating video into lower-resolution streams for overall situational awareness and higher-resolution streams for detailed views. When a user digitally zooms into a "region of interest," the server allegedly sends only the high-resolution portion for that specific region, reducing the amount of data exchanged between the server and client (Compl. ¶21, ¶24).
- The complaint includes a product datasheet for the "HD NVR4 Premium," which identifies specific hardware components like an "Intel® Xeon®" processor and "32GB DDR4" memory. The datasheet is presented as visual evidence of the hardware elements of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶22, p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,135,952 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus for transmitting video data to a client, the apparatus comprising: a hardware processor; and a memory storing one or more programs... | The ACC server is alleged to be the apparatus, which comprises an "Intel® Xeon®" processor and "32GB DDR4" memory. | ¶21, ¶22, ¶23 | col. 25:20-27 |
| transmitting, to the client, a notification including (i) spatial position information representing...a spatial position of each of n spatial regions of the video...and (ii) spatial size information... | The ACC server allegedly transmits a notification with spatial position and size information when using HDSM 2.0. This is supported by a diagram showing a video frame divided into a grid. | ¶24, ¶27, p. 7 | col. 25:31-41 |
| receiving, from the client...information relating to identification of one or more spatial regions from among the n spatial regions... | The ACC server allegedly receives this information when a user "engages a camera and digitally zooms in for greater detail," which identifies a region of interest. | ¶25, ¶9 | col. 26:1-8 |
| transmitting, to the client, the video data corresponding to the one or more spatial regions which are identified... | The ACC server allegedly transmits only the portion of the video from the user-selected region of interest to reduce bandwidth. | ¶26, ¶21 | col. 26:9-12 |
| wherein the pixel position of each of the n spatial regions is represented by a value according to a number of pixels between a reference pixel position and a pixel position in a top-left corner... | The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the ACC software represents spatial regions using this specific pixel-counting method. | ¶27 | col. 26:13-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be what evidence supports the allegation that the accused HDSM 2.0 system transmits a "notification" containing information for all "n" spatial regions prior to the client selecting one. The complaint's evidence describes the system's high-level bandwidth-saving function (Compl. ¶21) but does not provide protocol-level detail of the data exchange that would substantiate the "notification" element.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the general client-server communication in the accused system constitutes the specific "notification" required by the claim. The patent specification appears to ground this concept in a "description file" or "manifest file" (’952 Patent, col. 2:38-44), raising the question of whether the accused system’s communications meet that level of structural formality.
- Technical Questions: A significant evidentiary hurdle will be proving that the accused system calculates pixel position using the exact method recited in the "wherein" clause of claim 19. The complaint asserts this on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶27) without providing specific factual support, suggesting this element may require discovery and technical analysis to substantiate.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "notification"
Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the infringement theory. Its construction will determine whether the interactive data exchange in the accused HDSM 2.0 system meets the claim requirements. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent appears to tie it to a formal "description file" or "manifest file" that provides a complete spatial map to the client upfront, whereas the accused system may use a more dynamic, request-response mechanism.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "notification" could arguably encompass any data transmission that informs the client about available video portions, potentially including responsive communications.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly discusses the "notification" in the context of a "manifest file," "description file," or "MPD file" (’952 Patent, col. 2:38-44), which is sent to the client to describe the media content. This context suggests the "notification" is a discrete, comprehensive file, not just any communication.
The Term: "spatial position information"
Context and Importance: The infringement analysis hinges on whether the information exchanged in the accused system is specific enough to qualify as the "spatial position information" defined in the patent, particularly as limited by the "wherein" clause.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses various ways to signal position, including by tile index in a grid, which could support a broader reading of what constitutes position information (’952 Patent, col. 4:30-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 19 itself provides a narrow definition, requiring the position to be "represented by a value according to a number of pixels between a reference pixel position and a pixel position in a top-left corner" (’952 Patent, col. 26:13-21). This explicit definition within the claim language itself may strongly favor a narrower construction limited to this specific method.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants’ white papers, user guides, and instructional videos instruct customers on how to use the Accused Systems in a manner that allegedly infringes claim 19 (Compl. ¶28).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on knowledge of the infringement occurring "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶29). It does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the ’952 patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: Can Canon produce evidence, likely through discovery, that the HDSM 2.0 protocol actually functions as claimed? Specifically, does it transmit a discrete "notification" with a complete spatial map of "n" regions before a user requests a specific tile, and does it represent tile positions using the precise pixel-offset calculation recited in claim 19?
- The case will also involve a core issue of definitional scope: Can the term "notification," which the patent specification links to a formal "manifest file," be construed broadly enough to read on the interactive, potentially more dynamic, client-server communications that appear to occur in the accused surveillance system?
- A final question concerns proof of infringement: Given that the complaint's allegations for the most specific claim limitations are based on "information and belief," the case will likely depend on whether the technical evidence uncovered during discovery confirms a literal correspondence between the accused system's operation and the patent's claims, or if the theories of infringement and non-infringement will hinge on claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents.