DCT
1:15-cv-01550
CTP Innovations LLC v. FCL Graphics Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CTP Innovations, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: F.C.L. Graphics, Inc. (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen; Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:15-cv-01550, N.D. Ill., 05/05/2015
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has transacted business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s commercial printing services infringe a patent related to a networked method for generating computer-to-plate printing files.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns digital pre-press workflows that connect customers, service providers, and printers over a network to streamline the creation of high-resolution files for printing plates.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a "tag-along" filing intended for consolidation into a multi-district litigation, In re: CTP Innovations, LLC Patent Litigation, MDL No. 14-MD-2581, in the District of Maryland. The complaint notes that inter partes review (IPR) was instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for claims 1-3 and 10-13 of the asserted patent, but the PTAB declined to institute review for claims 4-9, which are the subject of this lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-07-30 | '349 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-08-26 | '349 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-07-29 | IPR Petition Filed by Printing Industries of America (PIA) |
| 2013-12-17 | PIA CEO Testifies Before Congress Regarding '349 Patent |
| 2013-12-31 | PTAB Declines to Institute IPR based on PIA Petition |
| 2014-05-20 | New IPR Petitions Filed by Third-Party Manufacturers |
| 2014-11-28 | PTAB Institutes IPR on Claims 1-3 and 10-13 of '349 Patent |
| 2015-03-31 | PTAB Denies Rehearing on Decision Not to Institute Review of Claims 4-9 |
| 2015-05-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,611,349 - System and Method of Generating a Printing Plate File in Real Time Using a Communication Network, issued August 26, 2003.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional printing production processes as suffering from significant delays and errors due to the physical transfer of files on disks and hard-copy proofs via mail or courier between designers and printers (Compl. ¶14; ’349 Patent, col. 1:53-59). These systems were also fragmented and limited in their ability to create an efficient, integrated workflow, particularly over IP-based networks like the Internet ('349 Patent, col. 2:1-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a networked system and method that connects an end-user, a central service facility, and a printing facility to automate the pre-press workflow ('349 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect of the method involves the end-user designing a page layout using low-resolution proxy images accessed from a central server. This creates a "thin" file that can be transmitted and handled quickly ('349 Patent, col. 13:18-22). The system then automatically parses this file, replaces the low-resolution images with their high-resolution counterparts stored at the central facility to create a "fat" file, and converts it into a final, plate-ready format (e.g., PDF) for the printer ('349 Patent, col. 13:22-40).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a method for managing the print production workflow over a communication network, which the complaint alleges was a new approach in the 1990s that has since become "ubiquitous in the industry" (Compl. ¶24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶28).
- The essential elements of independent claim 4 are:
- A method of generating a plate-ready file... provided in real time from a remote location using a communication network, comprising:
- remotely providing access to imaging files for searching and retrieving images used in the design of a page layout by a remote user;
- establishing links to said imaging files, thereby creating a thin Postscript file from the page layout designed by the remote user;
- parsing said thin Postscript file to extract data associated with low resolution images and replace with high resolution data, thereby forming a fat Postscript file;
- creating a portable document format (PDF) file from said fat Postscript file; and
- converting said PDF file to a file in plate-ready format.
- The complaint states that Plaintiff may assert dependent claims 5-9 upon further discovery (Compl. p.2).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint does not identify the accused services by a specific public-facing name, stating that one is not available without discovery (Compl. ¶29). It refers to the accused instrumentality as the "Infringing Services" (Compl. ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Infringing Services are described as "systems and methods used by Defendant in connection with, at least, its offset sheet-fed and web printing services that involve workflows related to plate-ready files and/or the generation of such files" (Compl. ¶30). The core accused functionality is a "method of generating a plate-ready file configured for the creation of a printing plate, said plate-ready file being associated with page layouts and being provided in real time from a remote location using a communication network" (Compl. ¶28). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'349 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| remotely providing access to imaging files for searching and retrieving images used in the design of a page layout by a remote user | Defendant's method provides for a plate-ready file to be generated from a remote location using a communication network. | ¶28 | col. 12:28-34 |
| establishing links to said imaging files, thereby creating a thin Postscript file from the page layout designed by the remote user | Defendant uses workflows that are related to the generation of plate-ready files. | ¶30 | col. 13:14-22 |
| parsing said thin Postscript file to extract data associated with low resolution images and replace with high resolution data, thereby forming a fat Postscript file | Defendant uses workflows that are related to the generation of plate-ready files. | ¶30 | col. 13:22-27 |
| creating a portable document format (PDF) file from said fat Postscript file | Defendant uses a method that generates plate-ready files, and the complaint notes that technologies like PDF are used in such digital workflows. | ¶24, ¶28 | col. 13:28-30 |
| converting said PDF file to a file in plate-ready format | Defendant uses a method of generating a plate-ready file configured for the creation of a printing plate. | ¶28 | col. 13:35-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint provides a high-level theory of infringement but does not allege specific facts about how the Defendant’s actual process operates. A central question will be what evidence, if any, Plaintiff can adduce in discovery to show that Defendant’s services practice each specific step of claim 4, such as the creation and parsing of "thin" and "fat" Postscript files.
- Technical Question: Does the accused workflow actually use a Postscript-based, low-resolution-to-high-resolution swapping mechanism as required by the claim? The court may need to resolve whether alternative digital pre-press workflows, which may achieve a similar outcome through different technical means, fall within the scope of the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "thin Postscript file" / "fat Postscript file"
- Context and Importance: These terms appear central to defining the specific technical process of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis may depend on whether the Defendant’s accused workflow utilizes files that meet these definitions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue these are terms of art for any workflow where a file with low-resolution placeholders is later populated with high-resolution data, regardless of the precise file structure. The patent does not provide an explicit definition in a lexicographical sense.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides contextual definitions, stating, "The Postscript file is called 'thin' because it contains low resolution images" and that after the high-resolution data is added, the file "is considered to be in 'fat' Postscript format" ('349 Patent, col. 13:20-27). This linkage to a specific file format (Postscript) and content (low- vs. high-resolution images) may support a narrower construction.
- The Term: "in real time"
- Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the claim preamble and body, sets a temporal requirement for the method. Its interpretation could be critical, as it distinguishes the patented method from prior art processes involving significant physical delays.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent contrasts the invention with prior art that required shipping proofs by mail or carrier, suggesting "real time" could mean a continuous, automated process that occurs within a single digital session or without multi-day manual delays ('349 Patent, col. 1:26-39).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an integrated "real time system" ('349 Patent, col. 3:32). A defendant could argue this requires a more immediate, near-instantaneous process than what might be used in a typical commercial printing environment, which may involve batch processing or asynchronous steps.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶37). The allegations are based on Defendant's alleged awareness of the ’349 Patent through "substantial publicity in the printing industry," its membership in the Printing Industries of America (PIA) trade association, and public testimony by the PIA's CEO that referenced the patent (Compl. ¶34, ¶35, ¶37). The complaint also asserts continued infringement after receipt of the complaint as a basis for willfulness (Compl. ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidence: given the complaint's generality, can CTP Innovations discover and present specific proof that F.C.L. Graphics' accused printing services perform the precise sequence of technical steps recited in Claim 4 of the '349 Patent?
- The case will also likely involve a key question of claim scope: will the terms "thin Postscript file" and "fat Postscript file" be construed narrowly to cover only the specific Open Prepress Interface (OPI) workflow detailed in the patent's embodiment, or more broadly to encompass other modern digital printing workflows that use different methods to substitute final images for proxies?