DCT
4:25-cv-00187
Artificial Intelligence Industry Association Inc v. Exposure Software LLC Do Not Docket In This Case See 5 25 CV 645 D KS
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Artificial Intelligence Industry Association, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Exposure Software, LLC (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Michael G. Newell
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00187, E.D.N.C., 10/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of North Carolina because the Defendant maintains its principal place of business, headquarters, and a regular and established place of business in Durham, North Carolina, where it conducts software development, marketing, and other operations giving rise to the alleged infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Exposure X7 photo editing software infringes three U.S. patents related to computational photography, including methods for image color matching, generating three-dimensional images from two-dimensional photographs, and creating three-dimensional video sequences.
- Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to advanced computational image processing, a field focused on using algorithms to enhance or create digital images and video for professional and creative applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that prior to filing suit, Plaintiff sent Defendant a formal demand letter that identified the Asserted Patents and the allegedly infringing conduct, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1993-01-01 | Defendant begins developing image processing software (as Alien Skin Software). |
| 2009-07-31 | U.S. Patent No. 8,508,580 Priority Date. |
| 2010-11-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,185,388 Priority Date. |
| 2012-10-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,965,121 Priority Date. |
| 2013-08-13 | U.S. Patent No. 8,508,580 Issued. |
| 2015-02-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,965,121 Issued. |
| 2015-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. 9,185,388 Issued. |
| 2025-10-08 | Complaint Filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,965,121 - Image Color Matching and Equalization Devices and Related Methods (Issued Feb. 24, 2015)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical challenge of matching colors across multiple images of the same scene, particularly when those images are captured at different times, from different locations, or with different cameras, which can result in inconsistent color balance and exposure (’121 Patent, col. 1:24-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to automatically equalize colors between a reference image and a target image. It works by identifying overlapping regions, generating an array of color channel differences between corresponding pixels, and then using a quantization technique to create an efficient, "sparse difference color matrix" that serves as a look-up table. The method then fills any empty locations in this sparse table using interpolation and applies the resulting color difference values to the target image to achieve color consistency ('121 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-52).
- Technical Importance: This automated approach to color equalization is designed to improve workflows for tasks like panoramic image stitching and video editing, where seamless transitions and consistent color are critical (Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- Claim 1 requires a method comprising the steps of:
- determining overlapping portions of a scene within first and second images;
- generating an array of color channel differences between the overlapping portions;
- applying a quantization technique to the array of color channel differences for creating a sparse difference color matrix;
- identifying empty locations of the sparse matrix and computing interpolated difference color values to fill them; and
- modifying the color of at least one pixel of one of the images by performing an inverse look-up in the sparse table, identifying a color difference, and applying it to a target pixel.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, though this is common practice.
U.S. Patent No. 8,508,580 - Methods, Systems, and Computer-Readable Storage Media for Creating Three-Dimensional (3D) Images of a Scene (Issued Aug. 13, 2013)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating stereoscopic (3D) images from a series of conventional two-dimensional (2D) images without requiring specialized 3D capture hardware (’580 Patent, col. 1:56-61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computational process that begins by receiving multiple 2D images of a scene. It then determines matching features across the images, applies a transformation to align them into an image pair, and calculates parallax values for the matched features to derive depth information. Based on predetermined criteria for comfortable viewing, the method then alters a "stereoscopic characteristic" of the image pair (e.g., adjusts parallax) to create a final, optimized 3D image ('580 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-15).
- Technical Importance: The technology enables the generation of 3D content from standard digital cameras, potentially broadening access to 3D image creation beyond users with specialized equipment (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
- Claim 1 requires a method comprising the steps of:
- receiving a plurality of captured images;
- determining matching image features among the images;
- determining a transformation to align the features;
- applying the transformation to create a transformed image pair;
- calculating parallax values of the matched features in the pair;
- determining whether the parallax values do not meet a predetermined criteria; and
- in response, altering a stereoscopic characteristic of the pair to create an adjusted image pair, upon which a 3D image is based.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,185,388 - Methods, Systems, and Computer Program Products for Creating Three-Dimensional Video Sequences (Issued Nov. 10, 2015)
Technology Synopsis
This patent extends the concept of 2D-to-3D conversion from still images to video sequences. It describes a method for generating 3D video content from conventional 2D video by implementing algorithms for depth analysis, object classification, and stereo displacement processing across multiple video frames (’388 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶19).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Exposure X7's "video processing and multi-frame image processing capabilities" infringe by processing video sequences, selecting target frames, identifying objects, extracting depth data, and combining these elements to generate video with 3D characteristics (Compl. ¶23, ¶29).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s "Exposure X7" software and related photo editing tools (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Exposure X7 is an advanced image processing software product designed for professional photography workflows (Compl. ¶20). Its allegedly infringing functionalities include:
- "Advanced color matching and equalization features" that process multiple images to achieve consistent color balance (Compl. ¶21).
- "Sophisticated multi-image processing capabilities" that enable the creation of 3D content from 2D photographs by determining matching features, applying geometric transformations, and calculating depth and parallax information (Compl. ¶22).
- "Video processing and multi-frame image processing capabilities" that process video sequences to generate enhanced video with 3D characteristics (Compl. ¶23).
The complaint positions the software as a direct competitor to Plaintiff's offerings in the computational photography market (Compl. ¶3).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’121 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining overlapping portions of a scene within first and second images | Defendant’s software determines overlapping portions of scenes within multiple images by analyzing imported image content and identifying common visual elements. | ¶25 | col. 5:12-14 |
| generating an array of color channel differences between the overlapping portions | The software generates arrays of color channel differences between corresponding pixels in the overlapping portions through mathematical analysis of RGB and color channel data. | ¶25 | col. 5:15-17 |
| applying a quantization technique to an array of color channel differences for creating a sparse difference color matrix | The software applies quantization techniques to create sparse difference color matrices that efficiently represent color transformation relationships. | ¶25 | col. 5:18-21 |
| identifying empty locations of the sparse matrix and computing interpolated difference color values to fill them | The software fills empty locations in the sparse matrices with interpolated values using sophisticated interpolation algorithms. | ¶25 | col. 5:22-24 |
| modifying the color of at least one pixel of one of the images by performing an inverse look-up in the sparse table... and applying the color difference on a target pixel | The software modifies pixel colors through inverse look-up operations in the sparse tables to achieve precise color matching and equalization. | ¶25 | col. 5:25-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question may be whether the accused software's color matching functionality operates as alleged. The analysis will likely focus on whether the software's underlying algorithm actually creates a "sparse difference color matrix" using "quantization," or if it employs alternative, non-infringing color correction techniques (e.g., global histogram matching) to achieve a similar outcome.
’580 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a plurality of captured images | The software receives multiple captured images through its import and file management systems. | ¶27 | col. 2:65 |
| determining matching image features among the plurality of captured images | The software determines matching image features using advanced computer vision and feature detection algorithms. | ¶27 | col. 3:1-2 |
| determining a transformation to align at least one of the matched image features | The software determines transformations required to align the matched image features through mathematical calculations and geometric analysis. | ¶27 | col. 3:2-3 |
| applying the transformation... to create a plurality of transformed images | The software applies these transformations to create properly aligned images suitable for further processing. | ¶27 | col. 3:3-4 |
| calculating parallax values of the matched image features of the transformed image pair | The software calculates parallax values of the matched image features to determine depth relationships and spatial displacement. | ¶27 | col. 3:11 |
| determining whether the parallax values do not meet a predetermined criteria | The software determines whether the calculated parallax values meet predetermined criteria for optimal visual presentation. | ¶27 | col. 3:12-13 |
| altering a stereoscopic characteristic of the transformed image pair to create an adjusted image pair | The software alters stereoscopic characteristics of the image pairs to create adjusted image pairs optimized for three-dimensional presentation. | ¶27 | col. 3:14-17 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of claimed functions. For example, does the accused software's general-purpose image alignment and layer blending functionality perform the specific, claimed steps of "calculating parallax values" and "altering a stereoscopic characteristic" with the goal of creating an optimized 3D image, or are these terms being applied to features that have a different primary purpose?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’121 Patent
- The Term: "sparse difference color matrix"
- Context and Importance: This term describes the core data structure allegedly used by the invention to efficiently store color transformation data. The infringement analysis for the ’121 Patent will likely depend on whether the accused software creates this specific type of data structure, as opposed to a different form of look-up table or color correction model.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes creating "sparse difference color matrices that efficiently represent color transformation data," which could suggest the term encompasses any efficient, non-dense data structure for this purpose ('121 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains creating the matrix by indexing into an array using quantized color values, which suggests a specific implementation where sparsity arises from unpopulated bins in a quantized color space ('121 Patent, col. 6:1-15).
’580 Patent
- The Term: "altering a stereoscopic characteristic"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the final, inventive step of optimizing the 3D image. The case may depend on whether the accused product’s features perform a specific, goal-oriented alteration for 3D viewing, or if they perform more general image manipulations that could incidentally affect 3D perception.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general and could be argued to cover any modification that changes the perceived 3D effect of an image pair, such as adjusting the horizontal offset between two aligned layers.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 links this step to a determination that "parallax values do not meet a predetermined criteria," suggesting the alteration is a corrective action to optimize the image pair for comfortable stereoscopic viewing, not just any user-directed adjustment ('580 Patent, col. 27:30-34).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that Defendant provides "comprehensive tutorials, user guides, technical documentation, [and] video demonstrations" that instruct customers on how to use the allegedly infringing features (Compl. ¶31). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "specialized software modules" and "algorithmic components" that are material parts of the inventions and lack substantial non-infringing uses within the software's advanced workflows (Compl. ¶33, ¶43).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre- and post-notification conduct. It alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge (or an obligation to know) of the patents due to its "sophisticated and long-standing involvement in the advanced imaging software industry" since 1993 (Compl. ¶38). It further alleges that Defendant gained actual knowledge upon receipt of Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter and continued its infringing conduct thereafter (Compl. ¶38, ¶42).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on the specific technical implementation of features in a commercially available software product. The key questions for the court will likely involve both claim construction and factual determinations of how the accused software operates.
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Do the algorithms within Exposure X7 practice the specific methods recited in the claims—such as creating a "sparse difference color matrix" (’121 Patent) or formally "altering a stereoscopic characteristic" based on predetermined criteria (’580 Patent)—or do they achieve similar visual results through different, non-infringing computational pathways?
- A second key question will be one of functional purpose: Are the accused features—such as color adjustment and multi-layer image composition—general-purpose tools whose operation only incidentally overlaps with the patent claims, or are they specifically designed and promoted to perform the patented inventions of automated color equalization and 2D-to-3D image conversion?