Artificial Intelligence Industry Association Inc v. Exposure Software LLC

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 (Attorneys for Plaintiff)
• Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00645, 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 and headquarters in Durham, North Carolina, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Exposure X7 photo editing software infringes three patents related to computational image processing, specifically concerning multi-image color matching, 3D image creation from 2D photos, and 3D video sequence generation.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on advanced computational photography algorithms that enable sophisticated image and video manipulation, a key area of competition in the professional and consumer software market.
• Key Procedural History: Prior to filing the complaint, Plaintiff sent Defendant a formal demand letter identifying the Asserted Patents and the allegedly infringing products, and offered to license the patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
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 February 24, 2015 (’121 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of inconsistent color balance in images captured at different times or with different cameras, which can cause jarring visual effects in panoramic compositions or stereoscopic views (Compl. ¶15; ’121 Patent, col. 1:23-46).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to automatically match and equalize colors across multiple images. It does this by identifying overlapping areas, calculating color differences for a sample of pixels in those areas, and creating a "sparse" look-up table of these differences. This sparse table is then filled in using interpolation, creating a complete map that can be used to apply precise color corrections to one of the images to make it match the other (’121 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-52).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide efficient and localized color correction, avoiding the global adjustments of traditional histogram equalization that can be less accurate for images with complex lighting variations (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (’121 Patent, col. 10:1-18; Compl. ¶43).
• Independent 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.
• The complaint seeks judgment of infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’121 Patent (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 8,508,580 - "Methods, Systems, and Computer-Readable Storage Media for Creating Three-Dimensional (3D) Images of a Scene," issued August 13, 2013 (’580 Patent)

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 equipment (’580 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a process that takes multiple 2D images of a scene, automatically identifies a suitable pair, and processes them to generate a 3D image. Key steps include finding matching features between images, calculating transformations to align them, determining the parallax (spatial difference) between features to create depth information, and altering the stereoscopic characteristics to ensure the final 3D image is optimized for comfortable viewing (’580 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-14).
• Technical Importance: This technology enables the generation of 3D content from standard 2D image capture devices, broadening the accessibility of 3D imaging beyond specialized hardware (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (’580 Patent, col. 27:11-38; Compl. ¶54).
• Independent 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 at least one of the matched image features;
  • applying the transformation to a first captured image to align it with a second, creating a plurality of transformed images;
  • defining a transformed image pair;
  • calculating parallax values of the matched image features of the pair;
  • determining whether the parallax values do not meet a predetermined criteria;
  • in response to the determination, altering a stereoscopic characteristic of the transformed image pair to create an adjusted image pair; and
  • defining a three-dimensional image based on the adjusted image pair.
• The complaint seeks judgment of infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’580 Patent (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 9,185,388 - "Methods, Systems, and Computer Program Products for Creating Three-Dimensional Video Sequences," issued November 10, 2015 (’388 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical challenge of generating 3D video content from conventional 2D video sequences (Compl. ¶19). The claimed solution involves analyzing a 2D video to select frames with different stereo displacements, identifying and classifying static and moving objects within those frames using computer vision, extracting depth data for both, and combining this information to generate 3D video frames suitable for stereoscopic display (’388 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least 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, classifying objects, and extracting depth information to generate content with 3D characteristics (Compl. ¶23, ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Defendant’s "Exposure X7 and related photo editing tools," which are distributed as standalone software and plugins for other professional imaging applications (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes Exposure X7 as an advanced image processing software product designed for professional photography workflows (Compl. ¶20). Its allegedly infringing functionalities include advanced multi-image processing, color matching and equalization algorithms, stereoscopic image processing, 3D content generation from 2D photos, intelligent masking, and depth-aware rendering (Compl. ¶1, ¶20). The complaint alleges these features directly compete with Plaintiff's own offerings in the computational photography market (Compl. ¶3, ¶34). 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 of the scene	Defendant’s software determines overlapping portions of scenes within multiple images by analyzing imported image content and identifying common visual elements.	¶25	col. 2:40-42
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. 2:42-44
applying a quantization technique to the 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. 2:45-48
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. 2:49-52
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. 2:52-58

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the data structures used by Exposure X7 for color transformation meet the specific definition of a "sparse difference color matrix" as required by the claim. The defense may argue its method, while achieving a similar result, does not create the specific claimed matrix.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the software "applies quantization techniques" (Compl. ¶25). A point of contention could be whether the specific mathematical operations performed by the accused product constitute "quantization" in the manner described and claimed by the patent, which involves reducing the size of a color difference array (’121 Patent, col. 2:45-48).

’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. 2:26-27
determining matching image features among the plurality of captured images	The software determines matching image features among the captured images using advanced computer vision and feature detection algorithms.	¶27	col. 30:17-19
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. 3:1-4
applying the transformation to a first captured image... to create a plurality of transformed images	The software applies these transformations to create properly aligned images suitable for further processing.	¶27	col. 3:1-4
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. 3:10-11
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. 3:12-15
in response... 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. 3:15-19

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The claim requires determining if parallax values "do not meet a predetermined criteria" and then, in response, "altering a stereoscopic characteristic." A dispute may arise over whether Exposure X7's automated adjustments are performed in direct response to a specific, predetermined criteria check, or if they are part of a more generalized image enhancement process that does not map to the claim's specific cause-and-effect structure.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused software's automatic adjustments are specifically for optimizing "visual presentation" based on parallax values, as opposed to other aesthetic or technical factors? The complaint’s allegations are functional, and the specific implementation within the software will be a key factual question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’121 Patent: "sparse difference color matrix" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines a specific data structure central to the claimed invention's efficiency. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's internal method for representing color transformations constitutes this specific type of matrix.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the purpose is to "reduce the size of the array without degradation" (’121 Patent, col. 2:30-32), suggesting that any data structure that achieves this purpose through quantization of color differences could be covered.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains a specific process of binning color channel differences into an array, which initially has many empty locations, thereby making it "sparse" (’121 Patent, col. 9:25-30). This could support an interpretation requiring a matrix that is initially created with empty values that are subsequently filled.

’580 Patent: "predetermined criteria" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for the subsequent step of "altering a stereoscopic characteristic." Its definition is critical because if the accused software does not check for this specific condition, it may not perform the full claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its potential subjectivity ("comfortable viewing") could be a focal point for non-infringement or invalidity arguments.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad, not specifying what the criteria must be. This may support an interpretation that any automated check on parallax values before an adjustment step meets this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this criteria to ensuring the parallax disparity is within a viewer's ability to resolve a 3D image for "comfortable viewing" (’580 Patent, col. 3:12-15, col. 16:25-33). This could support a narrower construction requiring the criteria to be specifically related to human visual comfort, not merely general image quality metrics.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by providing "comprehensive tutorials, user guides, technical documentation, video demonstrations" that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the infringing features (Compl. ¶31, ¶43). It alleges contributory infringement by providing "specialized software modules" that are material components of the inventions and have no substantial non-infringing use when deployed for their intended purpose (Compl. ¶33, ¶43).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges both pre-suit and post-suit willfulness. It alleges pre-suit knowledge based on Defendant's "sophisticated and long-standing involvement in the advanced imaging software industry" (Compl. ¶38). It alleges actual post-suit knowledge based on the "formal demand letter" sent by Plaintiff, after which Defendant allegedly continued its infringing conduct (Compl. ¶2, ¶31, ¶42, ¶53, ¶64).

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

1. A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused Exposure X7 software, in its internal operation, create the specific "sparse difference color matrix" data structure claimed by the ’121 Patent, or does it achieve color equalization through a technically distinct method?
2. A central dispute will likely concern functional scope: Can the ’580 Patent's method step—determining that parallax values fail to meet a "predetermined criteria" and then altering the image in response—be read to cover the accused software's automated image processing workflows, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the claimed sequence of operations?
3. An evidentiary question will be one of intent: For the claims of indirect and willful infringement, what evidence beyond general industry knowledge and user manuals can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate Defendant specifically intended for its customers to infringe the patents, particularly after receiving the demand letter?