DCT

1:12-cv-00779

Princeton Digital Image Corp v. Hewlett Packard Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:10-cv-00029, E.D. Tex., 05/11/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants transacting business and committing acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas, including sales through retail locations.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ digital imaging products, including cameras, scanners, and multifunction devices, infringe patents related to automatic video level control and methods for digital signal compression.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies in digital imaging: automatically adjusting image sensor gain to optimize picture quality and efficiently compressing image data for storage and transmission.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of infringement on various dates between 2003 and 2006, years before the complaint was filed. These allegations of pre-suit knowledge form the basis for the willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1986-10-09 U.S. Patent No. 4,860,103 Priority Date
1987-12-08 U.S. Patent No. 4,813,056 Priority Date
1989-03-14 U.S. Patent No. 4,813,056 Issued
1989-08-22 U.S. Patent No. 4,860,103 Issued
2003-09-08 Notice of '056 Patent Infringement to Hewlett-Packard
2003-12-23 Notice of '103 & '056 Patent Infringement to multiple Defendants
2006-04-05 Notice of '056 Patent Infringement to Kodak
2006-04-30 Notice of '103 Patent Infringement to Kodak (approx. date)
2010-05-11 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 4,860,103: Video Level Control (Issued Aug. 22, 1989)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of variations in video signal amplitude from a source like a camera, which can result in a digitized image that is too dark or too bright ('103 Patent, col. 2:19-24). The invention seeks to automatically maintain the signal's "grey level within a pre-determined range" without manual adjustment ('103 Patent, Abstract).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a feedback loop where a controller, such as a microprocessor, analyzes the digital output of an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) ('103 Patent, Fig. 1). The controller irregularly subsamples the digital output, accumulates the values of "in-range" samples, and compares the result to a target value ('103 Patent, col. 2:25-31, Fig. 3). Based on this analysis, it generates a new digital reference voltage (Vref), which is converted to an analog signal and fed back to the ADC's control input to adjust its gain, thereby automatically correcting the video level ('103 Patent, col. 2:1-11).
  • Technical Importance: This automated gain control allows digital video systems to adapt to changing light conditions, improving the consistency and quality of the resulting digital image, which is particularly useful in applications like security systems ('103 Patent, col. 3:32-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" ('103 Patent, ¶20). Independent claim 1 is the broadest apparatus claim.
  • Independent Claim 1 elements:
    • A digital video coder with a video input for receiving analog signals directly from a camera.
    • An analog-to-digital converter (ADC) with an output for digital words and a control input for varying its sensitivity.
    • A "control means" responsive to the ADC's digital output to digitally generate a control signal "as a function of the average amplitude level represented by previous said digital words," with the control signal then applied to the ADC's control input.

U.S. Patent No. 4,813,056: Modified Statistical Coding of Digital Signals (Issued Mar. 14, 1989)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies an inefficiency in standard statistical data compression (e.g., Huffman coding) when dealing with signals that contain long "runs" of identical values, such as the numerous zero-value pixels in a compressed video signal's error data ('056 Patent, col. 2:5-18). Assigning a unique, short codeword to every possible run length is impractical and can result in excessively long codewords for less common, longer runs ('056 Patent, col. 2:53-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modified coding scheme that groups codewords into two sets. The first set uses conventional variable-length codes for high-probability values (e.g., non-zero values or short runs of zeros) ('056 Patent, col. 2:62-65). The second set addresses a large group of individually low-probability events (e.g., long runs of zeros) by using a special "key codeword" as a prefix. This prefix, which is relatively short due to the high combined probability of any long run occurring, signals a departure from the first set of codes. It is followed by a suffix that uniquely identifies the specific long run ('056 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:11-19). This structure is illustrated in Figure 5, which shows a single bit distinguishing a "NON-ZERO" value from a "ZERO RUN LENGTH" value, with the latter followed by a 9-bit data field.
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a more efficient compression scheme by handling long stretches of redundant data without requiring either excessively long codewords or the overhead of switching between multiple coding dictionaries, thereby improving data transmission efficiency ('056 Patent, col. 2:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" ('056 Patent, ¶36). Independent claim 1 is the broadest apparatus claim.
  • Independent Claim 1 elements:
    • A statistical encoder with a "first means" for generating a first set of codewords for more frequent signal conditions.
    • A "second means" for generating a second set of codewords for less frequent signal conditions.
    • Each codeword in the second set includes a "common codeword portion" whose length is statistically based on the "combined frequency of occurrence" of the members of that second set.
    • A "third means" for generating codewords from either set based on the frequency of the corresponding signal condition.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a broad range of digital imaging products. For the '103 patent, the products are identified as "digital still cameras" (Compl. ¶20, 24, 28, 32). For the '056 patent, the accused products include "digital cameras," "camcorder," "copier," "scanner," "smartphone," "picture kiosk," and "multifunction products," as well as "photo editing and printing services" (Compl. ¶36, 40, 44, 48, 52).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of any accused product or service. It alleges that the Defendants, who are major manufacturers and providers in the digital imaging market, make, use, sell, or import these instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶20, 36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only conclusory allegations of infringement and does not include a claim chart or any specific factual mapping of accused product functionality to the elements of the patent claims. Analysis is therefore limited to the patent claims and general knowledge of the accused product categories.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’103 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement allegations.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: A central question will be whether the accused digital cameras employ an automatic gain control system that operates as described in the patent. Specifically, does the system adjust the ADC's sensitivity via a feedback loop controlled by a microprocessor that analyzes the ADC's own digital output? Alternative exposure control methods might involve adjusting shutter speed, lens aperture, or downstream digital gain rather than the ADC's analog reference voltage.
    • Scope Question: Claim 1 requires the control signal to be generated "as a function of the average amplitude level." The dispute may center on whether the algorithms in the accused products, which might use techniques like histogram analysis or peak detection, meet this "average amplitude" limitation as it is defined by the patent's specification and prosecution history.

’056 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement allegations.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The core of the dispute will likely concern the specific data compression algorithms (e.g., JPEG, TIFF) used in the accused products. The key factual question is whether these implementations use a coding structure for low-probability events (like runs of zero-value coefficients) that can be characterized as a "common codeword portion" (a prefix) followed by a suffix, as claimed.
    • Scope Question: Infringement analysis will likely focus on whether industry-standard compression techniques, as implemented by Defendants, fall within the scope of the claims. For example, does the method for encoding runs of zeros in a standard JPEG file constitute the claimed invention, or is it a distinct, non-infringing approach?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’103 Patent: "control means ... to generate ... a control signal" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). Its scope is not limitless but is confined to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and its equivalents. The entire infringement case for claim 1 will depend on the construction of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the "means" should be construed to cover any microprocessor-based controller that performs a statistical analysis of pixel values to control gain, not just the exact one shown.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific corresponding structure: a microprocessor (11) executing a specific algorithm detailed in a flowchart (Fig. 3). This algorithm involves subsampling, checking if samples are "in-range," accumulating them (step 12), and adjusting a reference voltage (Vref) based on the result ('103 Patent, col. 2:32-65; Fig. 3). A party would argue the claim is limited to this structure and its equivalents.

’056 Patent: "common codeword portion" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the '056 patent. Its definition will determine whether the patent reads on modern, standardized compression schemes. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from conventional Huffman coding.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term covers any shared bit sequence that functions as a flag or escape code to signal a special coding mode for a class of data, even if not explicitly termed a "prefix."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes this concept as a "key codeword" acting as a "prefix" followed by a "suffix" ('056 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:13-15). The detailed description provides a specific example of a 5-bit "keyword" prefix for a group of run lengths, followed by an 8-bit suffix to identify the specific length ('056 Patent, col. 10:10-20, 46-52). A party would argue the term is limited to this explicit prefix-suffix structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement for both patents (Compl. ¶20, 36). However, it does not plead specific facts to support these claims, such as citing instructional materials or demonstrating the absence of substantial non-infringing uses.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful and deliberate for both patents (Compl. ¶22, 38). This allegation is factually supported by claims that each Defendant was provided with pre-suit notice of its alleged infringement on specific dates, some as early as 2003 (Compl. ¶21, 25, 29, 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53).

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

Given the conclusory nature of the complaint, the case will likely center on the outcomes of claim construction and the subsequent factual evidence developed during discovery. The key open questions are:

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Can Plaintiff produce evidence from Defendants' source code, hardware, and technical documentation to demonstrate that the accused products practice the highly specific feedback loop and data compression algorithms described and claimed in the patents-in-suit?
  • A core issue for the '056 patent will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "common codeword portion," rooted in the patent's description of a prefix-and-suffix system, be construed to cover the entropy-coding mechanisms used in industry-standard compression formats like JPEG as implemented by the Defendants?
  • For the '103 patent, the case will turn on a question of structural equivalence: Is the "control means" for automatic gain adjustment in the accused cameras structurally equivalent to the specific microprocessor-and-flowchart algorithm disclosed in the patent, or do the accused products utilize fundamentally different and non-equivalent methods of exposure control?