DCT
1:25-cv-07522
Artificial Intelligence Imaging Association Inc v. Sklyum Software USA Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Artificial Intelligence Imaging Association, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Skylum Software USA, Inc. (Nevada, PPOB New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Michael G. Newell
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-07522, S.D.N.Y., 09/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains its principal place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Luminar Neo and Luminar AI photo enhancement software infringes three patents related to creating three-dimensional video from two-dimensional sources, multi-image processing using primary and auxiliary captures, and image color matching.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on computational photography techniques that use algorithms to process and combine multiple images or frames to create enhanced still images with features like high dynamic range (HDR), depth effects, and consistent color.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a formal demand letter and offered to license the Asserted Patents prior to filing suit, which may form a basis for allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-11-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,185,388 Priority Date |
| 2010-12-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,441,520 Priority Date |
| 2012-10-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,965,121 Priority Date |
| 2013-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. 8,441,520 Issued |
| 2015-02-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,965,121 Issued |
| 2015-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. 9,185,388 Issued |
| 2025-09-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,185,388 - “Methods, Systems, and Computer Program Products for Creating Three-Dimensional Video Sequences”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,185,388, titled “Methods, Systems, and Computer Program Products for Creating Three-Dimensional Video Sequences,” issued November 10, 2015 (Compl. ¶14).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating stereoscopic, three-dimensional (3D) video content from a video sequence captured by a conventional, single-lens two-dimensional (2D) camera, which is inherently two-dimensional (’388 Patent, col. 1:24-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that analyzes a 2D video sequence captured by a moving camera to generate 3D video frames. It uses a "macro stereo base"—frames captured far apart in time and space—to extract depth data for static background objects, and a "micro stereo base"—frames captured very close together in time—to calculate the depth of moving objects (’388 Patent, col. 2:5-31). The depth information from both static and moving objects is then combined to generate a corresponding 3D video frame for each target frame in the original sequence (’388 Patent, col. 2:27-31).
- Technical Importance: The technology purports to enable the creation of 3D video content without requiring specialized and expensive dual-lens stereoscopic cameras, thereby leveraging the ubiquity of conventional 2D video capture devices (’388 Patent, col. 1:63-2:2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint specifically asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- Utilizing a two-dimensional video sequence comprising a plurality of frames.
- Selecting a target frame from the sequence.
- Selecting a first subset of frames (N) associated with the target frame.
- Identifying and classifying static and moving objects using the first subset.
- Extracting depth data of static objects using the first subset.
- Selecting a second subset of frames (n) associated with the target frame, where the stereo displacement is substantially different from that of the first subset.
- Utilizing the second subset to calculate the depth of moving objects.
- Combining the depth values of the static and moving objects to generate a three-dimensional video frame.
U.S. Patent No. 8,441,520 - “Primary and Auxiliary Image Capture Devices for Image Processing and Related Methods”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,441,520, titled “Primary and Auxiliary Image Capture Devices for Image Processing and Related Methods,” issued May 14, 2013 (Compl. ¶16).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of conventional digital image capture, such as generating still images without motion blur or capturing scenes with high dynamic range (containing both very bright and very dark areas) (’520 Patent, col. 5:1-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system and method using two distinct image capture devices: a "primary" device with a certain quality characteristic and an "auxiliary" device with a second, lower-quality characteristic (’520 Patent, Abstract). The devices capture images of the same scene, potentially with different settings (e.g., different exposures for HDR, or different shutter speeds for de-blurring). The system then processes and combines the image data from both captures to create a final, enhanced image that would be difficult to achieve with the primary device alone (’520 Patent, col. 2:1-18). The patent specification depicts these as physical hardware components with separate sensors and lenses (’520 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for advanced imaging capabilities like HDR and motion de-blurring by supplementing a main, high-quality camera with a secondary, potentially lower-cost sensor, rather than requiring a single, more complex, and expensive integrated sensor system.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint specifically asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- Using a primary image capture device to capture a first image having a first quality characteristic.
- Using an auxiliary image capture device to capture a second image with a second, lower-quality characteristic.
- Extracting and matching image features between the two captured images.
- Computing and applying a transformation to at least one of the matched features to create an adjusted image.
- Forming a transformed image pair from the adjusted and captured images.
- Utilizing the transformed pair to create new image segments, including replacing pixels on a lower-quality image with higher-quality pixels from the other image.
U.S. Patent No. 8,965,121 - “Image Color Matching and Equalization Devices and Related Methods”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,965,121, titled “Image Color Matching and Equalization Devices and Related Methods,” issued February 24, 2015 (Compl. ¶17).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical problem of color variations between different images of the same scene, which can result from using different cameras, lenses, or capturing under changing light conditions (’121 Patent, col. 1:21-48). The patented solution involves determining overlapping areas between a reference image and a target image, calculating color channel differences for a set of points in those areas, and using that data to build a sparse look-up table (LUT). This sparse table is then filled through interpolation and used to apply localized color corrections to the target image to match the reference image (’121 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Skylum's color correction and matching features in its software, which allegedly "match and equalize color tones between multiple shots" in a manner consistent with the patented methods (Compl. ¶22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Skylum's software products, specifically Luminar Neo and Luminar AI, and related plugins (Compl. ¶1, ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products are photo enhancement software that performs functions including "automated image alignment, multi-frame enhancement, depth mapping, and color equalizations" (Compl. ¶20). Specific features identified as infringing include "HDR Merge," "Focus Stacking," and "Relight AI" (Compl. ¶21). These features are alleged to use "multiple source images, image registration, pixel-level analysis, and image transformation techniques" to enhance images, for example by improving dynamic range or simulating lighting effects based on calculated depth information (Compl. ¶21). The complaint further alleges that the "Relight AI" tool "automatically create[s] depth-aware lighting changes using frames with varying baselines" (Compl. ¶25).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’388 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| utilizing a two-dimensional video sequence...including a plurality of frames | The "Relight AI" feature allegedly uses "frames with varying baselines," and the software allegedly creates enhancements using "depth estimation derived from stereo pairs." | ¶24, ¶25 | col. 17:51-53 |
| identifying and classifying static and moving objects utilizing the first subset of frames | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, alleging only general "depth mapping" and "depth estimation." | ¶20, ¶24 | col. 17:58-60 |
| extracting depth data of static objects utilizing the first subset of frames | The software allegedly performs "depth mapping" and "depth estimation" derived from "stereo pairs." | ¶20, ¶24 | col. 17:61-62 |
| utilizing the second subset of frames to calculate depth of moving objects | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | - | col. 17:66-67 |
| combining the depth values...to generate a three-dimensional video frame | The software allegedly creates "depth-based visual enhancements" and "depth-aware lighting changes." | ¶24, ¶25 | col. 18:2-4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "generating a three-dimensional video frame." The complaint alleges the accused software creates "depth-aware lighting changes" in a still photograph (Compl. ¶25), raising the question of whether a 2D image file combined with a depth map for lighting effects meets the claim limitation of a "three-dimensional video frame," which the patent specification links to stereoscopic video for human viewing (’388 Patent, col. 1:24-35).
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a specific two-part process for calculating depth: using a large-baseline subset of frames for static objects and a different, small-baseline subset for moving objects. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused software performs this specific method of distinguishing between static and moving objects, as opposed to a more general depth estimation algorithm?
’520 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| using a primary image capture device to capture a first image | The software allegedly uses "multiple source images," which Plaintiff terms "primary and auxiliary image capture analogs." | ¶21, ¶23 | col. 18:41-43 |
| using an auxiliary image capture device to capture a second image...the second quality characteristic being of lower quality | The software allegedly uses "multiple source images," such as differently exposed images for an "HDR Merge" process. | ¶21, ¶23 | col. 18:44-49 |
| extracting image features...[and] matching extracted image features between the images | The software allegedly performs "image registration" on the multiple source images. | ¶21 | col. 18:50-54 |
| applying the transformation to at least one of the images...creating an adjusted image | The software allegedly uses "image transformation techniques" to enhance images. | ¶21 | col. 18:58-61 |
| utilizing the transformed image pair to create another image segment...to replace corresponding pixels on a lower quality image | The software allegedly performs "pixel-level analysis" to "enhance dynamic range" by combining data from multiple source images. | ¶21 | col. 19:4-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory may turn on the construction of "primary and auxiliary image capture devices." The patent specification describes these as physical hardware components with lenses and sensors (’520 Patent, FIG. 1). The accused instrumentality is software that processes digital image files. The dispute will question whether the claim term can be construed broadly enough to read on the software's use of separate digital files as "analogs" for what would have been captured by physical devices (Compl. ¶23).
- Technical Questions: For features like "HDR Merge," what evidence does the complaint provide that one of the input images (e.g., an overexposed or underexposed shot) satisfies the claim limitation of having a "second quality characteristic...of lower quality than the first quality characteristic"?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the ’388 Patent
- The Term: "generating a three-dimensional video frame" (Claim 1).
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused products are primarily still-photo editors, whereas the patent is directed to creating 3D video. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether creating a 2D image with an associated depth map that enables 3D-like effects (e.g., relighting) falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of the claim describes a computational process of "combining the depth values of static and moving objects" to generate the frame (’388 Patent, col. 18:2-4). This might support an argument that any data structure encoding both color (X, Y) and depth (Z) information is definitionally a "three-dimensional...frame," regardless of its final rendered format.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background section explicitly frames the invention in the context of "Stereoscopic, or three-dimensional, video...based on the principle of human vision," involving separate views for each eye (’388 Patent, col. 1:24-35). This context suggests the claimed "three-dimensional video frame" is intended to be part of a stereoscopic sequence for 3D viewing, not a 2D image with a metadata depth channel.
Term from the ’520 Patent
- The Term: "primary and auxiliary image capture devices" (Claim 1).
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute, as the accused instrumentality is software that operates on digital files, not the hardware system of cameras, lenses, and sensors described in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because Plaintiff's infringement theory requires interpreting "devices" to mean digital data "analogs" rather than physical hardware.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is a method claim directed at image processing steps ("extracting," "matching," "computing"). This may support an argument that the source of the image data—whether from a live hardware capture or a pre-existing digital file—is not a limiting feature of the processing method itself.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures consistently depict physical hardware. Figure 1 explicitly labels "PRIMARY IMAGE CAPTURE DEVICE 102" and "AUXILIARY IMAGE CAPTURE DEVICE 104" as distinct components containing an "IMAGE SENSOR" and "LENS" (’520 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 7:1-3). This provides strong evidence that the inventors contemplated a physical, multi-camera hardware system.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides "tutorials, user guides, and other implementation resources on its website" that instruct customers on how to use the accused features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶27). It also alleges contributory infringement by asserting the accused software modules are "exclusively designed and marketed for the infringing functionalities, with no substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶28).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness allegations are based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge from receiving a "formal demand letter" (Compl. ¶2, ¶27) and from general industry monitoring (Compl. ¶33). Post-suit willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued marketing and sale of the accused products after the suit was filed (Compl. ¶33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "primary and auxiliary image capture devices," which is described in the ’520 Patent specification as a physical hardware system, be construed to cover the accused software's processing of separate digital image files as "analogs"?
- A second key question will be one of functional mismatch: does the accused software's generation of a 2D still photo with an associated depth map for relighting effects perform the same function as "generating a three-dimensional video frame" as required by the ’388 Patent, particularly when the patent’s context is stereoscopic 3D video?
- An underlying evidentiary question will be whether the complaint's high-level allegations of "depth mapping" and use of "multiple source images" can be substantiated with technical evidence showing that the accused software performs the specific, multi-step processes recited in the asserted claims, such as distinguishing static from moving objects using different frame subsets.