DCT

3:17-cv-00110

Really Right Stuff LLC v. Fudala Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-00110, D. Or., 01/23/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that each defendant has solicited and transacted business within the District of Oregon and derived financial benefit from residents of the state, with some defendants also being residents of Oregon.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ camera mounting equipment, including quick-release clamps, panoramic mounts, and L-brackets, infringes ten U.S. patents related to photographic support apparatuses.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical devices designed to quickly, securely, and flexibly mount cameras and accessories to supports like tripods, a field critical for professional and enthusiast photographers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit, which forms the basis for the allegations of willful infringement. No other significant procedural history is mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-08-20 ’172 Patent Priority Date
2004-08-10 ’172 Patent Issue Date
2005-01-07 ’397 Patent Priority Date
2010-11-03 ’574, ’963, ’067, ’068, ’069, ’039, ’962 Patents Priority Date
2012-10-04 ’52574 Patent Priority Date
2014-09-09 ’574 Patent Issue Date
2015-06-09 ’52574 Patent Issue Date
2015-06-23 ’397 Patent Issue Date
2015-08-04 ’963 Patent Issue Date
2015-08-04 ’962 Patent Issue Date
2016-03-08 ’039 Patent Issue Date
2016-03-29 ’067 Patent Issue Date
2016-03-29 ’068 Patent Issue Date
2016-03-29 ’069 Patent Issue Date
2016-08-04 ’962 Patent Issue Date (per Tenth Claim for Infringement)
2017-01-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,773,172 - “QUICK-RELEASE CLAMP FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,773,172, "QUICK-RELEASE CLAMP FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT," issued August 10, 2004.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional methods for mounting cameras to tripods as time-consuming. It further notes that existing quick-release clamps can loosen over time due to outward forces from release springs and that their operating levers are often positioned awkwardly underneath the camera body, making them difficult to access (’172 Patent, col. 1:10-21, 1:50-2:2).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a clamp with a cam lever that moves an adjustable jaw to grip or release a camera plate. To solve the loosening problem, the design incorporates a "locking member," such as a series of Belleville washers, that is compressed as the lever is closed. This member applies an inward force on the adjustable jaw that counteracts the outward force from the release springs, securing the assembly (’172 Patent, col. 3:20-40; Fig. 6). The lever is also shaped to extend beyond the corners of the clamp body for improved ergonomics (’172 Patent, col. 6:11-23).
    • Technical Importance: The design sought to enhance both the long-term reliability and the operational accessibility of quick-release systems for photographers.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶29). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
    • A member defining a channel having a first side wall capable of lateral movement with respect to a second side wall;
    • A lever capable of causing said lateral movement; and
    • A substantially compressible member operably interconnected between said lever and said first side wall.

U.S. Patent No. 9,063,397 - “PANORAMIC CAMERA MOUNT”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,063,397, "PANORAMIC CAMERA MOUNT," issued June 23, 2015.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent background explains that creating panoramic images by stitching multiple photographs can be difficult, particularly if the camera is not properly centered on a rotatable mount (’397 Patent, col. 1:18-34).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention is a panoramic mount that includes a base and a rotatable clamp for holding a camera. It features two distinct knobs that are operated independently: a first knob controls the clamping of the camera plate, while a second knob controls the rotational locking of the clamp relative to the base (’397 Patent, Abstract). This configuration allows a user to precisely pan the camera without affecting the security of the clamp, and vice versa. Figure 1 illustrates the overall assembly of the clamp body, clamp jaw, and knobs (’397 Patent, Fig. 1).
    • Technical Importance: This dual-control, single-axis design provides a compact and precise tool for panoramic photography, a technically demanding application.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’397 Patent (Compl. ¶37). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
    • A base having a lower surface suitable for supporting said base;
    • A first clamp member secured for rotation to said base and comprising a first clamp surface;
    • A second clamp member slidably secured to the first clamp member and movable by rotation of a first screw to clamp an article; and
    • A second screw to selectively impede relative rotation of the first clamp member and the base.

U.S. Patent No. 8,827,574 - “CAMERA MOUNTING ASSEMBLY”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,827,574, "CAMERA MOUNTING ASSEMBLY," issued September 9, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a modular L-shaped camera bracket composed of a base member and a detachable side member. This construction allows for separate purchase and easier transport, while alignment mechanisms like guide pins are intended to ensure precise reassembly for stable mounting in both landscape and portrait orientations (’574 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses various "brackets for photographic equipment," such as L-brackets, from numerous manufacturers including ProMediaGear, Sunwayfoto, and Sirui, of infringement (Compl. ¶¶45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70).

U.S. Patent No. 9,097,963 - “CAMERA MOUNTING ASSEMBLY”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,097,963, "CAMERA MOUNTING ASSEMBLY," issued August 4, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’574 Patent, also claims a modular camera mounting assembly with a detachable base and side plate. The claims focus on the combination of features that allow the camera to be mounted in landscape or portrait orientations while remaining generally centered over its support (’963 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses various "brackets for photographic equipment" from manufacturers including ProMediaGear, Jobu Design, Sunwayfoto, and Sirui of infringement (Compl. ¶¶78, 83, 88, 93, 98, 103).

U.S. Patent No. 9,298,067 - “CAMERA MOUNTING ASSEMBLY”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,298,067, "CAMERA MOUNTING ASSEMBLY," issued March 29, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: Also from the ’574 patent family, this patent claims a modular camera mounting assembly with specific limitations directed to the fastening element. The claims require a "rotatable member accessible from said side surface of said camera" that detachably connects the side and base members (’067 Patent, Claim 7).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶111).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "brackets for photographic equipment" from numerous manufacturers of infringement (Compl. ¶¶111, 116, 121, 126, 131, 136).

U.S. Patent No. 9,298,068 - “CAMERA MOUNTING ASSEMBLY”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,298,068, "CAMERA MOUNTING ASSEMBLY," issued March 29, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing from the same family, this patent further claims a modular camera mounting assembly. Its claims focus on the structure of the base and side members, including alignment features that position the components for fastening (’068 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶144).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "brackets for photographic equipment" from numerous manufacturers of infringement (Compl. ¶¶144, 149, 154, 159, 164, 169).

U.S. Patent No. 9,298,069 - “CAMERA MOUNTING ASSEMBLY”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,298,069, "CAMERA MOUNTING ASSEMBLY," issued March 29, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: Another patent from the same family, this invention claims a modular mounting assembly with a base and side member. It emphasizes the detachable construction that permits purchase in parts and easy transport, as well as the alignment mechanism for fastening the members together (’069 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶177).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "brackets for photographic equipment" from numerous manufacturers of infringement (Compl. ¶¶177, 182, 187, 192, 197, 202).

U.S. Patent No. 9,052,574 - “EXTENDIBLE L-PLATE FOR CAMERA EQUIPMENT”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,052,574, "EXTENDIBLE L-PLATE FOR CAMERA EQUIPMENT," issued June 9, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a two-piece L-plate where the side member can slide relative to the base member and be secured in an extended position. This feature is intended to create clearance for cables connected to the side of the camera body when the camera is mounted in a portrait orientation (’574 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶210).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "brackets for photographic equipment" from ProMediaGear and Sunwayfoto of infringement (Compl. ¶¶210, 215, 220).

U.S. Patent No. 9,280,039 - “EXTENDIBLE L-PLATE FOR CAMERA EQUIPMENT”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,280,039, "EXTENDIBLE L-PLATE FOR CAMERA EQUIPMENT," issued March 8, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: A related patent to the ’52574 Patent, this invention also covers a two-piece, extendible L-plate. The design addresses the problem of cable interference with the mounting clamp when a camera is used in a vertical (portrait) orientation (’039 Patent, col. 2:48-67).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶228).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "brackets for photographic equipment" from ProMediaGear and Sunwayfoto of infringement (Compl. ¶¶228, 233, 238).

U.S. Patent No. 9,097,962 - “EXTENDIBLE L-PLATE FOR CAMERA EQUIPMENT”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,097,962, "EXTENDIBLE L-PLATE FOR CAMERA EQUIPMENT," issued August 4, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: Also part of the extendible L-plate family, this patent claims a two-piece assembly that provides clearance for cables connected to the side of a camera body. The claims focus on the slidable engagement between the base and side members that allows for the extended configuration (’962 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶246).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses "brackets for photographic equipment" from Jobu Design of infringement (Compl. ¶246).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint accuses a wide range of photographic mounting accessories, including quick-release clamps, panoramic camera mounts, and L-brackets (Compl. ¶¶29, 37, 45). The accused products are sold under various brand names, including SUNWAYFOTO, BENRO, NOVOFLEX, ProMediaGear, Jobu Design, 3 Legged Thing, Sirui, Leofoto, and Desmond (Compl. ¶¶29, 37, 45, 55).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are mechanical devices used by photographers to attach cameras to supports like tripods. The complaint does not provide technical descriptions of the accused products' operation, instead identifying them by manufacturer and model number and alleging they perform the functions claimed in the patents-in-suit. The extensive list of accused products from numerous different manufacturers suggests a competitive market for these accessories, which are targeted at professional and enthusiast photographers.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or detailed infringement theory mapping specific claim elements to features of the accused products. The infringement allegations are made generally against the listed products. The following charts are based on the implied infringement theory for a representative independent claim of each of the lead patents.

6,773,172 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a member defining a channel having a first side wall capable of lateral movement with respect to a second side wall The accused quick-release clamps allegedly include a body with a movable jaw that forms a channel to receive a camera plate. ¶29 col. 2:49-52
a lever capable of causing said lateral movement The accused clamps allegedly use a lever to actuate the movable jaw. ¶29 col. 3:3-15
a substantially compressible member operably interconnected between said lever and said first side wall The accused clamps allegedly incorporate an internal compressible mechanism between the lever and the movable jaw that generates a locking force. ¶29 col. 3:20-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary technical question is whether the accused SUNWAYFOTO clamps contain a "substantially compressible member" that functions as claimed. The complaint provides no evidence regarding the internal mechanics of the accused clamps, raising the question of what structure performs this function and whether it is "operably interconnected between said lever and said first side wall" as required by the claim.

9,063,397 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a base having a lower surface suitable for supporting said base The accused panoramic mounts allegedly include a base that allows the device to be mounted on a tripod or other support. ¶37 col. 2:42-45
a first clamp member secured for rotation to said base and comprising a first clamp surface The accused mounts allegedly have a rotatable clamp body with a fixed jaw. ¶37 col. 2:16-19
a second clamp member slidably secured to said first clamp member and movable by rotation of a first screw The accused mounts allegedly have a movable jaw that is actuated by a first knob or screw to clamp a camera plate. ¶37 col. 2:19-28
a second screw to selectively impede relative rotation of said first clamp member and said base The accused mounts allegedly use a second, separate knob or screw to lock or add friction to the panning rotation of the clamp body relative to the base. ¶37 col. 2:53-56
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused panoramic mounts use two distinct and separate screws for the claimed functions. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products' mechanisms for clamping and for locking rotation map to the "first screw" and "second screw" structure required by the claim?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’172 Patent:
    • The Term: "substantially compressible member"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent’s asserted novelty over prior art clamps that could loosen over time. The definition of this term will be critical to determining whether the internal mechanics of the accused clamps, which are not detailed in the complaint, meet this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the member "may be substantially compressible, such as a compression spring," which suggests that the term is not limited to springs alone (’172 Patent, col. 3:25-27).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The only disclosed embodiment is "a series of Belleville washers that together operate as a compression spring," which a defendant may argue limits the scope of the term to spring-like structures (’172 Patent, col. 3:27-29).
  • For the ’397 Patent:
    • The Term: "second screw to selectively impede relative rotation"
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the panning lock feature, which is distinct from the camera clamping mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether accused devices with different types of rotational locks or friction controls fall within the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses phrases like "selectively inhibit the rotation" and describes a cinching knob that creates "frictional engagement," which could support a construction that includes mechanisms that add friction rather than providing a hard lock (’397 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-56).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term "screw" implies a threaded component that provides a positive, mechanical lock when tightened, potentially distinguishing it from simple friction-based controls.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement. However, for many of the accused product categories, it alleges that the products "are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement" (Compl. ¶¶29, 37, 45). This language tracks the statutory requirements for contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for every asserted patent against every accused defendant. The basis for these allegations is the assertion that each defendant "was previously notified of and/or had knowledge of" the patent-in-suit and "has continued to infringe" despite that knowledge (Compl. ¶¶31, 39, 47, 52, 57, 62, 67, 72, etc.).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint’s lack of technical detail, a central question will be whether discovery reveals that the accused products—from a wide range of manufacturers—in fact practice the specific mechanical arrangements claimed, such as the force-counteracting "substantially compressible member" of the ’172 Patent and the distinct modularity and extendibility features of the L-bracket patents.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope and differentiation: With ten patents asserted, many from the same family and directed to similar L-bracket technologies, the case will likely involve distinguishing the scope of related claims and determining whether the various accused products meet the specific limitations of each asserted patent.
  • A third core issue will be one of willfulness and knowledge: The plaintiff's repeated assertions of pre-suit notice will be a focal point of the willfulness claims, raising the question of what specific notice was provided to each defendant for each patent and whether their continued conduct was objectively reckless.