DigiMedia Tech LLC v. Olympus Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DigiMedia Tech, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Olympus Corporation (Japan); Olympus America Inc. (New York); Olympus Corporation of the Americas (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Kent & Risley LLC
• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-02549, E.D. Pa., 05/29/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the grounds that Defendant Olympus Corporation is a foreign corporation that may be sued in any judicial district, and that all Defendants have committed acts of infringement and maintain a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain Olympus digital cameras infringe one patent related to miniaturized zoom and autofocus systems using micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), and two patents related to software-based head-tracking for functions such as face-detection autofocus.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to technologies for enabling advanced features in compact digital cameras, specifically the miniaturization of mechanical components for optical zoom and the improvement of software for identifying human faces in an image.
• Key Procedural History: The '476 patent is a continuation of the application that led to the '706 patent, and it claims priority to the '706 patent's filing date. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, claims 21, 22, and 23 of the '476 patent, which are asserted in this action, were cancelled in an Inter Partes Review proceeding (IPR2021-00176), with a certificate issued on August 3, 2022.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,914,635 - Microminiature Zoom System for Digital Camera, Issued July 5, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty in miniaturizing digital cameras for compact devices, such as mobile phones, because the apparatus needed to move lenses for a traditional zoom function is "cumbersome" ('635 Patent, col. 1:11-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) to achieve camera functions in a smaller package. Specifically, it discloses mounting a semi-conductor image sensor on a MEMS support mechanism, allowing the sensor itself to move relative to the lens to provide autofocus ('635 Patent, col. 2:59-65). The patent further discloses that both the lens and the sensor can be mounted on MEMS supports for coordinated movement to provide both autofocus and zoom functions ('635 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:36-44).
• Technical Importance: This approach facilitated the integration of complex optical features, such as zoom and autofocus, into increasingly small electronic devices where physical space is a primary design constraint ('635 Patent, col. 1:7-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A lens assembly for receiving an image and projecting it on an image plane.
  • A MEMS system support mechanism, fabricated "integrally with" a supported element, for providing at least two positions of movement.
  • A semi-conductor image sensor mounted at the image plane for movement on the MEMS system support mechanism.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,545,706 - System, Method and Article of Manufacture for Tracking a Head of a Camera-Generated Image of a Person, Issued April 8, 2003

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that using a single technique to find a person's head in a video image is often unreliable, as the system can be confused by background images or other body parts of a similar color or shape, such as a hand ('706 Patent, col. 1:55-62).
• The Patented Solution: To improve accuracy, the invention proposes a system that executes two different head tracking operations. Each operation generates a "confidence value" indicating its certainty that a head has been correctly located. The system then uses both confidence values to make a final determination, creating a more robust tracking method ('706 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12). The specification provides an example of this dual-system architecture, showing a "background subtraction head tracker" and a "free form head tracker" working in parallel ('706 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This dual-analysis methodology provides a more reliable foundation for features like face-detection autofocus, a key function in consumer and professional digital photography for ensuring the main subject is in focus ('706 Patent, col. 1:47-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶41).
• Essential elements of claim 19, a computer program claim, include:
  • A code segment for receiving video images.
  • A code segment for executing a first head tracking operation, which includes "identifying a point of separation between a torso portion of the person image and the head portion."
  • A code segment for executing a second head tracking operation.
  • A code segment for outputting the confidence values from both operations.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,715,476

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,715,476, System, Method and Article of Manufacture for Tracking a Head of a Camera-Generated Image of a Person, Issued May 11, 2010.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, which shares a specification with the '706 patent, addresses the same technical problem of unreliable head tracking when using a single methodology ('476 Patent, col. 2:1-7). The disclosed solution is a system that uses two different tracking processes, each generating a confidence value, to more accurately locate a person's head in a video image ('476 Patent, col. 2:10-24).
• Asserted Claims: Claims 21, 22, and 23 are asserted (Compl. ¶49). As noted in Section I, these claims were cancelled in a subsequent IPR proceeding.
• Accused Features: The head-tracking functionality, such as face-detection autofocus, in the Defendant's Olympus E-M1 Mark III and similar cameras are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶49).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint names the Defendant's "Olympus E-M10," "Olympus E-M1 Mark III," and "similar products" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶33, 41, 49).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products are "increasingly compact digital cameras" that incorporate technical solutions for features like zoom, autofocus, anti-shake, and image stabilization (Compl. ¶15). Specifically, the infringement allegations target the cameras' internal mechanisms for autofocus and image stabilization, as well as their software-based features for identifying a human head in an image to assist in focusing (Compl. ¶¶15, 22, 30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that preliminary claim charts are attached as Exhibits D, E, and F, but these exhibits were not included in the public filing. Therefore, the infringement analysis is based on the narrative allegations.

• ’635 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 of the '635 Patent by the Olympus E-M10 and similar products (Compl. ¶33). The narrative theory suggests that the accused cameras' autofocus and/or image stabilization systems employ a MEMS support mechanism to move a semi-conductor image sensor, thereby practicing the claimed invention (Compl. ¶¶15, 33).
• ’706 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 19 of the '706 Patent by the Olympus E-M1 Mark III and similar products (Compl. ¶41). The theory posits that the camera's face-detection autofocus software is a "computer program" that executes two distinct head tracking operations—one of which involves identifying a head/torso separation point—and uses the resulting confidence values to track a head, thus meeting the limitations of claim 19 (Compl. ¶¶22, 41).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions ('635 Patent): A central factual question for the '635 patent infringement claim will be the precise mechanical operation of the accused cameras. The court may need to determine if the accused products achieve autofocus or image stabilization by moving the image sensor on a MEMS support, as required by claim 1, or if they use an alternative method, such as moving only lens elements, which may not fall within the claim's scope.
  • Scope Questions ('706 Patent): A primary dispute may concern the interpretation of "a second head tracking operation." The question for the court will be whether the accused face-detection software, which may be a single complex algorithm, performs two functionally and algorithmically distinct "operations" as contemplated by the patent, or if its functionality is better characterized as a single, unified process. Further, a factual question will be whether the accused software performs the specific step of "identifying a point of separation between a torso portion... and the head portion," as explicitly required by claim 19.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• '635 Patent, Claim 1:

  • The Term: "fabricated integrally with said supported element"
  • Context and Importance: This term describes the physical relationship between the MEMS support mechanism and the image sensor it moves. Its construction is critical to determining whether the claim covers systems where the MEMS actuator and the sensor are manufactured as separate components and later assembled, versus systems where they are constructed together as a single, unified unit.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope might contend that "integrally" does not require monolithic fabrication, but rather a functional integration where the components are designed to work together as a single electromechanical system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's description of fabricating the system "on the same chip using silicon based microelectronics for the sensor and micromachining technology for the... support" may support a narrower construction requiring co-fabrication on a single substrate ('635 Patent, col. 4:60-64).

• '706 Patent, Claim 19:

  • The Term: "a second head tracking operation"
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires two distinct operations. The definition of this term is central, as a defendant might argue its product uses a single, multi-faceted algorithm rather than two separate operations. Practitioners may focus on this term because the case could depend on whether "a second... operation" requires a temporally or algorithmically separate process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue that distinct analytical steps or threads within a single software module satisfy the "second... operation" limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's specification and figures, which depict separate modules for different tracking methods (e.g., "background subtraction head tracker" 200 and "free form head tracker" 202 in Fig. 2), may support a narrower reading that requires two independent and distinct algorithms or routines ('706 Patent, Fig. 2).

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents-in-suit. The basis for this allegation is that "Plaintiff specifically notified Defendant in writing of their infringement" prior to filing the suit, and that Defendant continued its allegedly infringing activities despite having actual knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶¶36-37, 44-45, 52-53).

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

1. A dispositive threshold issue concerns the viability of the infringement claim for the '476 patent. Given that all asserted claims of the '476 patent were cancelled in a post-filing IPR proceeding, a central question for the court will be how to resolve this count, which appears to be based on invalid patent claims.
2. A key evidentiary question for the '635 patent will be one of technical implementation: does discovery evidence show that the accused Olympus cameras employ a system where the image sensor itself is moved by an "integrally fabricated" MEMS mechanism, as required by claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the accused product's physical construction?
3. For the '706 patent, the case will likely turn on a question of algorithmic architecture: does the accused face-detection software perform two genuinely distinct "head tracking operations" and combine their results in the manner claimed, or does it utilize a single, unified algorithm that does not map onto the dual-operation structure required by claim 19?