DCT

2:22-cv-00499

Advanced Coding Tech LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd Pursuant To Court Order Docket In Lead Case 2 22cv501

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00499, E.D. Tex., 12/30/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction, have committed acts of infringement, and maintain a regular and established place of business in the district. It is further alleged that Samsung Electronics is a foreign corporation and that Defendants have not contested venue in the district in prior patent litigation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of Defendant’s products, including televisions, handsets, laptops, and chipsets, infringe six patents related to efficient video data encoding and decoding.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to video compression and processing, a foundational technology for streaming media, consumer electronics, and digital communication, where efficiency directly impacts data usage, storage requirements, and visual quality.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Samsung had pre-suit notice of five of the six asserted patents, based on their citation during the prosecution of Samsung's own U.S. and foreign patent applications. These allegations may be used to support claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-09 ’128 Patent Priority Date
2005-01-18 U.S. Patent No. 6,845,128 Issues
2006-04-17 ’025 Patent Priority Date
2006-10-13 ’150 Patent Priority Date
2008-05-30 ’995 Patent Priority Date
2012-01-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,090,025 Issues
2012-03-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,139,150 Issues
2012-12-28 ’041 Patent Priority Date
2013-07-11 ’025 Patent allegedly cited during prosecution of Samsung patent application
2014-03-31 ’303 Patent Priority Date
2016-03-10 ’995 Patent allegedly cited during prosecution of Samsung patent application
2016-09-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,445,041 Issues
2016-10-11 ’150 Patent allegedly cited during prosecution of Samsung patent application
2017-06-28 ’041 Patent allegedly cited during prosecution of Samsung patent application
2018-05-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,986,303 Issues
2019-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,218,995 Issues
2019-03-15 ’303 Patent allegedly cited during prosecution of Samsung patent application
2022-12-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,845,128 - "Video-Emphasis Encoding Apparatus and Decoding Apparatus and Method of Video-Emphasis Encoding and Decoding"

  • Patent Identification: 6,845,128, “Video-Emphasis Encoding Apparatus and Decoding Apparatus and Method of Video-Emphasis Encoding and Decoding,” issued January 18, 2005.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional video emphasis processing, which enhances high-frequency components to improve image quality, can cause "overrange" conditions and may not achieve high coding efficiency due to large quantization errors for the emphasized data (’128 Patent, col. 1:15-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an adaptive system where an "emphasis level" is dynamically set based on one or more factors, including control data, the picture's state (e.g., existing enhancement), and encoding conditions (e.g., quantization step width) (’128 Patent, col. 2:58-67). This emphasis level is then applied to the video signal, which is encoded, and the emphasis level data itself is multiplexed into the resulting bitstream for use by a corresponding decoder (’128 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more nuanced control over emphasis processing, aiming to balance image quality improvements with coding efficiency and prevent data overrange.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • An "emphasis-level setter" for setting an emphasis level based on at least one factor among control data, a detected picture state, and encoding conditions.
    • An "emphasizer" for applying the emphasis processing at that level to an input video signal.
    • An "encoder" for encoding the emphasized video signal to obtain a video bitstream.
    • A "multiplexer" for multiplexing the video bitstream with data on the emphasis level.

U.S. Patent No. 8,090,025 - "Moving-Picture Coding Apparatus Method and Program, and Moving-Picture Decoding Apparatus, Method and Program"

  • Patent Identification: 8,090,025, “Moving-Picture Coding Apparatus Method and Program, and Moving-Picture Decoding Apparatus, Method and Program,” issued January 3, 2012.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Standard block-based motion compensation in video coding can create discontinuities at block borders in the predictive picture, leading to blocky artifacts and reduced coding efficiency, particularly at low bit rates (’025 Patent, col. 1:40-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a decoding method that addresses this by using border-specific information. It involves generating "border motion-vector data" by matching boundary conditions between rectangular zones in the current picture and a reference picture. An estimated video signal is then generated in each zone that "satisfies Poisson's Equation," creating a predictive picture with improved continuity at the borders (’025 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-67).
  • Technical Importance: By improving the quality and continuity of the predictive picture, this method aims to reduce the amount of residual data that must be encoded, thereby increasing overall compression efficiency.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Claim 10 is a method claim for decoding a moving-picture, comprising the steps of:
    • Performing entropy decoding on demultiplexed data to generate post-quantization data and border motion-vector data.
    • Performing inverse-quantization and inverse-orthogonal transform to produce a decoded residual picture.
    • Defining a boundary condition of a border from a reference picture based on the border motion-vector data.
    • Generating an estimated video signal in each rectangular zone that satisfies Poisson's Equation, thus producing a first predictive picture.
    • Combining the first predictive picture and the decoded residual picture to generate a decoded signal.
    • Storing the decoded signal as a reference picture.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’025 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,139,150 - "Method and Apparatus for Encoding and Decoding Multi-View Video Signal, and Related Computer Programs"

  • Patent Identification: 8,139,150, “Method and Apparatus for Encoding and Decoding Multi-View Video Signal, and Related Computer Programs,” issued March 20, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the decoding of multi-view video signals (e.g., for 3D video), where one viewpoint is a "base viewpoint." The invention involves embedding coded information representing a "desired delay time" for decoding non-base viewpoints relative to the base viewpoint, which allows for synchronized decoding in a parallel processing environment (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 55).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶56).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung Televisions and Handsets compliant with the H.264 Multi-View Coding (MVC) Standard of using the claimed method, alleging that the standard's cbp_removal_delay parameter determines the claimed delay time (Compl. ¶¶ 55, 59).

U.S. Patent No. 9,445,041 - "Moving Image Data Processing Apparatus and Moving Image Data Processing Method"

  • Patent Identification: 9,445,041, “Moving Image Data Processing Apparatus and Moving Image Data Processing Method,” issued September 13, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to processing and outputting multiple video files that were generated at different frame rates. The claimed method involves inputting at least two moving image data sets with different frame rates, specifying their respective frame rates and a single, common playback speed, changing the frame rates of both data sets based on their input rate, a specified output rate, and the common playback speed, and then outputting the changed data (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 68).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses a wide range of Samsung Handsets of practicing the method, providing screenshots of a video editor application allegedly performing the claimed steps of inputting videos with different frame rates (30fps and 60fps), setting a common playback speed (0.5x), and outputting videos with changed frame rates (15fps and 30fps) (Compl. ¶¶ 68, 70-75).

U.S. Patent No. 9,986,303 - "Video Image Coding Data Transmitter, Video Image Coding Data Transmission Method, Video Image Coding Data Receiver, and Video Image Coding Data Transmission and Reception System"

  • Patent Identification: 9,986,303, “Video Image Coding Data Transmitter, Video Image Coding Data Transmission Method, Video Image Coding Data Receiver, and Video Image Coding Data Transmission and Reception System,” issued May 29, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for efficiently transmitting and receiving video at two different resolutions. A receiver is configured to receive "basic" video data (e.g., 720p) and "supplementary" video data (e.g., 1080p), where the supplementary data includes pictures whose coding and display order are earlier than those of the basic data. This allows for flexible reconstruction of video, for example, when switching between resolutions during streaming (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 82, 85-87).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶83).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung Televisions and Handsets compliant with AV1 or SVT-AV1 standards. It alleges that the AV1 standard's use of an "S frame" (switch frame) to move between lower and higher bitrate/resolution streams corresponds to the claimed reception of basic and supplementary hierarchical pictures (Compl. ¶¶ 83, 87).

U.S. Patent No. 10,218,995 - "Moving Picture Encoding System, Moving Picture Encoding Method, Moving Picture Encoding Program, Moving Picture Decoding System..."

  • Patent Identification: 10,218,995, “Moving Picture Encoding System, Moving Picture Encoding Method, Moving Picture Encoding Program, Moving Picture Decoding System...” issued February 26, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a decoding system using hierarchical encoding with a "super-resolution" feature. A demultiplexer splits an input bitstream into two sequences. A first decoder creates standard-resolution pictures, which are then passed to a "first super-resolution enlarger" to create higher-resolution pictures. A second decoder then uses both the standard-resolution pictures and the super-resolution pictures as potential reference frames for decoding the second sequence of bits (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 98).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶99).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung televisions compliant with AV1/SVT-AV1 standards. It alleges these products implement the claimed system by using I-frames as the first sequence for standard decoding and P-frames as the second sequence, where the AV1 "super-resolve steps" (upscaling and loop restoration) function as the claimed first super-resolution enlarger (Compl. ¶¶ 100-102).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • ’128 Accused Products: Samsung Notebook Odyssey and Samsung Notebook 7 Force containing NVIDIA processors with "Turing" or "Ampere" architectures (Compl. ¶27).
  • ’025, ’303, and ’995 Accused Products: Various models of Samsung Televisions and Handsets that are compliant with the AV1 and/or SVT-AV1 video coding standards (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 82, 98).
  • ’150 Accused Products: Various models of Samsung Televisions and Handsets compliant with the H.264 Multi-View Coding (MVC) standard (Compl. ¶55).
  • ’041 Accused Products: An extensive list of Samsung's 5G-capable handsets and tablets, such as the Galaxy S and Z Fold series, which are alleged to include a video editor application (Compl. ¶68).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The infringement allegations center on the implementation of industry-standard video codecs (AV1, H.264 MVC) in Samsung’s commercially significant product lines, including flagship televisions and mobile devices (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 55, 68).
  • For the ’128 Patent, the functionality is tied to the hardware-accelerated video encoding (NVENC) capabilities of NVIDIA GPUs, which are components in certain Samsung laptops. The complaint alleges these processors provide "Emphasis Level Mapping" (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29). The NVENC block diagram provided in the complaint illustrates a standard hardware encoding pipeline, including rate control and quantization modules (Compl. p. 8).
  • For the ’041 Patent, the functionality is a software-based video editor on Samsung handsets. The complaint provides screenshots showing an interface where a user can import two videos, set an output frame rate and a playback speed, and export new video files (Compl. pp. 27-28). The complaint alleges this editor changes the frame rates of the output videos based on the user's inputs (Compl. ¶74).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,845,128 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a video-emphasis encoding apparatus...comprising: The accused Samsung notebooks containing NVIDIA processors are alleged to be video-emphasis encoding apparatuses. ¶27 col. 9:5-7
an emphasis-level setter for setting an emphasis level to the input video signal in accordance with at least one factor among control data carried by the input video signal, a picture state detected from the input video signal and encoding conditions for the input video signal; The NVIDIA processors' NVENC hardware includes a "Rate Control" algorithm and accepts custom "QP maps (for ROI 'region of interest' encoding)" which are alleged to collectively set the emphasis level based on encoding conditions. ¶29 col. 9:8-14
an emphasizer for applying the emphasis processing to the input video signal at the emphasis level to obtain an emphasized video signal; The "Quantization" block in the NVENC hardware allegedly applies adjusted quantization parameter (QP) values, which function as emphasis level data, to the input video signal. The complaint provides a screenshot from an NVIDIA document describing an "Emphasis MAP" feature that adjusts the QP for macroblocks. ¶30 col. 9:15-18
an encoder for encoding the emphasized video signal to obtain a video bitstream; and The NVENC hardware performs H.264/H.265 encoding, including an "Entropy Coding" block that produces the final output bitstream. ¶31 col. 9:19-21
a multiplexer for multiplexing the video bitstream and data on the emphasis level. The "delta QP" data, representing the emphasis level, is allegedly multiplexed into the header of the bitstream packets. ¶32 col. 9:22-24
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the functionality described in NVIDIA technical documents for "Rate Control" and "Emphasis MAP" constitutes an "emphasis-level setter" and "emphasizer" as those terms are used in the patent. The defense may argue that standard rate control and QP adjustment for regions of interest are distinct technical concepts from the "video-emphasis processing" described in the patent's specification.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused NVIDIA hardware performs these functions based on all three potential factors listed in the claim ("control data", "picture state", and "encoding conditions")? The complaint focuses on "encoding conditions" (rate control, QP maps) but is less specific on the other two factors.

U.S. Patent No. 8,090,025 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A moving-picture decoding method comprising the steps of: performing entropy decoding to...data thus demultiplexed to generate, at least, the post-quantization data, the border motion-vector data and parameter data... The accused Samsung televisions, being compliant with the AV1 standard, allegedly perform entropy decoding on an input bitstream to recover quantized coefficients and other data. The complaint includes a diagram showing an "Entropy coding" block in a typical hybrid encoder. ¶43 col. 38:8-14
performing inverse-quantization to the post-quantization data...; performing inverse-orthogonal transform...to produce a decoded residual picture of one video area; The accused products allegedly perform inverse quantization and inverse transform on the decoded data to produce a residual picture, consistent with the AV1 standard's decoding process. ¶44 col. 38:15-21
defining a boundary condition of a border that corresponds to the border motion-vector data, from the reference picture based on the border motion-vector data, and The accused products' implementation of the AV1 standard allegedly uses inter-frame prediction, where motion estimation algorithms compare boundary conditions between blocks in the current and reference frames to generate motion vectors. ¶41 col. 38:22-26
generate an estimated video signal in each rectangular zone in the picture to be coded, that satisfies Poisson's Equation, thus producing a first predictive picture; The AV1 standard's use of smoothing algorithms in Overlapped Block Motion Compensation ("OBMC") is alleged to generate an estimated signal that satisfies Poisson's Equation by finding predicted pixels that minimize the residual. ¶42 col. 38:27-32
combining the first predictive picture and the decoded residual picture to generate a decoded moving-picture signal; and The accused products allegedly combine the predictive picture and the residual picture to reconstruct the final decoded frame, a standard step in hybrid video codecs. The complaint provides a diagram illustrating this combination. ¶46 col. 38:33-35
storing the decoded moving-picture signal for at least one picture as a reference picture. The accused products allegedly update a set of reference frames with the newly decoded picture for use in decoding subsequent pictures. ¶47 col. 38:36-38
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The central technical question will be whether the algorithms used in the AV1 standard, specifically Overlapped Block Motion Compensation (OBMC), can be proven to generate a signal that "satisfies Poisson's Equation." This is a specific mathematical limitation that may not be explicitly mentioned in the standard's documentation, potentially requiring expert testimony to establish infringement.
    • Scope Questions: Does the AV1 standard's concept of motion vectors for entire blocks or partitions constitute the claimed "border motion-vector data" which, as described in the patent, appears to relate specifically to the boundaries between rectangular zones? The analysis may focus on whether the standard's block-based approach meets this more granular claim limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’128 Patent:

  • The Term: "emphasis-level setter"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core of the invention's adaptive nature. The infringement theory hinges on mapping this term to the "Rate Control" and "QP maps" features of the accused NVIDIA processors. The scope of this term will be critical to determining whether standard video encoding rate control mechanisms fall within the patent's claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the setter sets the level "in accordance with at least one factor among control data carried by the input video signal, a picture state detected from the input video signal and encoding conditions for the input video signal" (’128 Patent, col. 2:58-64). This disjunctive "at least one factor" language may support a broad reading that covers any system using, for example, only encoding conditions to adjust emphasis.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the first embodiment focuses heavily on a combination of "block activity" (a picture state) and quantization step width (an encoding condition) to calculate the emphasis level (’128 Patent, col. 5:40-52). A defendant may argue this specific implementation contextually limits the term to systems that consider picture characteristics, not just encoding parameters.

For the ’025 Patent:

  • The Term: "that satisfies Poisson's Equation"
  • Context and Importance: This is a highly specific mathematical limitation applied to the "estimated video signal." Plaintiff alleges that the AV1 standard's OBMC feature meets this limitation. The entire infringement case for this patent may turn on whether this mathematical property can be proven to exist in the accused products' functionality. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a functional, rather than purely structural, limitation that is not typically found in video coding claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the invention generates an estimated video signal "that satisfies Poisson's Equation, thus producing a first predictive picture." The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition of the equation itself, potentially leaving its precise meaning open to interpretation based on the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the concept to a specific non-patent document titled "Improvement of DCT-based Compression Algorithms Using Poisson's Equation" (’025 Patent, Other Publications). A defendant may argue that the term must be construed narrowly in light of the specific methods and context provided in that cited reference.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all asserted patents, stating that Samsung provides instructions, documentation, technical support, marketing, and product manuals that encourage and facilitate infringing use by customers and end-users (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 50, 63, 77, 92, 107). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that the accused components are not staple articles of commerce, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Samsung to be especially made for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 51, 64, 78, 94, 109).
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the word "willful" in its counts, it lays the groundwork for such a claim. It alleges Samsung has had actual notice of five of the six patents-in-suit since as early as 2013, based on their citation during the prosecution of Samsung's own patent applications (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 57, 76, 93, 108). This alleged pre-suit knowledge, combined with continued sales of accused products, forms a basis for potential willfulness allegations.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical and definitional equivalence: Can Plaintiff prove that the complex, standardized algorithms in modern video codecs (such as AV1's OBMC or NVIDIA's rate control) perform the specific and sometimes unconventional functions required by the patent claims, such as generating a signal that "satisfies Poisson's Equation"?
  • A key question will be one of claim scope and industry practice: To what extent can claims rooted in specific embodiments for video processing be construed to cover functionalities that are now integral parts of broad, collaboratively developed industry standards like H.264 MVC and AV1? The resolution will likely depend on whether the court views the accused implementations as mere adoptions of the patented inventions or as distinct technological paths.
  • An evidentiary question will relate to pre-suit knowledge and intent: How will the allegations that Samsung was aware of the patents-in-suit for years—due to their citation against its own patent applications—impact potential findings of willfulness and any subsequent damages calculations?