DCT
2:23-cv-00169
Monument Peak Ventures LLC v. BLU Products Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: BLU Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Platt Cheema Richmond PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00169, E.D. Tex., 04/12/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the district, including selling, delivering, and advertising the accused products, and has purposefully transacted business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones infringe four patents, originally from the Eastman Kodak portfolio, related to digital image processing technologies, including real-time color adjustment, selective image enhancement, main subject emphasis, and multi-lens range-finding.
- Technical Context: The patents address foundational digital photography challenges, such as improving user control over image properties before capture, automating aesthetic enhancements, and using multiple cameras to create depth effects.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Monument Peak Ventures (MPV) alleges it acquired a portfolio of patents from Eastman Kodak. On February 19, 2020, MPV allegedly approached Defendant BLU Products, Inc. (BLU) to license the portfolio and provided claim charts, initiating discussions that continued under a non-disclosure agreement until mid-March 2022. Plaintiff alleges this history establishes pre-suit knowledge of infringement. One of the asserted patents, the '668 Patent, expired on July 13, 2022; damages for this patent are sought only for the pre-expiration period.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-08-18 | Priority Date ('668 Patent) |
| 2000-08-31 | Priority Date ('039 Patent) |
| 2001-12-10 | Priority Date ('573 Patent) |
| 2005-03-01 | Issue Date ('039 Patent) |
| 2006-08-15 | Issue Date ('573 Patent) |
| 2007-03-09 | Priority Date ('962 Patent) |
| 2007-05-01 | Issue Date ('668 Patent) |
| 2009-05-12 | Issue Date ('962 Patent) |
| 2020-02-19 | Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant of infringement |
| 2022-03-15 | Alleged end of licensing discussions (approx.) |
| 2022-07-13 | Expiration Date ('668 Patent) |
| 2023-04-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,862,039 - "Electronic Camera Including Color Tone Adjustment of a Real-Time Image," issued March 1, 2005
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes that in conventional electronic cameras, adjusting white balance was often insufficient, requiring post-capture correction through a trial-and-error process because no appropriate standard was available to the operator in real time (ʼ039 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides an electronic camera where the operator can view a real-time image on a monitor and directly adjust its color tone before capturing the final image. This is accomplished using input means, such as direction buttons, that allow for arbitrary, real-time adjustment, which the patent asserts improves operability (ʼ039 Patent, col. 1:56-60). A controller reads signals from the input buttons, calculates an adjustment value, and instructs a circuit to correct the color tone of the live preview image (ʼ039 Patent, Fig. 3, S102-S108).
- Technical Importance: This technology shifted color correction from a potentially cumbersome post-processing step to an interactive, pre-capture function, giving users more immediate creative control.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
- The essential elements of claim 1, a means-plus-function claim, are:
- An electronic camera which is portable and has a display device for showing a photoelectric-converted image, comprising:
- input means for entering a color tone adjustment value of a real-time image shown on the display device;
- adjustment means for adjusting the color tone of the real-time image according to the entered adjustment value; and
- correction means for correcting the real-time image according to the adjusted color tone.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 7,092,573 - "Method and System for Selectively Applying Enhancement to an Image," issued August 15, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that standard image enhancement techniques, like sharpening, are often applied uniformly across an entire image. This can lead to unwanted results, such as making wrinkles on a face more visible ("unpleasantly 'enhanced'") or removing desirable fine details in textured areas like grass or fabric (ʼ573 Patent, col. 1:21-34). Manually adjusting enhancement on a region-by-region basis was described as an "expensive process" (ʼ573 Patent, col. 1:35-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated method that first applies a "subject matter detector" to the image to generate a "belief map." This map indicates the probability that any given pixel belongs to a "target subject matter," such as human skin (ʼ573 Patent, col. 4:16-24, 4:50-53). The method then enhances the image by varying the level of enhancement pixel-by-pixel, based on both the "degree of belief" from the map and the "size" of the identified region (ʼ573 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This invention enabled more intelligent, context-aware image processing that could automatically apply different levels of enhancement to different parts of a photo, such as sharpening a building while gently treating a face in the same frame.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶72).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- applying a subject matter detector to the digital image to produce a belief map of values indicating the degree of belief that pixels in the digital image belong to target subject matter, said values defining a plurality of belief regions;
- determining the sizes of each of said belief regions in said belief map;
- enhancing the digital image, said enhancing varying pixel by pixel in accordance with both the degree of belief and the size of the respective said belief region.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 7,212,668 - "Digital Image Processing System and Method for Emphasizing a Main Subject of an Image," issued May 1, 2007
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the "very labor intensive and hence costly" manual process of emphasizing a main subject in an image, for example, by blurring the background ('668 Patent, col. 1:24-26). The invention provides an automated method that first segments an image into regions and generates a "main subject belief map" indicating the probability that each region is the main subject. It then automatically alters pixel values to emphasize that subject ('668 Patent, Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶91).
- Accused Features: The "Beauty" and "Portrait" modes in the BLU G91 smartphone are accused of infringing. The complaint alleges these modes automatically identify a user's face, segment the image into facial and background regions, and alter pixel values to emphasize the face (Compl. ¶92-95). The screenshot on page 25 of the complaint shows the camera app automatically placing a box around a user's face in "Auto Beauty" mode (Compl. p. 25).
U.S. Patent No. 7,683,962 - "Camera Using Multiple Lenses and Image Sensors in a Rangefinder Configuration to Provide a Range Map," issued May 12, 2009
- Technology Synopsis: The patent seeks to improve upon prior art autofocus systems, which it characterizes as either slow ("through-the-lens" systems) or subject to environmental inaccuracies (rangefinder systems) ('962 Patent, col. 1:13-2:65). The invention uses a camera with at least two imaging stages (i.e., two lenses and two sensors) to capture two images of a scene. These images are then used to generate a "range map" that identifies distances to different portions of the scene, which can then be used to enable effects like dynamic depth of field (blurring the background) ('962 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:15-22).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶111).
- Accused Features: The BLU Vivo X smartphone, with its "dual rear main cameras," is accused of infringement. The complaint alleges this system uses its two cameras (a 13MP and a 5MP sensor) as two imaging stages to produce a distance map and create a "Bokeh" (background blur) effect (Compl. ¶112-113, 119). The complaint includes a marketing image stating the dual cameras provide "Bokeh for enhanced depth perception and object focus" (Compl. p. 29).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The BLU G91 and BLU Vivo X smartphones, along with other BLU smartphones with similar functionality, are collectively identified as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint focuses on the camera functionalities of the accused smartphones. The BLU G91 is alleged to include a "Pro Mode" that allows for user adjustment of ISO and white balance settings for a real-time image (Compl. ¶55). It also allegedly features a "Portrait & Beauty Mode" that automatically identifies human faces and applies enhancements using sliders for effects like "Slimming, Smoother, Eye Enlarger, and Whitening" (Compl. ¶74). A screenshot from a product overview describes these features as delivering a "professional look that highlights and enhances the subject" (Compl. p. 20).
- The BLU Vivo X is alleged to feature "dual rear main cameras" (13MP and 5MP sensors) that operate as two distinct imaging stages (Compl. ¶112-113). This dual-camera system is allegedly used to produce a distance or "range map" of a scene, enabling special effects such as "Bokeh" for enhanced depth perception (Compl. ¶112, ¶119).
- The complaint does not provide specific details on the market positioning of the Accused Products, other than alleging they are manufactured, imported, and sold within the United States (Compl. ¶4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 6,862,039 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an electronic camera which is portable and has a display device for showing a photoelectric-converted image | The BLU G91 smartphone is a portable electronic camera with a display capable of showing a digital image. | ¶53 | col. 4:40-44 |
| input means for entering a color tone adjustment value of a real-time image shown on the display device | The BLU G91's "Pro Mode" includes ISO and white balance buttons that allow a user to input an adjustment value for the real-time image on the display. A screenshot shows controls for WB (white balance) and ISO (Compl. p. 15). | ¶55 | col. 4:49-54 |
| adjustment means for adjusting the color tone of the real-time image according to the entered adjustment value | The smartphone includes hardware and circuitry that adjust the white balance value of the real-time image according to the user's input. | ¶55 | col. 4:54-58 |
| correction means for correcting the real-time image according to the adjusted color tone | The smartphone includes hardware and circuitry that correct the real-time image according to the adjusted white balance, thereby changing the displayed image. | ¶56 | col. 4:1-6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 uses "means-plus-function" language. The central dispute will likely be whether the structures within the BLU G91 (e.g., its specific "Pro Mode" interface and processing circuitry) are structurally equivalent to the "direction buttons 40a, 40b, 40c, 40d" and "white balance adjusting circuit 26" disclosed in the '039 Patent specification ('039 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Questions: What is the technical overlap between the claimed "color tone adjustment" and the accused "white balance" adjustment? The patent describes adjusting "two color-difference elements" ('039 Patent, col. 3:1-6), raising the question of whether the accused product's white balance function performs the same specific operation or a different one.
U.S. Patent No. 7,092,573 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| applying a subject matter detector to the digital image to produce a belief map of values indicating the degree of belief that pixels in the digital image belong to target subject matter... | The BLU G91's "beauty mode" acts as a subject matter detector, identifying pixels corresponding to target matter like skin or eyes to produce a map of belief values. | ¶74 | col. 4:16-24 |
| determining the sizes of each of said belief regions in said belief map | BLU cameras are alleged to determine the sizes of each belief region. | ¶75 | col. 10:19-24 |
| enhancing the digital image, said enhancing varying pixel by pixel in accordance with both the degree of belief and the size of the respective said belief region | When a user selects an effect like "Whitening," the phone allegedly enhances pixels identified as skin based on the belief that they are skin and the size of the region identified as skin. | ¶75-76 | col. 10:35-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the accused "beauty mode" truly generate a "belief map" and determine "sizes of each...belief region" as those terms are understood in the patent, or does it use a simpler object detection method?
- Technical Questions: The claim requires that enhancement varies based on both the degree of belief and the size of the region. A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused algorithm actually considers region size as a distinct input. The complaint's evidence, such as a screenshot listing enhancement sliders (Compl. p. 20), does not on its face demonstrate that the underlying algorithm uses region size to modulate the enhancement, raising the question of whether the complaint provides sufficient evidence for this specific limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '039 Patent:
- The Term:
input means for entering a color tone adjustment value - Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function term, its scope is not its literal meaning but is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the patent's specification and its equivalents. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the '039 Patent will depend heavily on whether the accused product's "ISO buttons" and white balance controls (Compl. ¶55) are deemed equivalent to the specific structure disclosed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader interpretation might argue that the function is simply "entering a color tone adjustment value," and any button that achieves this could be an equivalent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses "direction buttons 40a, 40b, 40c, 40d" ('039 Patent, col. 4:62-65) that correspond to two color-difference elements ('039 Patent, col. 3:1-6). A party may argue this specific four-directional, two-axis control structure is the "corresponding structure," limiting the scope of equivalents.
- The Term:
For the '573 Patent:
- The Term:
enhancing varying pixel by pixel in accordance with both the degree of belief and the size of the respective said belief region - Context and Importance: This limitation requires a dual-condition algorithm. The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can prove the accused "beauty mode" considers the size of the detected region (e.g., the size of a face) in addition to the confidence that a pixel is part of that region. Practitioners may focus on this term because it represents a specific technical implementation that may not be present in all facial enhancement software.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the general concept of varying enhancement based on subject matter, which a party might argue is met by any system that treats large faces differently than small faces, even implicitly.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific implementation where a "size map Sᵢ(x,y)" is generated and used as an input to a function that calculates the enhancement level ('573 Patent, col. 10:19-24, 10:52-56). A party could argue this requires an explicit calculation and use of a region size variable, not just a system whose output happens to correlate with size.
- The Term:
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendant encouraging and instructing end-users to use the accused features through marketing materials, user manuals, and advertising, thereby causing direct infringement by those users (Compl. ¶14, ¶59-62, ¶78-81, ¶98-101, ¶121-124).
- Willful Infringement: A standalone count (Count X) alleges willful infringement. The complaint asserts this claim is supported by Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents and infringement, dating back to at least February 19, 2020, when Plaintiff allegedly provided Defendant with notice and "detailed claim charts" during licensing negotiations (Compl. ¶129). The complaint alleges Defendant continued its conduct "recklessly and egregiously" and in "disregard of Plaintiff's patent rights" (Compl. ¶130-131).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue of claim construction will be determinative for the '039 Patent: are the accused smartphone's software-based "Pro Mode" controls for white balance and ISO structurally equivalent to the specific hardware-based, four-directional button system for adjusting color-difference elements disclosed in the patent's specification, as required by means-plus-function claiming?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate through technical evidence that the accused "Beauty Mode" algorithms perform the specific two-part function required by the '573 Patent's claims—namely, varying enhancement based not only on the probability that a pixel is skin, but also on the calculated size of the detected skin region?
- The case may also hinge on a question of technical implementation: for the '962 patent concerning dual-camera range-finding, does the accused "Bokeh" feature operate by generating and using a "range map" in the manner specified by the claims, or does it achieve a visually similar background blur effect through an alternative, non-infringing computational photography technique?