DCT

2:23-cv-00363

EyesMatch Ltd v. Samsung Electronics America Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00363, E.D. Tex., 08/08/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in the district (Plano, Texas), have committed acts of infringement in the district, and have previously admitted to proper venue in the district in other litigation. Venue for the foreign parent company is alleged to be proper in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the "Auto Framing" feature in Defendants' smartphones, tablets, and laptops infringes two patents related to methods for modifying a video stream to either mimic a physical mirror or to correct the viewing perspective for teleconferencing.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves real-time image processing that computationally adjusts a camera's video feed to compensate for user movement and camera position, aiming to create a more natural and convincing on-screen appearance for users.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants began studying the patented technology under a non-disclosure agreement in August 2021, received specific notice of the asserted patents in September 2021, and subsequently launched the accused products in 2022. These allegations of pre-suit knowledge form the basis for the willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-03-01 Earliest Priority Date for '109 and '110 Patents
2015-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 Issues
2015-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,982,110 Issues
2021-08-01 Samsung allegedly begins studying Plaintiff's technology under NDA
2021-09-01 Plaintiff allegedly discloses asserted patents to Samsung
2022-01-01 Samsung allegedly launches infringing products
2023-08-08 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 - Devices, Systems and Methods of Capturing and Displaying Appearances

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109, "Devices, Systems and Methods of Capturing and Displaying Appearances," issued March 17, 2015 (the "’109 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that using a standard camera and screen to replace a conventional mirror is unconvincing because the resulting image is fundamentally different from a true reflection (’109 Patent, col. 1:62-2:4). Specific problems cited include the lack of left-right image reversal and, critically, the way a user's apparent size changes; a user approaching a camera appears to grow larger, whereas a user approaching a mirror sees a reflection that maintains a relatively consistent size (’109 Patent, col. 2:4-27; Compl. ¶¶37-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that processes a live video feed to simulate a true mirror reflection. It applies a series of software transformations, including flipping the image horizontally, resizing the image based on the user's distance to counteract the camera's fixed field-of-view, and mapping the image to ensure features like the user's eyes remain at a consistent level, as they would in a mirror (’109 Patent, col. 30:55-68; Compl. ¶39). The patent describes this as a "mirror-mimicking image" (’109 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to solve the technical barriers preventing a convincing "digital mirror" experience, a concept with applications in retail virtual try-on, home, and other commercial environments (Compl. ¶¶4, 6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
    • Obtaining a digital image from a camera as part of a live video feed.
    • Flipping the image about a vertical axis.
    • Applying a "transformation mapping" to the image to make it "mimic a reflection of a mirror."
    • Resizing the image to reduce size variations caused by the user's changing distance to the camera.
    • Determining the user's distance from the live video feed.
    • Varying the rate at which these steps are performed based on the determined distance.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶62).

U.S. Patent No. 8,982,110 - Method for Image Transformation, Augmented Reality, and Teleperence

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,982,110, "Method for Image Transformation, Augmented Reality, and Teleperence," issued March 17, 2015 (the "’110 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "eye-contact problem" in video conferencing. Because a device's camera is typically positioned above the screen, a user looking at the on-screen image of the other participant appears to be looking down, not directly at them, which undermines the feeling of a live, direct conversation (’110 Patent, col. 7:35-41; Compl. ¶44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method that applies an "adaptive transformation mapping" to a video stream to generate modified images that "appear to be captured from a different point of view" than the camera's actual physical location (’110 Patent, Abstract). This transformation can correct for the camera's angle and the user's distance, creating the illusion that the user is looking directly into the camera, thereby enabling a more convincing "eye to eye video conference" (’109 Patent, col. 1:31-33).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a solution to a persistent issue in telepresence, aiming to make video interactions feel more natural and engaging by simulating direct eye contact (Compl. ¶44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, and 12, as well as several dependent claims (Compl. ¶75).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
    • Generating a stream of images of a user with a camera.
    • Detecting the user's presence in the image stream.
    • Applying an "adaptive transformation mapping" to generate modified images that appear captured from a different point of view (angle and distance) than the camera's actual point of view.
    • Displaying the modified images on a monitor.
    • Performing these steps in a "mirror tracking mode" that uses parametric input to change the imaging perspective.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶62).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Samsung smartphones (e.g., Galaxy S23, S22, S21 FE 5G), tablets (e.g., Galaxy Tab S8, S7 FE), and laptops (e.g., Galaxy Book3, Book2) that incorporate the "Auto Framing" software feature (Compl. ¶¶56-57).

Functionality and Market Context

The "Auto Framing" feature is alleged to operate within the native camera application and preinstalled video calling applications like Google Meet and Microsoft Teams (Compl. ¶¶58-61). Its function is described as automatically detecting a user's face and adjusting the camera's view to keep the user centered in the frame, including by zooming in or out as the user moves closer or farther away (Compl. ¶58). The complaint alleges this feature is marketed as providing "a truly professional video call experience" (Compl. ¶59). The complaint provides an image of a 'Memomi' branded digital mirror in a retail setting, displaying a user's face on screen with the text 'Tap to activate the mirror' (Compl. p. 3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Ex. G, H) that were not provided with the filing; therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

’109 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Samsung's Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’109 Patent when their "Auto Framing" feature is used (Compl. ¶65). The theory of infringement is that the "Auto Framing" feature performs the patented method for creating a "mirror-mimicking" image. The feature's alleged function to "zoom in or out to keep the person in the frame" as they move is asserted to meet the claim limitations of resizing the image and varying the rate of transformation based on the user's distance (Compl. ¶58). The overall effect of keeping the user centered and consistently framed is alleged to constitute the claimed "transformation mapping" that makes the image "mimic a reflection of a mirror" (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 65).

’110 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Auto Framing" feature infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’110 Patent (Compl. ¶75). The infringement theory centers on the claim requirement of applying an "adaptive transformation mapping" to create an image from a "different point of view" (’110 Patent, Claim 1). The complaint alleges that the "Auto Framing" feature, by "center[ing] your face during video calls even if you've pointed the camera at a weird angle," performs this exact function (Compl. ¶58). The automatic adjustment of both centering (angle) and zoom (distance) is alleged to meet the limitation that the new point of view corresponds to a different angle and distance. The use of this feature in video calling applications is alleged to constitute the claimed "mirror tracking mode" (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 75).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute for the ’109 Patent will likely be whether the "Auto Framing" feature, primarily designed for teleconferencing, performs all the steps of the claimed "mirror-mimicking" method. It raises the question of whether simply keeping a subject in-frame is equivalent to the specific "resizing" claimed to "reduce variations caused by changes in object's distance" in the manner a physical mirror does.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’110 Patent, a key technical question is whether Samsung's "Auto Framing" constitutes the claimed "adaptive transformation mapping" or is instead a combination of conventional digital pan and zoom operations. The analysis may turn on evidence of how the feature is implemented in software and whether it performs a holistic transformation to create a new virtual camera perspective, as the patent arguably requires.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "transformation mapping to modify the image such that it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror" (’109 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of the ’109 Patent's primary asserted claim. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused "Auto Framing" feature falls within the scope of this definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the problem broadly as making a camera-and-screen combination "convincing" (’109 Patent, col. 2:49-50). A party could argue this supports a construction covering any transformation that makes the on-screen image more like a mirror reflection in a general sense.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed, specific examples of how a camera differs from a mirror, such as the phenomenon where a reflection appears at "double the distance from him to the mirror" and the user's eyes stay on the "same virtual line" (’109 Patent, col. 2:4-6, 2:29-33). A party could argue the term should be limited to transformations that specifically replicate these physical and optical properties.

Term: "adaptive transformation mapping" (’110 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This is the core technical term in the asserted claims of the ’110 Patent. Its construction will determine whether a feature like "Auto Framing" infringes, or if the claim is limited to a more complex type of image processing.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the goal as creating a "reliable video conference" where a participant appears to be "looking directly at" the other person (’110 Patent, col. 15:15-19). This may support a construction covering any automated process that adjusts the image to improve the sense of engagement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes using calibration and registration processes with pointers to "generate the transformation" (’109 Patent, col. 21:28-22:6, incorporated by reference in the ’110 Patent). A party could argue that an "adaptive transformation mapping" requires this type of pre-calibrated, multi-step process, rather than a simpler real-time face-tracking and zoom function.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Samsung encourages its customers to use the accused "Auto Framing" feature. As evidence, the complaint cites Samsung's user guides, support articles, and promotional videos that provide instructions on how to use the feature (Compl. ¶¶ 66, 76, fn. 26).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on purported pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that beginning in August 2021, Samsung engaged in technical discussions with the inventors under a non-disclosure agreement and was specifically informed of the asserted patents by number and title in September 2021, prior to launching the accused products in 2022 (Compl. ¶¶ 52-55, 63, 67).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of technical equivalence: Does Samsung's "Auto Framing" feature, which uses digital pan-and-zoom to keep a user centered, perform the specific "transformation mapping" required by the patent claims? The court will need to determine if this functionality is equivalent to the claimed methods of creating a "mirror-mimicking" image (’109 Patent) or generating an image from a "different point of view" (’110 Patent), or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.
  2. A second central issue will be one of intent and knowledge: The detailed allegations of pre-suit meetings, technology disclosures under an NDA, and specific notice of the patents create a significant factual dispute regarding willfulness. A key question for the jury will be whether the evidence shows that Samsung knew of and deliberately copied the patented technology, or if its "Auto Framing" feature was developed independently.