Oook Intelligent Co Ltd v. AVer Information Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: OOOK Intelligent Co., Ltd. (Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: AVer Information Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00233, E.D. Tex., 10/21/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation that does not reside in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s auto-tracking and smart camera systems infringe three U.S. patents related to automated camera control based on gesture recognition, facial orientation, and subject positioning.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using computer vision to automate camera operation in settings like remote classrooms, aiming to replace a human camera operator by intelligently tracking a presenter or shifting focus between a person and a blackboard.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-04-20	Priority Date for ’768 and ’152 Patents
2021-08-31	Priority Date for ’071 Patent
2023-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 11,622,071 Issued
2023-08-08	U.S. Patent No. 11,722,768 Issued
2023-11-07	U.S. Patent No. 11,812,152 Issued
2024-10-21	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,622,071 - "Follow-up Shooting Method and Device, Medium and Electronic Device," Issued April 4, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In live teaching environments, using a fixed-position camera is inadequate when a teacher moves around, and employing a dedicated human cameraman increases costs and complexity (’071 Patent, col. 1:28-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated system that acquires a video image, analyzes it to recognize specific hand gestures, and then controls the camera to either track a person or perform a panoramic shot based on the recognized gesture (’071 Patent, col. 1:43-51). The system identifies a hand, determines the positions of "bone key points," and connects them to create a "hand bone image" for gesture matching, as depicted in the patent's figures (’071 Patent, Fig. 2B; col. 5:21-48).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide flexible, intelligent camera control in educational or presentation settings without the cost of a human operator, using gesture recognition as the primary user interface.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶17).
• Essential Elements of Claim 9 (Device):
  • An acquirer to acquire a video image in a live classroom comprising at least one object.
  • An analyzer to analyze the video image to obtain a gesture image for controlling a camera, wherein the analyzer:
    • analyzes the video image to obtain a hand image;
    • determines positions of bone key points and marks of bone key points of a hand;
    • connects the positions based on a marking rule to obtain a hand bone image; and
    • determines the gesture image is presented as the gesture bone image in response to the hand bone image matching a preset gesture bone image.
  • A determiner to determine whether to control the camera to track and shoot an execution object related to the gesture image.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes a general allegation of infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 11,722,768 - "Method and Apparatus for Controlling Camera, and Medium and Electronic Device," Issued August 8, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: A camera filming a live teaching session struggles to provide a good experience for remote viewers, as it is difficult to ensure both the teacher and the blackboard content are clearly visible when appropriate (’768 Patent, col. 6:8-18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention analyzes a teacher's "head portrait information" to determine the orientation of their face (e.g., forward, lateral, or backward) and automatically controls the camera's focus accordingly (’768 Patent, Abstract). If the teacher faces forward (toward the students/camera), the camera focuses on the teacher; if the teacher's orientation is lateral or backward (facing the blackboard), the camera focuses on the blackboard (’768 Patent, col. 2:50-67). The orientation is determined based on the presence or absence of identified facial organs, such as the eyes, in the video frame (’768 Patent, Fig. 2a).
• Technical Importance: This technology automates directorial decisions in a classroom setting by using the teacher's head orientation as a proxy for their current focus of attention, aiming to improve the remote viewing experience.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶24).
• Essential Elements of Claim 8 (Apparatus):
  • A head portrait acquisition component to acquire head portrait information of a teacher.
  • An analysis component to analyze the head portrait information to acquire organ identification information, indicating whether an organ exists.
  • A determination component to determine an orientation type (forward, lateral, or backward) based on the organ identification information.
  • A focus control component to:
    • control the camera to focus on the teacher if the orientation is the forward type; and
    • control the camera to focus on a blackboard if the orientation is the backward or lateral type.
• The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’768 Patent (Compl. ¶22).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,812,152

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11812152, "Method and Apparatus for Controlling Video Frame Image in Live Classroom," Issued November 7, 2023.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of a subject moving in a way that causes visual discomfort for viewers due to frequent, jarring camera adjustments (’152 Patent, col. 5:27-35). The solution involves identifying a target person, determining a plurality of "detection points" based on their image contour, and analyzing the distribution of these points relative to a preset area in the frame to make smooth camera adjustments that keep the subject properly framed (’152 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 6 (Compl. ¶31).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that AVer's cameras, such as the TR535N, infringe by incorporating functionality for automatically controlling a video frame image (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint accuses a range of AVer’s auto-tracking and pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras, including the TR311HWV2, TR313V2, TR333V2, TR315, TR211, PTC330UV2, and TR535N, among others (Compl. ¶¶17, 24, 31).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are cameras marketed for use in education, corporate, and government settings. The complaint alleges these products are sold and offered for sale within the United States (Compl. ¶3, ¶15). The core accused functionality appears to be the cameras' automated features for tracking presenters and framing video, which Plaintiff alleges practice the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶24, ¶31). The complaint references an unprovided exhibit, Exhibit 6, which purportedly shows a diagram of the accused TR535N product in operation (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide narrative infringement theories or claim charts in its main body. Instead, it makes conclusory allegations and refers to external exhibits that were not included with the filed complaint document.

'071 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that AVer’s products, including the TR311HWV2, infringe at least claim 9 of the ’071 Patent (Compl. ¶17). It states that an attached "Exhibit 2 shows how the TR311HWV2 product infringes each and every element" of the claim (Compl. ¶17). Without this exhibit, the specific factual basis for the allegation is not detailed in the pleading.

• Identified Points of Contention: A central question will be whether the gesture recognition feature in the accused AVer cameras operates in the specific manner required by claim 9. The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused devices perform the claimed four-step process of creating a "hand bone image" from "bone key points" and matching it to a preset "gesture bone image," or if they use a different, more generalized form of gesture analysis (’071 Patent, col. 14:14-25).

'768 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that a wide range of AVer products, including the TR315, infringe at least claim 8 of the ’768 Patent (Compl. ¶24). It states that an attached "Exhibit 4 ... shows how the TR315 product infringes each and every element" of the claim (Compl. ¶24). The specific mapping of product features to claim elements is not otherwise described.

• Identified Points of Contention: The dispute may turn on whether the accused products determine camera focus based on the specific logic of "orientation type" as defined in the patent. The critical inquiry will be whether the products analyze "head portrait information" to determine the existence or non-existence of specific organs (e.g., eyes) to classify the face's orientation as "forward," "lateral," or "backward" and then direct focus accordingly, as required by claim 8 (’768 Patent, col. 18:2-20).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’071 Patent

• The Term: "hand bone image" (Claim 9)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the claimed analysis method. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products generate a data structure equivalent to this specific "image." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent appears to define it as the result of a specific process: connecting "positions of bone key points" based on a "marking rule" (’071 Patent, col. 5:36-41; col. 14:19-21).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "image" might be argued to encompass any data representation of a hand's skeletal structure, not just a literal visual image. The specification refers to "coordinate points of the morphological features of the bones" as the basis for the bone key points, which could support a more abstract, data-centric interpretation (col. 5:23-26).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example and figure (Fig. 2B) showing lines connecting points on a hand, stating this is how to "obtain a hand bone image" (’071 Patent, col. 5:36-41). This explicit definition and illustration may support a narrower construction limited to a representation derived from connecting identified joint and fingertip points.

For the ’768 Patent

• The Term: "orientation type" (Claim 8)
• Context and Importance: The determination of "orientation type" is the logical trigger for the claimed camera control. The case will likely hinge on whether the accused products use the same classification logic. The patent defines the "orientation type" (forward, lateral, backward) based on the presence or absence of "left eye identification information and right eye identification information" (’768 Patent, col. 18:2-20).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "orientation type" should be given its plain meaning of the direction a head is facing, and that the patent's method of using eye-detection is merely a preferred embodiment. The claim states the determination is "based on the organ identification information," which is not strictly limited to only the eyes in the specification (col. 7:1-6).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 2 explicitly recites the logic for determining the orientation types based on the existence of both, one, or neither of the left and right eye information. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests the independent claim may be broader, but the specification repeatedly ties the types to this specific eye-based logic, suggesting it is a fundamental aspect of the invention (’768 Patent, col. 8:8-41).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations that AVer acts "by itself or using intermediaries, subsidiaries, alter egos and/or agents" to import and sell infringing products (e.g., Compl. ¶16, ¶23, ¶30). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as referencing user manuals or other materials that instruct on infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement, nor does it allege that AVer had pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

This case appears to be a dispute over the technical specifics of automated camera systems. The outcome will likely depend on the resolution of two key questions related to claim scope and evidentiary proof:

1. A central issue will be one of technical implementation: Do the accused AVer cameras, which likely use sophisticated, general-purpose computer vision for subject tracking, practice the highly specific, rule-based methods detailed in the patents? For example, does AVer’s gesture control rely on creating a "hand bone image" as claimed in the ’071 Patent, or does its face-tracking use the explicit "eye-presence" logic for determining "orientation type" as claimed in the ’768 Patent?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of factual mapping: As the complaint relies entirely on unprovided exhibits for its infringement contentions, a primary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products meet each and every limitation of the asserted claims, moving beyond the conclusory allegations in the pleading.