Ai Core Tech LLC v. Keyence Corp Of America

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Ai-Core Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: KEYENCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00438, E.D. Tex., 06/11/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has maintained established and regular places of business in the district, such as a facility in Frisco, Texas, and has committed acts of patent infringement in or from the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s industrial machine vision systems, code readers, and associated software infringe seven patents related to configurable image processing drivers, image sensor manufacturing, adjustable data tag readers, image scanning processes, and graphical user interface elements.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to industrial automation, where machine vision systems and code readers are used for quality control, inventory tracking, and process management.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Certificates of Correction have been issued for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,215,834; 7,365,298; 7,746,516; 8,130,241; and 8,610,742, which may be relevant for claim construction. No other procedural history is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,215,834 - “Configurable Image Processing Driver”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional device drivers for image capturing devices are rigid and unable to adapt to variations in the hardware of the capturing device or the host computer, or to dynamic, real-time changes in system conditions like available bandwidth or CPU load (ʼ834 Patent, col. 1:47-62). This static nature can lead to suboptimal performance and degraded image quality, particularly in applications like streaming video (ʼ834 Patent, col. 1:36-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a device driver for a host machine that processes image data from a connected image capturing device. The driver actively detects characteristics of the overall system (both the device and the host) and, in response, configures a set of "functional modules" on-the-fly to perform image processing tasks like decompression, color correction, and image enhancement. The driver selects from multiple available "versions" of each module to create a processing pipeline optimized for the current static and dynamic conditions of the system (ʼ834 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-34; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a single, flexible driver to achieve high-quality image processing across a wide variety of hardware combinations and under fluctuating operating conditions, which was a significant challenge for conventional, static driver architectures (ʼ834 Patent, col. 2:1-2).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• Claim 1 of the ’834 patent requires:
  • A method for processing images at an image capturing device driver comprising:
  • at the image capturing device driver, detecting characteristics of an image capturing device and a host machine;
  • in response to said detected characteristics, configuring a plurality of image processing functional modules supported by said host machine for imaging; and
  • processing captured images, wherein each of said functional modules is adapted to support its intended function in multiple versions of performing its said intended function.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,365,298 - “Image Sensor And Method For Manufacturing The Same”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In conventional CMOS image sensors, incident light passes through multiple layers before reaching the photodiode. Refraction at the interfaces between these layers can cause light to deviate from its intended path, reducing the amount of light collected by the photodiode and potentially causing noise or interference with adjacent photodiodes (ʼ298 Patent, col. 2:15-24).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an image sensor structure with multi-layer interlayer insulating films stacked above the photodiode. The key innovation is that these layers are fabricated so that the density, and therefore the refractive index, of the upper insulating films is lower than that of the lower films. This density gradient causes the light's refraction angle to decrease as it passes through the layers, effectively guiding it more directly onto the photodiode below (ʼ298 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:17-33; col. 6:11-21).
• Technical Importance: This design enhances the light-collection efficiency of the photodiode, which improves the sensor's photosensitivity and overall image quality, a critical factor for performance in digital imaging devices (ʼ298 Patent, col. 2:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
• Claim 1 of the ’298 patent requires:
  • An image sensor, comprising:
  • at least one photodiode formed on a semiconductor substrate;
  • multi-layer interlayer insulating films formed on the photodiode and stacked in at least two layers of oxide film having different density and the refractive index so that the density and the refractive index of the upper interlayer insulating film becomes lower than that of the lower interlayer insulating film as the multi-layer interlayer insulating films proceed upward;
  • a light shield layer and an element-protecting film sequentially stacked on the multi-layer interlayer insulating film;
  • color filter arrays and a flattening layer sequentially stacked on the element-protecting film; and
  • microlenses arranged on the positions corresponding to the color filters on the flattening layer.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,623,036 - “Adjusting Data Tag Readers With Feed-Forward Data”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for improving the reading of data tags (e.g., RFID tags) on moving articles. A sensor first determines a characteristic of an approaching article (e.g., its size, shape, or contents via a barcode). This "feed-forward" data is then used to automatically adjust a configurable parameter of the data tag reader (e.g., its power level, antenna position, or read frequency) to optimize the subsequent read of the data tag on that specific article (’036 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-33).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 15 is asserted (Compl. ¶54).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, which include code readers, infringe the ’036 patent (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 7,746,516 - “Image Scanning”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for batch scanning. A user first pre-scans a document and adjusts parameter settings (e.g., brightness, contrast) to generate and store multiple sets of parameters corresponding to multiple desired pre-view images. These stored parameter sets can then be applied to a second (or subsequent) document, allowing a user to generate multiple, differently-adjusted scanned images from a single scan without having to manually re-adjust settings for each document (’516 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-15).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶70).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, which include image scanning systems, infringe the ’516 patent (Compl. ¶69).

U.S. Patent No. 8,130,241 - “Graphics Items That Extend Outside A Background Perimeter”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a graphical user interface where the background can be sized to be smaller than the maximum display area. This allows graphics items, such as windows or icons, to be repositioned or resized such that they reside at least partially outside the perimeter of the main background, enabling more flexible and tailored use of the display space (’241 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-56).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶86).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products, which utilize a graphical user interface, infringe the ’241 patent (Compl. ¶85).

U.S. Patent No. 8,610,742 - “Graphics Controls For Permitting Background Size Changes”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’241 patent, focuses on the graphical control tools that allow a user to change the size of a background in a graphical user interface. The invention provides user interface elements (e.g., buttons, sliders, text input boxes) that allow a user to adjust the background size to be less than the maximum available image size, defining a new "usable area" for other graphical elements (’742 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:4-10; Fig. 2).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶102).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products, which have a graphical user interface with background controls, infringe the ’742 patent (Compl. ¶101).

U.S. Patent No. 9,338,217 - “Method And Apparatus For Computing Within A Wide Area Network”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for providing remote access to a host computer over a network. It details a method where a client computer can request access to a suitable host computer from a cluster of network-accessible computers. The system determines a suitable host, informs the client of its network address, and facilitates a connection where the client can view image information from and provide input to the host (’217 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶118).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products, which include network-capable software and systems, infringe the ’217 patent (Compl. ¶117).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the Accused Products as the Keyence CV-X400 Series Intuitive Vision System, the Keyence SR-1000 series Autofocus 1D and 2D Code Reader, the Keyence SR-1000 Series Autofocus Reader & AutoID Network Navigator, and the Keyence AutoID Network Navigator Software, along with other substantially similar products (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are industrial automation components used for machine vision and automatic identification. Based on their naming and the technologies asserted against them, these products function to capture and process images, read 1D and 2D codes, and communicate over a network to provide data for manufacturing and logistics processes (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not provide specific details on the products' market position or commercial importance beyond alleging that Defendant makes, uses, and sells them (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent but does not include them with the filing (Compl. ¶¶22, 38, 54, 70, 86, 102, 118; p. 26). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

• ’834 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe by incorporating a software driver that performs the claimed method. This suggests the accused software detects characteristics of the Keyence hardware and the host system it is connected to, and in response configures or reconfigures a plurality of image processing modules to optimize performance (Compl. ¶¶21-22). The infringement theory centers on the software’s alleged ability to adapt its image processing pipeline dynamically.
• ’298 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, which include image sensors, directly infringe by their physical construction. The theory is that the image sensors within the Keyence vision systems and code readers are manufactured with the claimed multi-layer insulating films that have a decreasing density gradient from bottom to top, thereby enhancing light collection at the photodiode (Compl. ¶¶37-38). This allegation rests on the physical makeup of the sensor hardware itself.
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions (’834 Patent): A central question will be evidentiary: what proof does the complaint or its (unseen) exhibits offer that the accused software performs the specific steps of "detecting characteristics" of both the device and host and "configuring a plurality of image processing functional modules" "on-the-fly" from "multiple versions"? The complaint's allegations are general and do not specify which characteristics are detected or which modules are configured.
  • Scope Questions (’298 Patent): The dispute for the ’298 patent will likely focus on a question of physical fact: does reverse engineering of the image sensors in the Accused Products reveal the specific stacked oxide film structure with a decreasing density and refractive index as required by claim 1? The allegation depends entirely on the physical implementation of the sensor.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’834 Patent

• The Term: "configuring a plurality of image processing functional modules"
• Context and Importance: The scope of this term is critical for infringement. The case may turn on whether the accused software’s actions constitute "configuring" multiple distinct "modules." Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendant could argue its software uses an integrated, static processing pipeline rather than configuring discrete, interchangeable modules as the patent describes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "configuring" is the act of selecting a "cross-section" of versions from a collection of modules, which could be interpreted broadly to cover various forms of software setup or parameter adjustment ('834 Patent, col. 4:56-61; col. 5:1-7).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly illustrates distinct modules (decompression, demosaicing, etc.), each with multiple distinct versions (ver. A, ver. B, ver. C) ('834 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 3:50-65). This could support a narrower interpretation requiring the software to select from and assemble discrete, alternative software components, not merely adjust parameters within a monolithic process.

For the ’298 Patent

• The Term: "density... of the upper interlayer insulating film becomes lower than that of the lower interlayer insulating film"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core physical structure of the invention. While the language appears clear, the dispute will be factual and technical—how "density" is measured in microscopic layers and whether the specific materials and fabrication processes used in the accused sensors create the claimed gradient.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional, requiring only that the upper layer's density "becomes lower" than the lower layer's. This could be read to cover any structure that achieves this result, regardless of the specific manufacturing method.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of how to achieve this density difference, such as using different deposition processes (e.g., PE-CVD for upper layers, LP-CVD for lower layers) or varying the concentration of impurities ('298 Patent, col. 3:40-col. 4:5). A defendant may argue that the claim should be understood in the context of these disclosed manufacturing techniques.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges inducement by providing instructional materials, advertising, and technical support that guide customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the products have special features designed for infringement with no substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶23-24, 39-40).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" and a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which Plaintiff characterizes as willful blindness (e.g., Compl. ¶¶25-28, 41-44).

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

This case presents a broad assertion of seven patents across diverse technology areas against a line of industrial automation products. The resolution will likely depend on the answers to a few central questions:

• A primary issue will be one of technical implementation: Do the accused Keyence products, upon technical inspection, actually contain the specific hardware structures (e.g., the layered sensor films of the ’298 patent) and perform the specific dynamic software functions (e.g., the on-the-fly module configuration of the ’834 patent) required by the core claims of the asserted patents?
• A second key question will be one of infringement mapping: Given the breadth of technologies claimed—from fabricating semiconductor sensors to GUI design for network computing—how will the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to map each distinct set of claim limitations onto the integrated hardware and software functionalities of the accused industrial vision systems?
• Finally, a question of claim scope will arise for multiple patents: Can terms rooted in one technical context, such as the software "modules" of the '834 patent or the "feed-forward data" of the '036 patent, be construed to cover the specific operations within Defendant's specialized industrial code readers and vision systems?