Power Mobile Life LLC v. NEC Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fantasia Trading, LLC d/b/a AnkerDirect (Delaware/California) and Power Mobile Life, LLC (Washington)
  • Defendant: NEC Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01870, E.D. Va., 10/24/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs assert venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant NEC Corporation is a foreign patentee subject to personal jurisdiction in the district pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 293 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their "Eufy" line of surveillance products does not infringe seven U.S. patents owned by Defendant NEC related to video analysis and surveillance technology.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies used in modern smart home security cameras for functions such as object detection, person tracking, and event analysis.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was filed in response to a patent infringement lawsuit initiated by NEC against Plaintiffs' parent companies on September 3, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiffs characterize NEC's Texas action as an attempt to "manufacture venue" and contend that they, not the parent companies sued in Texas, are the proper parties responsible for the accused products in the United States. NEC had previously sent a letter to the parent companies on June 3, 2024, offering to license a portfolio of 80 U.S. patents, including those now in suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-07-31	’635 Patent Priority Date
2013-06-28	’526 Patent Priority Date
2013-09-26	’467 Patent Priority Date
2015-01-14	’160 Patent Priority Date
2015-02-17	’995 Patent Priority Date
2018-05-07	’814 Patent Priority Date
2018-07-31	’467 Patent Issued
2019-06-18	’160 Patent Issued
2021-04-06	’995 Patent Issued
2021-05-04	’635 Patent Issued
2021-12-28	’526 Patent Issued
2022-12-27	’814 Patent Issued
2024-06-03	NEC sends license offer letter to Plaintiffs' parent companies
2024-09-03	NEC files patent infringement complaint in E.D. Texas
2024-10-24	Plaintiffs file this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,037,467 - “Information Processing System”

• Issued: July 31, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of extracting high-quality feature data for multiple different parts of an object (e.g., a person's face and clothes) from a video stream, because a single "best shot" image optimized for one feature is often suboptimal for another (’467 Patent, col. 1:56-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that first detects an object and then identifies its constituent "object elements" (e.g., face, clothes, etc.). For each distinct element, the system selects an optimal frame from the video based on a selection criterion set specifically for that element. It then extracts the feature data from that best frame and associates it with the frame's identifying information, allowing for the storage of optimal feature data for different parts of an object, potentially captured at different moments in time (’467 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:8-26).
• Technical Importance: This approach improves the precision of subsequent video search and analysis by ensuring that the feature data for each part of an object is of the highest possible quality, rather than relying on a single, potentially compromised frame (’467 Patent, col. 2:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of claims 1, 11, 13, and 15, all of which are independent (Compl. ¶37). The elements of independent claim 1 are representative:
  • An object detecting unit that detects an object in moving image data and detects a plurality of object elements from the object;
  • A feature quantity extracting unit that extracts a feature quantity of each of the object elements from a frame image;
  • A frame selecting unit that selects the frame image satisfying a frame selection criterion for each of the object elements, the frame selection criterion being set in advance for each of the object elements; and
  • A feature quantity associating unit that associates frame specifying information for the selected frame image with the feature quantity extracted from that image and stores them.

U.S. Patent No. 10,325,160 - “Movement State Estimation Device, Movement State Estimation Method and Program Recording Medium”

• Issued: June 18, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve the problem of estimating the movement of people in crowded environments, where overlapping individuals and low frame rates make it difficult to detect and track each person individually (’160 Patent, col. 2:1-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention estimates the quantity of people within various "local regions" of an image over a series of frames. By analyzing the time-series change in these quantities—how the number of people in adjacent regions changes over time—the system can estimate the overall movement state (e.g., direction and flow of a crowd) without needing to track each person separately (’160 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-37).
• Technical Importance: This method provides a way to analyze crowd dynamics in situations where traditional individual-based tracking systems would fail, offering insights into pedestrian flow in dense public spaces (’160 Patent, col. 2:55-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint targets claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶77). The elements of independent claim 1 are representative:
  • Circuitry configured to use a plurality of temporally sequential images to estimate a quantity of monitoring targets for each local region;
  • Estimate a movement state of the monitoring targets from a time-series change in the estimated quantities;
  • Output a graph indicating the number of persons in local regions, the number that have moved in a predetermined direction, and the number that have crossed a predetermined line; and
  • Predict a future location and quantity of the monitoring targets.

U.S. Patent No. 10,970,995 - “System for Monitoring Event Related Data”

• Issued: April 6, 2021
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a surveillance system designed to automatically adjust a camera's view in response to a detected event. The system identifies the type of event detected by a sensor (e.g., a small event like theft vs. a large one like an explosion) and controls a "predetermined imaging range" of a camera based on that type, for instance by zooming out to capture the full scope of a large-scale incident (’995 Patent, col. 1:12-24; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 6, and 11 (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint identifies "Surveillance products with object detection with imaging range adjustment functionality" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. p. 6).

U.S. Patent No. 10,999,635 - “Image Processing System, Image Processing Method, and Program”

• Issued: May 4, 2021
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the challenge of tracking multiple individuals across a network of cameras. It discloses a display control method that generates a unique, switchable window for each tracked person. Each window can display video feeds showing that person, along with a "diagram" or time chart that visualizes which cameras detected the person and at what times, thereby simplifying the monitoring process for an operator (’635 Patent, col. 2:6-15; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 (Compl. ¶53).
• Accused Features: The complaint targets "Surveillance products with cross-camera tracking functionality" (Compl. p. 7).

U.S. Patent No. 11,210,526 - “Video Surveillance System, Video Processing Apparatus, Video Processing Method, and Video Processing Program”

• Issued: December 28, 2021
• Technology Synopsis: The technology aims to improve the accuracy of video analysis systems over time through operator feedback. The system displays a video and a "category setting screen" to an operator, who can then assign a category to an event in the video. This operator-labeled video and category information is accumulated as "learning data," which the video analyzer uses to perform learning processing, thereby refining its future detection capabilities (’526 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-21).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 6, and 9 (Compl. ¶61).
• Accused Features: The complaint identifies "Surveillance products with AI learning functionality" (Compl. p. 8).

U.S. Patent No. 11,537,814 - “Data Providing System and Data Collection System”

• Issued: December 27, 2022
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for improving a central machine learning model by collecting targeted data from distributed devices. An individual device identifies an object in data and determines if that data should be "transmission target data" (e.g., if the identification confidence is low). If so, it transmits this data to a predetermined computer at a set time, allowing the central model to be trained on the most challenging or uncertain examples (’814 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶69).
• Accused Features: The complaint targets "Surveillance products with AI learning functionality" (Compl. p. 10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a broad range of smart home surveillance products sold under the "Eufy" brand, which is part of the Anker family of companies (Compl. ¶4). The list includes numerous specific products such as the Video Doorbell S330, eufyCam E330, and SoloCam S340, as well as the underlying software and cloud infrastructure, including the "BionicMind AI Service," the "eufy security application," and supporting servers (Compl. pp. 4-12).

Functionality and Market Context

The Eufy products are marketed as consumer-focused smart devices that use AI to provide advanced security features (Compl. ¶4). The functionalities cited in the complaint as relevant to the patents-in-suit include "package notifications," "object detection functionality," "imaging range adjustment functionality," "cross-camera tracking functionality," and "AI learning functionality" (Compl. pp. 4-12). The complaint positions these products as innovative, user-friendly, and affordable within the consumer electronics market (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Non-Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a table of "Example Limitation Not Present in Accused Eufy Products" (Compl. ¶36, p. 17), which serves as a visual representation of Plaintiffs' core non-infringement arguments for the ’467 Patent.

’467 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
select the frame image satisfying a frame selection criterion for each of the object elements, the frame selection criterion being set in advance for each of the object elements	Plaintiffs allege that the frame image from which the Accused Eufy Products extract a feature quantity is not the same as a frame image that would satisfy a pre-set selection criterion for each object element.	¶38	col. 2:17-21
associate frame specifying information for specifying the selected frame image with the feature quantity of the object element extracted from the selected frame image.	Plaintiffs allege the Accused Eufy Products do not associate frame-specifying information with the feature quantity of an object element extracted from that frame.	¶38	col. 2:21-26

’160 Patent Non-Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
output a graph indicating any of a number of persons in each of the local regions, a number of persons that have moved to a predetermined direction, and a number of persons that have crossed over a predetermined line	Plaintiffs allege the Accused Eufy Products do not comprise a unit or step that outputs a graph with the specified information about the number, direction, and line-crossing of persons.	¶78	col. 13:3-7
predict a future quantity of the monitoring targets in each of the local regions	Plaintiffs allege the Accused Eufy Products do not comprise a unit or step that predicts a future quantity of monitoring targets in local regions.	¶78	col. 13:10-11

Identified Points of Contention

• ’467 Patent: A central dispute may be whether the accused products' AI processing performs the discrete, sequential steps required by the claims. The complaint suggests a technical mismatch, raising the question of whether the products first select an optimal frame for each distinct "object element" based on a "pre-set criterion" and then extract features, or if they employ a more holistic analysis that does not map to this claimed process (Compl. ¶38).
• ’160 Patent: The non-infringement argument appears to hinge on the specific form of the output. A key technical question will be whether the user interface and notifications provided by the accused products constitute the "graph" required by the claim, which must convey specific quantitative and directional information about persons in the scene. The analysis may focus on whether there is a functional and structural mismatch between the accused output and the claimed "graph" (Compl. ¶78).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’467 Patent

• The Term: "frame selection criterion"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because Plaintiffs' non-infringement theory for the ’467 Patent is premised on the allegation that their products do not use a "frame selection criterion for each of the object elements" (Compl. ¶38). The outcome of the dispute may depend on whether the internal logic of the accused AI for selecting video frames for analysis meets the definition of a pre-set "criterion" as contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the criterion in general terms as a "predetermined index," such as selecting a frame with the "highest value" (’467 Patent, col. 1:36-41). This language could support a broad interpretation covering any rule-based or metric-driven frame selection process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides specific examples of criteria, such as the "largest distance between the eyes" for a face or the "assurance on the color of the clothes" (’467 Patent, col. 7:10-15; col. 7:31-33). This may support a narrower construction limited to explicit, measurable image-quality metrics applied distinctly to each element.

For the ’160 Patent

• The Term: "output a graph"
• Context and Importance: Plaintiffs' non-infringement case for the ’160 Patent rests on their assertion that the accused products do not "output a graph" containing the claimed information (Compl. ¶78). The construction of this term will determine whether the user interface elements of the accused products, which might include heatmaps, timelines, or numerical alerts, fall within the scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "graph," which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any visual representation of data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the "graph" to indicate specific information: "a number of persons in each of the local regions, a number of persons that have moved to a predetermined direction, and a number of persons that have crossed over a predetermined line" (’160 Patent, Claim 1). This functional requirement for a multi-faceted data visualization may support a narrower construction that excludes simpler outputs like a single numerical alert.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: This is a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiffs deny allegations of indirect infringement made by NEC in the parallel Texas litigation. The complaint notes that NEC's Texas Complaint alleged induced and contributory infringement based on Plaintiffs making "available tutorial videos on [its] official YouTube channel encouraging customers to infringe" (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged by Plaintiffs. However, the complaint establishes the basis for a potential willfulness claim by NEC in the Texas case by referencing NEC's pre-suit license offer letter of June 3, 2024, and its subsequent infringement complaint of September 3, 2024, which establish knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶¶12, 14).

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

This dispute appears poised to turn on three central questions for the court:

• Procedural Posture: A threshold issue will be the conflict between this declaratory judgment action in Virginia, filed by the U.S. distribution entities, and NEC's earlier-filed infringement suit in Texas against the parent companies. The resolution of this procedural battle will determine the forum and the parties for the underlying patent dispute.
• Technical Equivalence: For several patents, including the ’467 Patent, a core issue will be one of process mapping: does the accused products' integrated AI-based video analysis perform the discrete, sequential steps recited in the patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation that places the products outside the claims' literal scope?
• Definitional Scope: For patents like the ’160 Patent, the case may hinge on definitional scope: can terms rooted in specific technical contexts, such as "output a graph," be construed broadly enough to read on the modern, dynamic user interface elements and notifications provided by the accused smart security products?