DCT
2:25-cv-00956
Monument Peak Ventures LLC v. Arashi Vision Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Arashi Vision Inc. d/b/a Insta360 (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00956, E.D. Tex., 09/16/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) because the Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s camera systems, including the Insta360 Connect and X5 cameras, and associated software infringe seven patents related to automated videography, remote camera control, and user interfaces for video trimming.
- Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to intelligent camera features, such as automatic framing and speaker tracking in video conferencing, and software-based video editing, which are key functionalities in the competitive consumer and enterprise digital camera markets.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents originated with the Eastman Kodak Company. Plaintiff states that since acquiring the portfolio, it has entered into license agreements with over thirty companies. The complaint also alleges that Plaintiff contacted Defendant on July 23, 2025, regarding potential licensing of the patent portfolio, including the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-05-30 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,842,155 |
| 2009-03-23 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,274,544 |
| 2009-03-26 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,237,771 |
| 2010-02-02 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,856,418 |
| 2011-05-04 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,848,158; 10,425,612; 10,728,490 |
| 2011-08-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,237,771 Issued |
| 2012-09-25 | U.S. Patent No. 8,274,544 Issued |
| 2014-09-23 | U.S. Patent No. 8,842,155 Issued |
| 2015-10-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,856,418 Issued |
| 2017-12-19 | U.S. Patent No. 9,848,158 Issued |
| 2019-09-24 | U.S. Patent No. 10,425,612 Issued |
| 2020-07-28 | U.S. Patent No. 10,728,490 Issued |
| 2025-07-23 | Plaintiff allegedly contacted Defendant regarding potential licensing |
| 2025-09-16 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,237,771 - "Automated Videography Based Communications"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of webcams and videophones in dynamic, multi-person residential environments, where factors like user interface, image capture automation, and privacy are not fully optimized for ease of use (U.S. Patent 8,237,771, col. 2:27-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to automatically frame subjects in a video communication event. The system analyzes a subject's movement using "subject activity metric[s]" to calculate "scene change probabilities." Based on these probabilities, it determines if the current camera shot can be modified or if a new shot is required, selecting from "alternate shot options" to intelligently re-frame the subject for the remote viewer ('771 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This technology sought to automate the principles of cinematography for personal video communications, enabling more dynamic and engaging video calls without requiring manual camera operation ('771 Patent, col. 5:6-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- receiving video of a first subject from a camera;
- determining a current shot framing of the subject;
- determining at least one subject activity metric for the subject's movement;
- analyzing the movement relative to the metric and framing to determine scene change probabilities;
- determining alternate shot options if the scene change probability for a new framing is greater than a predetermined value;
- selecting a next shot from the alternate options based on shot selection probabilities;
- instructing the camera or processor to re-frame the subject; and
- transmitting the re-framed video images to a remote viewer.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,274,544 - "Automated Videography Systems"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for automated videography systems suitable for unscripted, real-time events, particularly in residential environments where traditional videophones or webcams may be inadequate ('544 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method of automated videography that captures video scenes, analyzes them to determine "subject activity" using at least one "subject activity metric," and calculates "scene change probabilities." If these probabilities suggest an improved framing is possible, the system determines and elects from "alternate shot options" and automatically modifies the ongoing video capture to use the new shot ('544 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a more sophisticated and automated "director" for personal video events, making real-time videography more adaptive to unpredictable user movements and interactions ('544 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least claim 16 and quotes independent claim 35 (Compl. ¶¶73, 80).
- The essential elements of Claim 35 include:
- capturing video images with an automated videography system according to current capture settings;
- analyzing the images, including determining subject activity using at least one subject activity metric;
- determining scene change probabilities to decide if the current framing can be continued or should be improved;
- determining alternate shot options if the scene change probability for new framing exceeds a predetermined value;
- electing a next shot from the alternate options; and
- automatically modifying ongoing video capture in accordance with the newly selected shot.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,842,155 - "Portable Video Communication System"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an apparatus where a capture device (e.g., a camera) is controlled wirelessly by a remote device (e.g., a smartphone). The system allows a processor to "adjust an allowed image capture area" of the video, effectively removing a portion of the background, and transmit the adjusted image back to the remote device for display as a "verification image" ('155 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 15 (Compl. ¶118).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Insta360 X5 camera system, which is controlled via the Insta360 smartphone app. It alleges that the "Single Lens Mode" adjusts the capture area from a 360° view to a standard view, thereby removing background portions, and the app displays a preview of the resulting shot (Compl. ¶¶122, 124, 128).
U.S. Patent No. 8,856,418 - "Receiving Station for Mobile Host Equipment, and Method of Sharing Resources Using the Station"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions to manage multiple connected handheld devices. The software can detect connected devices, determine an inventory of their "available resources" (i.e., functionalities), determine a plurality of "combined use modes," and select a mode that accesses and controls resources from at least two devices simultaneously ('418 Patent, col. 12:48-67).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 17 (Compl. ¶154).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Insta360 app, which allegedly connects via Bluetooth to multiple devices such as an Insta360 camera, an Apple Watch, and an Insta360 Mic Air. The app is alleged to determine and enable combined use modes, such as recording video from the camera while simultaneously capturing and integrating GPS data from the watch and audio from the microphone (Compl. ¶¶156, 160, 162).
U.S. Patent No. 9,848,158 - "Digital Camera User Interface for Video Trimming"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a user interface for trimming video on a processor-based device. The claimed method involves receiving distinct inputs to enter "start frame selection mode" and "end frame selection mode," using markers on a timeline that a user can move to scroll through the video, and receiving further inputs to establish the start and end frames and store the trimmed result ('158 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 23 (Compl. ¶187).
- Accused Features: The video trimming functionality within the Insta360 app is accused. The complaint alleges the app's UI receives a "first input" (pressing a start marker), a "second input" (pressing an end marker), a "third input" (dragging the start marker), and a "fourth input" (dragging the end marker) to define and store a trimmed video clip (Compl. ¶¶189, 195, 197).
U.S. Patent No. 10,425,612 - "Digital Camera User Interface for Video Trimming"
- Technology Synopsis: Continuing the technology of the '158 patent, this invention also covers a user interface for video trimming. It specifies a process of using start and end frame markers on a timeline, responding to user inputs to scroll and select frames, and presenting on the display an "indication of whether the processor-based device is in the start frame selection mode or the end frame selection mode" ('612 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 12 (Compl. ¶232).
- Accused Features: The complaint again accuses the Insta360 app's trimming feature, alleging it uses a timeline with markers to select start and end frames and displays a timestamp above the active marker to indicate the current selection mode (Compl. ¶¶236, 242).
U.S. Patent No. 10,728,490 - "Digital Camera User Interface for Video Trimming"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, in the same family as the '158 and '612 patents, also claims a method for a video trimming user interface. The claimed process involves distinct modes for start and end frame selection, user inputs to change a marker's position on a timeline to scroll the video, and establishing the start and end frames in memory ('490 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 12 (Compl. ¶269).
- Accused Features: The complaint makes allegations against the Insta360 app's video trimming feature that are substantively identical to those made for the '158 and '612 patents, focusing on the UI for selecting start and end frames on a timeline (Compl. ¶¶271-279).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as the Insta360 Connect camera system, the X5 camera, the Insta360 app, and other related software and services (Compl. ¶¶3, 28).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Products provide features such as "automated videography, forming video summaries including a particular person, remotely controlled videography, or UI for video trimming" (Compl. ¶28). The Insta360 Connect is described as a "Dual-camera AI video bar" for video conferencing, which provides "Intelligent AI Framing" to show individual or group views and "Speaker Tracking" to follow the active speaker (Compl. ¶42; Compl. p. 13). A screenshot from the complaint shows the product's "Intelligent AI Framing" feature, which can display either a group view or individual windows for each participant (Compl. p. 13). The Insta360 X5 camera is identified as a capture device that can be controlled remotely by the Insta360 app over a wireless network (Compl. ¶122).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,237,771 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving video of a first subject in an environment from a camera | The Insta360 Connect receives video of subjects in a conference room from its camera. | ¶44 | col. 1:51-52 |
| determining a current shot framing of the first subject in the video images... | The Insta360 Connect determines the current framing of subjects using a computer and image processor. | ¶44 | col. 1:52-56 |
| determining at least one subject activity metric for the observed movement of the first subject in the received video... | The accused products allegedly determine a subject activity metric, such as a minimum movement that triggers camera switching. | ¶46 | col. 1:57-60 |
| analyzing the subject movement of the first subject...to determine scene change probabilities...to determine whether video capture...can be improved with new subject framing | The accused products allegedly analyze subject movement to determine the likelihood that a new shot is needed and whether the current framing is sufficient or a different view is more suitable. | ¶48 | col. 1:61-2:4 |
| determining alternate shot options...if the determined scene change probability for new subject framing is greater than a predetermined value | The accused products allegedly determine alternate shots with another camera view based on motion thresholds and subject activity metrics. | ¶50 | col. 2:5-9 |
| selecting a next shot from among the determined alternate shot options based upon the determined shot selection probabilities | If metrics show a new camera view is more suitable, the Insta360 Connect allegedly selects that new view. | ¶50 | col. 2:12-14 |
| instructing the image processor or camera to re-frame the first subject in accordance with the newly selected next shot... | The accused products allegedly instruct the camera to reframe the subject by tilting the gimbal or switching between cameras. | ¶52 | col. 2:15-18 |
| and transmitting video images to the remote viewer using the newly Instructed shot framing and video capture settings | The accused products allegedly transmit the newly framed video images to remote viewers in a video conference. | ¶53 | col. 2:19-21 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused "Intelligent AI Framing" and "Speaker Tracking" features perform the specific, multi-step probabilistic analysis required by the claim. The complaint alleges the product determines "scene change probabilities" (Compl. ¶48), but the supporting evidence is high-level marketing material. The analysis may focus on what technical evidence exists that the accused product calculates a "probability" to decide between shots, rather than using a more deterministic, rule-based logic (e.g., if a face is detected, frame it).
- Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of how the patent term "subject activity metric" should be construed. Does this term, as used in the patent, read on the "intelligent voiceprint, face, and lip recognition technology" that the complaint alleges the accused product uses for speaker tracking (Compl. p. 15)?
U.S. Patent No. 8,274,544 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 35) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| capturing video images with the automated videography system according to current video capture settings... | The Accused Products capture video images according to current settings, such as frame positioning, during a meeting. | ¶84 | col. 3:54-61 |
| analyzing the captured video images of a current video scene...including determining subject activity using at least one subject activity metric... | The Accused Products allegedly analyze captured video to determine the movement and direction of a person's face. | ¶86 | col. 3:62-65 |
| determining scene change probabilities...to determine whether video capture...can be improved with new subject framing | The Accused Products allegedly determine "field of view change probabilities" based on the amount of motion and face visibility to decide if a new field of view is needed. | ¶88 | col. 3:66-4:4 |
| determining alternate shot options...if the determined scene change probability for new subject framing is greater than a predetermined value | The Accused Products allegedly determine alternate shots with another camera view based on motion thresholds and face visibility metrics. A screenshot of the product's dual-camera system illustrates its capability to provide different views (Compl. p. 34). | ¶90 | col. 4:5-10 |
| electing a next shot from among the determined alternate shot options based upon the determined shot selection probabilities | If metrics show a new camera view is better, the Insta360 Connect allegedly selects it as the main image of the subject. | ¶90 | col. 4:11-13 |
| and automatically modifying ongoing video image capture in accordance with the newly selected next shot... | The Accused Products allegedly modify the ongoing video by tilting a gimbal or switching between its cameras. | ¶92 | col. 4:14-17 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: As with the ’771 patent, a key question will be evidentiary: what proof does the complaint offer that the Accused Products actually calculate "scene change probabilities" (Compl. ¶88) as opposed to using a different AI logic for framing? The complaint provides marketing images showing different framing modes (e.g., group view vs. individual speaker) but does not detail the underlying decision-making process.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused product's analysis of "how much of the face is visible" (Compl. ¶90) constitutes the claimed "subject activity metric appropriate to the current subject framing."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’771 and ’544 Patents
- The Term: "scene change probabilities"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the core analytical step of the asserted claims of both lead patents. Its construction is critical because the infringement theory rests on the accused AI calculating a "probability" to decide whether to change shots. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a specific mathematical or statistical calculation, or if it can broadly cover any algorithmic decision-making process that results in a shot change.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims link the determination of probabilities to the functional outcome of deciding "whether video capture...can be improved with new subject framing" ('771 Patent, cl. 1). This could support an argument that any system making an algorithmic judgment about improving the shot meets the limitation, regardless of the specific math involved.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the '771 patent describes analyzing movement to determine "confidence values" related to the probability of a scene change ('771 Patent, col. 37:5-8). A defendant may argue this language, combined with the technical meaning of "probability," requires a quantitative, statistical calculation that is not performed by its products' AI.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Insta360 markets the accused features and provides instructional materials, user guides, and technical assistance that encourage and direct customers to use the products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶56-57, 95-96). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused automated features are specially made and adapted for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce having substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶62-65, 100-103).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents based on knowledge acquired no later than the filing date of the complaint. It alleges that Defendant's continued infringement constitutes a business decision to "efficiently infringe" under the Halo standard (e.g., Compl. ¶¶67, 105). The complaint also notes a pre-suit contact on July 23, 2025 (Compl. ¶29), which may be used to argue for pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical operation: does the artificial intelligence in the accused Insta360 products function according to the specific probabilistic, multi-step decision-making process recited in the automated videography patents ('771 and '544), or does it achieve automated framing through a fundamentally different technical method?
- A key question of claim scope will arise for the video trimming patents ('158, '612, '490): can the granular series of user inputs and distinct UI modes described in the claims be mapped directly onto the workflow of the Insta360 app, or is there a mismatch between the specific implementation claimed and the one practiced by the accused software?
- A central dispute for the '418 patent on sharing resources will likely be definitional: does the Insta360 app's integration with accessories like an external microphone and a GPS-enabled watch meet the claim requirement of detecting distinct "handheld devices" and creating "combined use modes" that provide simultaneous "control" over their respective functionalities?