DCT

4:23-cv-00924

Optimum Imaging Tech LLC v. Olympus Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00924, E.D. Tex., 10/18/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct substantial business in the district through internet and retail sales and because Defendants are foreign entities, which may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital cameras and lenses infringe four patents related to in-camera systems for automatically correcting optical and digital image aberrations.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns software-based, in-camera image processing that identifies and corrects flaws inherent in optical lenses, aiming to automate work traditionally done in post-production.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent family since at least July 2016, based on the '805 Patent being cited by Japanese patent examiners during the prosecution of Defendants' own Japanese patents. This allegation forms the basis for Plaintiff's claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-07-11 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents ('805, '339, '685, '266)
2009-11-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805 Issues
2013-05-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,451,339 Issues
2016-07-06 Alleged Date of First Pre-Suit Notice via Japanese Patent Prosecution Citation
2020-12-22 U.S. Patent No. 10,873,685 Issues
2020-12-29 U.S. Patent No. 10,877,266 Issues
2021-01-01 Manufacturing of Accused Products allegedly transitions to OM Digital Solutions
2023-10-18 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805 - "Digital imaging system and methods for selective image filtration"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the longstanding challenge in photography of optical problems, or "aberrations," inherent in camera lenses that degrade image quality, such as distortion, vignetting (darkened corners), and color fringing ('685 Patent, col. 3:31-44). Digital imaging introduces its own artifacts, such as moiré patterns and issues related to sensor dust ('685 Patent, col. 5:29-39, col. 6:52-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated, in-camera system that uses a combination of hardware and software to correct these aberrations digitally. A central concept is a "database management system" that stores information about specific lenses and their characteristic flaws. The system identifies the attached lens, accesses the database to find the corresponding correction procedure, and applies "digital filtration" via a digital signal processor (DSP) and/or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) to the image data captured by the sensor ('805 Patent, Abstract; '685 Patent, col. 9:59-10:14; '685 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to move complex and time-consuming image correction from manual, post-production software into an automated, real-time process within the camera itself, thereby improving image quality and workflow efficiency ('685 Patent, col. 7:20-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 9 (Compl. ¶24).
  • Claim 1 (Fixed Focal Length Lens System):
    • A digital imaging system with specified hardware components (camera mechanism, lens, sensor, microprocessor, DSP, ASIC, software, database, memory).
    • The optical lens is a fixed focal length.
    • Aberrations are corrected by applying digital filtration using the ASIC and DSP.
    • The microprocessor provides data to the DSP.
    • System software identifies aberrations and accesses the database for corrections.
    • The DSP selects a procedure to optimize the image and correct aberrations.
    • The DSP applies a fast Fourier transform for a user-specified special effect.
    • The modified data file is stored in memory.
  • Claim 9 (Zoom Lens System):
    • A digital imaging system with specified hardware components.
    • The lens is a zoom lens where the focal length alternates in steps.
    • Aberrations are corrected using the ASIC and DSP.
    • Optical aberrations are corrected with digital filtration to modify multiple images from different focal lengths.
    • The modified data file is stored in memory.

U.S. Patent No. 8,451,339 - "Digital imaging system for correcting image aberrations"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the '805 Patent, the technology addresses optical and digital aberrations that compromise the quality of images captured by digital cameras ('685 Patent, col. 3:31-44).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent also describes an automated, in-camera correction system. It claims a microprocessor that uses system software to access a database to identify both an optical aberration and a corresponding "algorithm" for correcting it. A digital signal processor then applies digital filtration using that algorithm to the captured image file, and the corrected file is stored in memory ('339 Patent, Abstract; '685 Patent, col. 10:40-47).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aims to supplant external optical filters and manual post-production with an integrated, automated digital solution, allowing for the use of less complex lenses while still achieving high-quality results ('685 Patent, col. 7:30-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 14 (Compl. ¶47).
  • Claim 1 (Fixed Focal Length Lens System):
    • A digital imaging system with specified hardware components.
    • The lens is a fixed focal length.
    • A microprocessor uses software to access a database to identify an optical aberration.
    • The microprocessor uses the database to identify an algorithm to correct the aberration.
    • The image file is corrected by the DSP applying digital filtration using the algorithm.
    • The modified file is stored in memory.
  • Claim 14 (Zoom Lens System):
    • A digital imaging system with specified hardware components.
    • The lens is a zoom lens that changes focal length positions.
    • The microprocessor uses software to access a database to identify an aberration at any focal length.
    • The microprocessor accesses the database to obtain a filtration correction algorithm and forwards it to the DSP.
    • The DSP applies the algorithm to optimize and correct the image at the specific focal length.
    • The modified file is stored in memory.

U.S. Patent No. 10,873,685 - "Digital imaging system for correcting video image aberrations"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent extends the core in-camera aberration correction technology to the domain of digital video. It describes a system where an integrated circuit uses in-camera software to identify and correct an optical aberration in at least one frame of a digital video by referencing a database of corrections ('685 Patent, Abstract, claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Representative claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: The accused products' functionality as digital video cameras, which allegedly perform in-video aberration correction, is accused of infringing this patent. The complaint points to the "Video Menu" as evidence of this capability (Compl. ¶¶ 71-72). The screenshot of the "Video Menu" from the OM-5 instruction manual demonstrates the accused video functionality (Compl. ¶71).

U.S. Patent No. 10,877,266 - "Digital camera with wireless image transfer"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of processing an image within a digital camera—including performing image corrections using a database—and then wirelessly transmitting the corrected image. A key element is that the in-camera software and database system are "upgradable," allowing for improved algorithms and correction data to be added post-sale ('266 Patent, Abstract, claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Representative claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The accused products' wireless image transfer capabilities (Wi-Fi/Bluetooth) and their ability to receive firmware updates, which allegedly provide "updated software and image correction data," are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶¶ 93, 98). The complaint includes a screenshot from the OM-5 manual showing the camera's wireless settings menu (Compl. ¶93).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Olympus and OM System branded digital cameras (e.g., OM-1, OM-5, various OM-D and PEN models) and associated fixed focal length and zoom lenses (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused cameras contain integrated processing systems, such as the "TruePic IX image processing engine," which work in conjunction with the image sensor and system software to perform automated image corrections (Compl. ¶32). A key accused feature is "Shading Comp." (shading compensation), which the complaint identifies as a form of vignetting correction that adjusts for peripheral illumination based on the type of lens used (Compl. ¶33). The screenshot of the "Shading Comp." menu setting from the OM-5 manual shows the user-selectable nature of this accused feature (Compl. ¶33). The complaint further alleges that the cameras store and use lens-specific data to perform these corrections and that this data can be updated via firmware downloads (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'805 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A digital imaging system for image filtration comprising: a digital camera mechanism, an optical lens mechanism, a digital sensor, a microprocessor, a digital signal processor, an application specific integrated circuit, system software, a database management system and a memory storage sub-system The accused products are digital cameras (e.g., OM-5) containing these hardware and software components, embodied in part by the "TruePic IX image processing engine" and "Live MOS" sensor. ¶27 col. 9:1-col. 12:44
wherein the lens type is a zoom lens The accused cameras are used with zoom lenses, such as the OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm lens. ¶29 col. 10:20-23
wherein the lens focal length alternates from specific fixed focal length lens settings in a succession of steps A user operating a zoom lens changes the focal length through various settings. The "Shading Comp." function allegedly corrects aberrations at these different focal lengths. ¶33 col. 26:1-12
wherein optical aberrations are corrected with digital filtration to modify multiple images from different focal lengths in a succession of data files The "Shading Comp." (vignetting correction) function allegedly corrects aberrations at different focal lengths chosen when using a zoom lens, thereby modifying images taken at those different focal lengths. ¶33 col. 26:26-40
wherein the modified data file...is stored in memory The corrected digital image files are stored on memory cards used with the accused cameras. ¶35 col. 7:59-60

'339 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A digital imaging system for correcting image aberrations comprising...a microprocessor, a digital signal processor, system software, a database management system and a memory storage sub-system The accused OM-5 camera and other products contain these components, including the "TruePic IX image processing engine." ¶50, ¶55 col. 9:1-col. 12:44
wherein the optical lens mechanism is a zoom lens The cameras are used with zoom lenses, such as the OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm lens. ¶52 col. 10:20-23
wherein the microprocessor uses system software to access the database to identify at least one optical aberration in the image file at any focal length of a zoom lens configuration The camera's processor and software allegedly use stored database data to identify aberrations like vignetting ("Shading Comp.") based on the attached lens and its current focal length. ¶54, ¶56 col. 26:41-55
wherein the microprocessor accesses the database to obtain at least one filtration correction algorithm...and forwards the at least one filtration algorithms to the digital signal processor The complaint alleges on information and belief that the onboard software directs the processor to select a specific procedure (i.e., algorithm) to correct aberrations at different focal lengths. ¶56 col. 26:41-55
wherein the image file is forwarded to the digital signal processor which applies at least one filtration algorithm to optimize the image and corrects the at least one optical aberration The camera's "TruePic IX image processor" allegedly applies the correction algorithm (e.g., for "Shading Comp.") to the image data received from the sensor. ¶55, ¶57 col. 26:41-55
wherein the modified image file...is stored in memory The final, corrected image is stored on a memory card. ¶58 col. 7:59-60

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The claims of the '805 and '339 patents recite a list of discrete hardware components, including a "microprocessor," a "digital signal processor," and an "application specific integrated circuit." The complaint maps these elements to an integrated "TruePic IX image processing engine" in the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 55). A potential point of contention is whether this single, modern processing engine can be shown to meet the limitations of all three distinct claimed components.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 of the '805 Patent requires the system to apply a "fast Fourier transform...to satisfy a user specified special effects function" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint makes general allegations but does not specify what evidence it has that the accused cameras use an FFT for this particular purpose, raising the question of whether the accused functionality matches this specific claimed operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"database management system" ('805 Patent, claim 1; '339 Patent, claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is a cornerstone of the claimed invention, as the system relies on accessing lens-specific correction data. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the way the accused cameras store and access lens correction profiles—allegedly via firmware and internal memory (Compl. ¶31)—meets this limitation, or if the term requires a more formal, structured database architecture.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the "database" functionally as a source to "retrieve corrections" and to "match the lens type with the specific aberrations," suggesting its role is more important than its specific structure ('685 Patent, col. 10:1-2, col. 25:10-14).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patents depicts the "DBMS" (190) as a distinct block, separate from the general "Storage" (197). This could suggest an interpretation that requires a dedicated, structured system for managing data, rather than merely a collection of data files stored in general memory ('685 Patent, Fig. 1).

"algorithm" ('339 Patent, claim 1)

Context and Importance

The '339 patent requires the microprocessor to use a database to identify an "algorithm" for the DSP to apply. The definition of "algorithm" is central to whether storing a set of correction parameters or coefficients for a lens constitutes storing an "algorithm." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the system uses "database data" (Compl. ¶54) but does not specify whether this data is a set of executable steps or merely numerical values for a pre-programmed function.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses "algorithm" in the context of implementing a "digital corrective process" and applying "digital filtration," which could be read broadly to encompass the application of mathematical formulas using stored coefficients ('685 Patent, col. 31:56-61).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim structure requires the microprocessor to first access the database to "obtain" the algorithm and then "forward" it to the DSP. This sequence could support a narrower reading that an actual set of executable instructions, not just parameters, must be retrieved from the database and sent to the processor for execution.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants' user manuals and other materials instruct customers and end users on how to use the accused features, such as "Shading Comp.," thereby encouraging infringing acts (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 61).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The pre-suit allegation is based on the claim that the '805 patent was cited by patent examiners during the prosecution of Defendants' own Japanese patents, with the earliest alleged notice date being July 6, 2016 (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 65). Post-suit knowledge is alleged based on the filing of the complaint itself.

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

  • A core issue will be one of component mapping: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused cameras' integrated processing engine, the "TruePic IX," contains the distinct structural elements of a "microprocessor," a "digital signal processor," and an "application specific integrated circuit" as separately recited in the patent claims, or will the court find a disconnect between the claimed architecture and the accused implementation?
  • A second central question will be one of definitional scope: does the accused cameras' system of storing and applying lens correction profiles meet the claim requirement of a "database management system" that provides an "algorithm" for correction, or is there a functional difference between applying stored numerical parameters and retrieving and executing a distinct algorithm as claimed?
  • A key question for damages will be willfulness: given the specific allegations that the asserted patent family was cited during the prosecution of Defendants' own patents years before the suit, can Defendants successfully argue they lacked the requisite knowledge of infringement, or will these facts support a finding of deliberate or reckless conduct?