DCT
4:23-cv-00926
Optimum Imaging Tech LLC v. Panasonic Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Panasonic Corporation (Japan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Carter Arnett PLLC; Cherian LLP
- Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00926, E.D. Tex., 10/18/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and is a foreign entity, which may be sued in any judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LUMIX line of digital cameras infringes four patents related to in-camera systems and methods for automatically correcting optical and digital aberrations in still images and video.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using dedicated hardware, software, and lens-specific databases within a digital camera to automatically identify and correct image flaws like distortion, vignetting, and color shading, a key competitive feature in the digital photography market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that all asserted patents stem from the same provisional application. It further alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the asserted patent family as early as December 17, 2014, due to a citation of the parent ’805 Patent by an examiner during the prosecution of one of Defendant’s own Japanese patents, a fact which may be central to the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-07-11 | Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents |
| 2009-11-03 | U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805 Issues |
| 2013-05-28 | U.S. Patent No. 8,451,339 Issues |
| 2014-12-17 | Alleged date of Panasonic’s knowledge via Japanese patent prosecution |
| 2020-12-22 | U.S. Patent No. 10,873,685 Issues |
| 2020-12-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,877,266 Issues |
| 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" (Issued Nov. 3, 2009)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the long-standing challenge in photography of correcting optical problems (such as lens aberrations) and digital artifacts (such as moiré patterns) that degrade image quality, noting that post-production software editing is time-consuming and requires skill (’685 Patent, col. 6:35-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated, in-camera system that uses a combination of hardware (a microprocessor, digital signal processor, and an application-specific integrated circuit) and software to correct these flaws (’805 Patent, Claim 1). This system accesses an internal database to identify corrections specific to the attached lens (fixed-focus or zoom) and applies digital filtration to the captured image before it is stored in memory, as depicted in the system diagram in Figure 1 (Compl. p. 5; ’685 Patent, col. 9:60-65).
- Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from reliance on external optical filters and manual post-production editing to automated, real-time image enhancement integrated directly into the camera’s hardware and software (Compl. ¶13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 9 (Compl. ¶22). Plaintiff notes that it may assert additional claims, including dependent claims.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a digital imaging system for a fixed focal length lens, comprising:
- A set of hardware components including a digital camera mechanism, optical lens mechanism, digital sensor, microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP), application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), system software, a database management system, and a memory storage sub-system.
- Correction of lens aberrations by applying digital filtration using the ASIC and DSP.
- System software organized to identify aberrations and access the database for specific corrections.
- A DSP that applies a fast Fourier transform for a user-specified special effect.
- Storage of the modified, corrected data file in memory.
- Independent Claim 9 recites a similar digital imaging system for a zoom lens, further comprising:
- Correction of optical aberrations for multiple images from different focal lengths.
- Alternation of the lens focal length from specific fixed focal length settings in a succession of steps.
U.S. Patent No. 8,451,339 - "Digital imaging system for correcting image aberrations" (Issued May 28, 2013)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As the asserted patents share a common specification, this patent addresses the same technical problems of optical and digital image aberrations described for the ’805 Patent (Compl. ¶10).
- The Patented Solution: The ’339 Patent claims an in-camera system where a microprocessor uses system software to access a database to identify not just an aberration, but also "at least one algorithm" to correct that aberration (’339 Patent, Claim 1). This algorithm is then used by the digital signal processor to apply digital filtration to the captured image file, which is then stored in memory.
- Technical Importance: This patent focuses on the use of selectable software "algorithms" for correction, adding a layer of software-defined functionality to the hardware-centric system described in the earlier patent.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 14 (Compl. ¶47). Plaintiff notes that it may assert additional claims, including dependent claims.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a digital imaging system for a fixed focal length lens, comprising:
- A microprocessor that uses system software to identify at least one optical aberration by accessing the database.
- The microprocessor also uses the database to identify "at least one algorithm" for correction.
- The image file is corrected by applying digital filtration "by using at least one algorithm in the digital signal processor."
- Independent Claim 14 recites a similar system for a zoom lens, comprising:
- A microprocessor that accesses the database to "obtain at least one filtration correction algorithm" and "forwards" it to the digital signal processor.
- The DSP applies the algorithm to optimize the image and correct the aberration at the specific focal length.
U.S. Patent No. 10,873,685 - "Digital imaging system for correcting video image aberrations" (Issued Dec. 22, 2020)
Technology Synopsis
This patent extends the core technology of in-camera aberration correction to the domain of digital video (Compl. ¶70). The claimed system uses an integrated circuit and in-camera software to identify and correct an optical aberration in "at least one frame of the digital video" by accessing a database containing a plurality of aberration corrections (Compl. ¶73).
Asserted Claims
Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
Accused Features
The "Lens Compensation" feature of the accused LUMIX cameras, which is alleged to correct aberrations in both photos and videos (Compl. ¶82). The complaint provides a specifications table showing the accused cameras' video recording capabilities (Compl. p. 27).
U.S. Patent No. 10,877,266 - "Digital camera with wireless image transfer" (Issued Dec. 29, 2020)
Technology Synopsis
This patent claims a method of processing an image with a digital camera that combines in-camera image correction with wireless functionality (Compl. ¶91). The claimed method involves digitally processing a captured image using in-camera hardware and software to perform correction algorithms, storing the corrected image in memory, and then "wirelessly transmitting" the corrected image (Compl. ¶94). A key element is that the in-camera software and database are "upgradable to provide improved algorithms and correction data" (Compl. ¶94).
Asserted Claims
Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶94).
Accused Features
The combination of the "Lens Compensation" software with the accused cameras' Wi-Fi and Bluetooth capabilities, which allow for wireless transfer of images to devices like smartphones (Compl. ¶103). The complaint also highlights the ability to update the camera system software and associated database via download from Panasonic's website (Compl. ¶101).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Panasonic LUMIX digital cameras, including but not limited to the S1, S1H, S1R, S5, S5M2, S5M2X, GH4, GH5, G9, and other models (Compl. ¶17). The complaint uses the Panasonic LUMIX S5M2 as its primary exemplary product.
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are mirrorless digital cameras that feature a "Lens Compensation" function, which is alleged to automatically correct for optical aberrations such as vignetting, color shading, and diffraction (Compl. ¶16, ¶32). This functionality is allegedly performed by an integrated image processing engine, which Panasonic calls the "Venus Engine" or an engine developed under its L2 Technology partnership with Leica (Compl. ¶30-31). The complaint alleges this engine comprises the claimed microprocessor, DSP, and ASIC (Compl. ¶30). The system is alleged to work with a variety of compatible zoom and fixed focal length lenses, using lens-specific correction data stored in an internal database that can be updated via firmware downloads (Compl. ¶27, ¶29, ¶16). The complaint includes a photograph of the Venus Engine processing chip, which it alleges performs the claimed functions (Compl. p. 11).
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...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 LUMIX cameras are digital imaging systems containing these components, with the "Venus Engine" or "L2 engine" allegedly comprising the microprocessor, DSP, and ASIC. | ¶25, ¶28, ¶30-31, ¶35 | col. 1:24-28 |
| wherein the lens type is a zoom lens | The accused cameras are compatible with and sold for use with a variety of zoom lenses. The complaint provides a visual depicting several compatible zoom lenses (Compl. p. 9). | ¶27 | col. 11:20-22 |
| wherein the aberrations from the optical lens mechanism are corrected by applying digital filtration by using the application specific integrated circuit and the digital signal processor | The "Lens Compensation" feature, powered by the image processing engine, allegedly applies digital filters to correct aberrations like vignetting and diffraction. | ¶26, ¶32 | col. 11:7-14 |
| wherein the system software is organized to identify specific optical aberrations and to access the database to identify specific corrections to the aberrations | The "Lens Compensation" feature allegedly uses onboard software to automatically correct aberrations based on the specific lens being used, which requires accessing a database of lens correction data. | ¶29, ¶32 | col. 9:60-65 |
| wherein the digital signal processor selects a specific procedure to optimize the image and corrects the aberrations | The onboard software allegedly directs the DSP (the image processing engine) to select and apply procedures to correct aberrations at different focal lengths. The complaint includes a manual screenshot showing the "Lens Compensation" settings menu (Compl. p. 12). | ¶32 | col. 7:7-10 |
| wherein the modified data file...is stored in memory | The accused cameras automatically record the corrected images to memory cards. | ¶35 | col. 7:16-17 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Panasonic’s integrated "image processing engine" (Compl. ¶30-31) meets the claim limitation requiring three distinct components: "a microprocessor, a digital signal processor, an application specific integrated circuit." A defendant may argue that its single, multi-functional chip does not satisfy this conjunctive listing.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that the accused products "apply a fast Fourier transform" (Compl. ¶34), a specific limitation in claim 1. What technical evidence supports this specific algorithmic step, as opposed to other known methods of digital image filtration?
’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: [list of components] | The accused LUMIX cameras are identified as digital imaging systems containing these components. | ¶50, ¶52-55, ¶58 | col. 1:24-28 |
| wherein the optical lens mechanism is a zoom lens | The accused cameras are designed to operate with various zoom lenses. The complaint includes visuals showing a range of compatible zoom and fixed focal length lenses (Compl. p. 19). | ¶52 | col. 5:31-34 |
| 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 "Lens Compensation" feature is alleged to use software and the microprocessor to access a database of lens data to correct for aberrations at the specific focal length selected by the user on a zoom lens. | ¶57, ¶59 | col. 26:37-41 |
| 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 that the microprocessor obtains the necessary correction algorithm from the database and forwards it to the DSP (the image processing engine) for execution. | ¶51, ¶59 | col. 26:41-45 |
| 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 image processing engine allegedly applies the identified algorithm to the image data to perform the correction. | ¶59, ¶60 | col. 16:46-48 |
| wherein the modified image file...is stored in memory | The accused products are alleged to automatically record the corrected photos and videos to memory cards. | ¶61 | col. 16:48-50 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory for this patent hinges on construing the correction data stored in the camera’s firmware as an "algorithm." A defendant may argue that this data is merely a set of parameters or a look-up table, not a self-contained "algorithm" as the term is understood in computer science, which implies a sequence of executable steps.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates the specific data flow required by the claim, namely that the microprocessor "obtains" an algorithm and then "forwards" it to the DSP? The internal software architecture will be critical to determine if the accused products practice this specific sequence of operations or if, for instance, the DSP simply executes a pre-loaded algorithm using parameters supplied by the microprocessor.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’805 Patent
- The Term: "an application specific integrated circuit"
- Context and Importance: This term is listed separately from "a microprocessor" and "a digital signal processor." The infringement case hinges on mapping Panasonic's integrated "image processing engine" to all three elements. Practitioners may focus on whether this claim requires three physically or structurally distinct components, or if a single, multi-functional chip can satisfy the limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's Figure 1 depicts the "Multifunctional Analysis Engine (ASIC)" as a single functional block containing the "Microprocessor," suggesting the terms may describe functional roles rather than requiring separate physical chips (’685 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim lists the three components with the conjunctive "an," which typically denotes separate items in a list. A defendant may argue that if the patentee intended to cover a single integrated processor, it could have claimed it as such.
For the ’339 Patent
- The Term: "algorithm"
- Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that the accused cameras use a database to identify and apply a correction "algorithm" (Compl. ¶59). The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the lens correction data stored in the camera's firmware qualifies as an "algorithm."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using "mathematical algorithms for automatic correction of optical aberrations," suggesting the patentee equated the corrective process with an algorithm (’685 Patent, col. 12:40-42). A set of parameters that defines a mathematical transformation could be argued to constitute an algorithm in this context.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not define the term. A defendant may argue for its plain and ordinary meaning in the field of computer science, which typically refers to a sequence of executable instructions, not merely a set of data values or parameters used by a pre-existing program.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant’s user manuals, marketing materials, and videos instruct and encourage end users to use the accused "Lens Compensation" functionality in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶38, ¶64, ¶85, ¶107).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. The central allegation is that Defendant has had actual notice of the patent family since at least December 17, 2014, the issue date of Panasonic’s Japanese Patent, No. JP 5643153 B2, because the parent ’805 Patent was cited by the examiner during its prosecution (Compl. ¶42, ¶68, ¶89, ¶111).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claimed combination of "a microprocessor, a digital signal processor, [and] an application specific integrated circuit" be construed to read on Panasonic’s integrated "image processing engine"? Similarly, can lens correction data stored in firmware be construed as the claimed "database management system" or "algorithm"? The case may turn heavily on how these terms are defined by the court.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will emerge from discovery about the actual software and hardware architecture of the accused LUMIX cameras? The complaint's allegations rely on functionality described in user manuals, and the case will likely depend on whether the underlying operation matches the specific sequence of steps recited in the claims, such as the microprocessor "forwarding" an algorithm to the DSP.
- The allegation of willfulness based on a citation in a foreign patent prosecution is a significant factor. A central question for trial will be whether this citation is sufficient to prove that Defendant had the requisite knowledge of the patents and deliberately infringed, which could expose Defendant to the risk of enhanced damages.