Compact Lens Tech LLC v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Compact Lens Technologies LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corp. (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nelson Bumgardner Albritton PC
• Case Identification: 6:18-cv-00044, E.D. Tex., 06/04/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district, transacted business involving the accused products there, and maintains a regular and established place of business in Frisco, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the camera lens modules within Defendant’s smartphones and tablets, including the Surface 3 and Lumia 950, infringe a patent related to a specific four-element compact photographic lens design.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves miniaturized, multi-element lens systems designed for high-resolution digital imaging in compact electronic devices, a critical component in the competitive smartphone and tablet markets.
• Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges Defendant has had knowledge of the patent since at least the service of the original complaint, a fact which may form the basis for an allegation of post-filing willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,321,474 - “Photographic lens,” issued January 22, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of designing compact, lightweight, and low-cost photographic lenses for high-resolution cameras, such as those embedded in mobile phones, without sacrificing image quality (Compl. Ex. 1, '474 Patent, col. 1:11-28). Specifically, it notes that conventional designs struggled to maintain high-quality imaging for objects at both long and short distances while also having a long back focal length suitable for auto-focusing mechanisms ('474 Patent, col. 1:47-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a small, four-element photographic lens system. The solution lies in a specific arrangement and set of optical properties for the four lenses: a first lens with positive refractive power, a second with variable refractive power, a third with positive power, and a fourth with negative power, arranged in order from the object being photographed ('474 Patent, col. 12:34-48). This configuration, illustrated in embodiments like Figure 1, is designed to correct for optical aberrations while enabling a compact physical size and maintaining performance during auto-focusing ('474 Patent, col. 1:54-60; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This lens design sought to enable the production of high-performance, compact camera modules needed for the rapidly advancing market of camera-equipped mobile devices, where consumer demand for improved photo quality was growing ('474 Patent, col. 1:19-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13, 19, 20, and 21 (Compl. ¶¶10-15).
• The essential elements of independent claim 12 are:
  • A photographic lens comprising:
  • a first lens having positive refractive power;
  • a second lens having negative refractive power at a center portion, in which the negative refractive power becomes weaker from the center portion toward the peripheral portion of the second lens, and having a positive refractive power at the peripheral portion thereof;
  • a third lens having positive refractive power; and
  • a fourth lens having negative refractive power,
  • wherein the lenses are numbered in order of location from the object.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Microsoft Accused Devices," which include but are not limited to the Surface 3 tablet and the Lumia 950 smartphone (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused functionality resides in the "lens module (i.e., a photographic lens)" incorporated into the cameras of the accused devices (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that these lens modules contain a four-lens system whose structure and properties map onto the elements of the asserted patent claims (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide specific allegations regarding the products' market positioning, other than identifying them as smartphones and tablets sold by Microsoft (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the lens modules in the Accused Devices contain four lenses with the specific properties and arrangement recited in the ’474 Patent. The complaint provides an annotated cross-section of the lens module for the Surface 3, which identifies four lens elements (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 1). It also provides a similar visual for the Lumia 950 front lens (Compl. p. 5, Fig. 2).

'474 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: A central technical question will be whether the second lens in the accused Microsoft products actually exhibits the complex refractive power profile required by claim 12. The complaint alleges this element is met but provides no supporting optical data, graphs, or analysis beyond a labeled diagram (Compl. ¶17). The core of the dispute may depend on what evidence (e.g., from reverse engineering or optical modeling) is produced to prove that the accused lens's negative refractive power "becomes weaker" from the center and becomes positive at the periphery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "negative refractive power becomes weaker"
• Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the limitation for the second lens of claim 12, describes a specific optical gradient across the lens surface. The infringement analysis will likely hinge on the method of measuring this property and whether the accused lens meets this functional requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a highly specific technical constraint, and the plaintiff's ability to prove infringement depends on producing affirmative evidence of this precise optical behavior, which is absent from the complaint's allegations.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader construction might point to the patent's general descriptions of correcting aberrations to argue that any lens design achieving that goal with a similar power trend should be covered, without being constrained to a specific mathematical profile ('474 Patent, col. 4:47-50).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower construction may point to a specific embodiment in the patent that explicitly describes this property for the second lens ('474 Patent, col. 9:12-18). This embodiment is accompanied by a graph (Fig. 13) that visually depicts a specific power curve for the second lens, which could be used to argue that the claim term requires a similar, measurable profile where the power is negative at the optical axis, trends upward, and becomes positive toward the edge.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Microsoft provides instructional materials, user guides, and online resources that "teach, and encourage customers" to use the camera features of the accused devices (Compl. ¶¶22, 25). The theory is that by instructing users to take pictures, Microsoft intends for them to "use" the infringing lens module, thereby inducing infringement of the patent (Compl. p. 7, lines 1-3).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint lays the groundwork for a willfulness claim by alleging that Microsoft has had knowledge of the ’474 patent since at least the service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶23). It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Microsoft has "specifically intended" to continue its infringing conduct (Compl. ¶24).

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

1. A central issue will be one of technical proof: can the plaintiff produce sufficient evidentiary support, likely through expert analysis and optical testing of the accused products, to demonstrate that the second lens in Microsoft's devices possesses the specific and complex refractive power gradient recited in claim 12? The complaint's conclusory allegation on this point suggests this will be a key factual battleground.
2. The case may also turn on a question of intent for inducement: will the act of providing standard user manuals and marketing materials that instruct customers on the general use of a device's camera be sufficient to establish that the defendant possessed the specific intent to encourage infringement of the highly technical and internal workings of the patented lens system?