DCT
6:21-cv-00883
360heros Inc v. Samsung Electronics America Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: 360Heros, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York) and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: RAMEY & SCHWALLER, LLP
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00883, W.D. Tex., 08/24/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Samsung having a regular and established place of business in the district, committing acts of infringement in the district, and conducting substantial business in the forum.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 360-Round camera system infringes a patent related to a holding assembly for releasably mounting multiple cameras to capture 360-degree panoramic images.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to multi-camera rigs for capturing spherical or panoramic video, a foundational technology for producing immersive virtual reality (VR) content.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-11-05 | '019 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-10-06 | '019 Patent Issue Date |
| Circa 2017 | Accused Product Marketing/Launch (based on copyright notice) |
| 2021-08-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,152,019 - "360 Degree Camera Mount and Related Photographic and Video System"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,152,019, "360 Degree Camera Mount and Related Photographic and Video System," issued October 6, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the equipment for creating 360-degree images as "prohibitively expensive" and notes that existing systems often require cameras to be permanently or semi-permanently fixed within an enclosure, preventing easy servicing or their use for other purposes (’019 Patent, col. 2:32-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a holding assembly designed to "releasably retain a plurality of conventional photographic cameras" in a "plug and play configuration" that allows for their easy removal and replacement (’019 Patent, col. 2:39-40, 2:64-66). The assembly uses multiple receptacles, each with a latching feature, arranged radially on support arms to hold individual cameras (such as the GoPro Hero3, explicitly mentioned) in a precise orientation to capture a seamless 360-degree field of view (’019 Patent, col. 7:29-32, Fig. 1f).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to lower the cost and increase the versatility of 360-degree video production by enabling the use of multiple off-the-shelf cameras rather than a single, specialized, and expensive integrated device (’019 Patent, col. 2:47-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-37, with a preliminary analysis focused on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶9-10).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’019 Patent recites:
- A holding assembly configured to releasably retain a plurality of photographic cameras in a predetermined orientation, comprising:
- a support with a support body and a plurality of support arms extending outwardly and radially;
- each support arm including a receptacle, with the receptacles disposed radially about the support body's exterior;
- each receptacle defining an open-ended enclosure with at least one latching feature for releasably retaining a camera;
- wherein the receptacles are oriented to provide an overlapping field of view to create a 360-degree composite image.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶9).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Samsung "360-Round camera system" (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a "360 Round VR Camera" designed to "shoot, produce and live stream 360 3D video in true 4K x 4K to create immersive VR experiences" (Compl. p. 4). It allegedly integrates 17 cameras and uses an "advanced Samsung Stitching Program" to combine video from each camera into a seamless, stereoscopic final product (Compl. p. 8). The functionality positions the device as a professional or prosumer tool for creating VR and 360-degree video content.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
- The complaint provides a preliminary claim chart mapping elements of Claim 1 of the ’019 Patent to the accused Samsung 360 Round system (Compl. ¶10).
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A holding assembly configured to releasably retain a plurality of photographic cameras in a predetermined orientation, said holding assembly comprising: | The complaint alleges the Samsung 360 Round product is a holding assembly that releasably retains multiple cameras in a set orientation. A product image shows the exterior of the accused camera system (Compl. p. 4). | ¶10 | col. 2:53-55 |
| a support including a support body having a plurality of support arms extending outwardly and radially from the support body; and | The complaint alleges the product's internal structure constitutes a support body with outwardly and radially extending support arms. A cutaway graphic depicts the alleged internal structure of the device (Compl. p. 5). | ¶10 | col. 6:61-64 |
| each of the support arms including a receptacle disposed thereon and in which a plurality of the receptacles are disposed radially about the exterior of said support body, | The complaint alleges the product's structure includes radially disposed receptacles on the purported support arms for holding cameras. | ¶10 | col. 7:1-3 |
| each of said receptacles defining an open-ended enclosure having at least one latching feature for enabling a photographic camera to be releasably retained within the defined enclosure | The complaint alleges the product's receptacles are open-ended enclosures with a latching feature to releasably hold a camera. An exterior view shows the camera lenses seated within openings in the housing (Compl. p. 7). | ¶10 | col. 7:50-54 |
| wherein the receptacles are oriented about said support such that each retained camera provides an overlapping field of view, the cameras being disposed on the support to create either a 360 degree by 180 degree full spherical composite image or a 360 degree composite image. | The complaint alleges the product orients its 17 cameras to provide overlapping views that are stitched together to create a 360-degree composite image. A marketing graphic illustrates the concept of weaving video from multiple perspectives (Compl. p. 8). | ¶10 | col. 8:19-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the integrated camera modules within the Samsung 360 Round constitute a "plurality of photographic cameras" that are "releasably retained" as contemplated by the patent. The patent specification emphasizes a "plug and play configuration" using "conventional photographic cameras" like a GoPro, which suggests user-serviceability, whereas the accused product appears to be a more integrated, non-user-serviceable unit (’019 Patent, col. 2:39-40, 2:64-66). The question is whether "releasably retained" can read on components that may only be removable by a technician for repair.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence detailing the mechanism by which the internal cameras of the 360 Round are secured. An evidentiary question will be whether the product’s internal mounting structure meets the definition of a "latching feature," or if the cameras are secured by other means (e.g., screws, adhesive) that may fall outside the scope of that term as described in the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "releasably retain"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent’s primary stated improvement over the prior art is the ability to easily remove and replace cameras (’019 Patent, col. 2:47-52). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether the method of securing camera modules inside the accused product aligns with the patent’s concept of "releasable."
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "releasable" could be construed broadly to mean "not permanently affixed," which might encompass components that can be removed with tools for service.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of a "plug and play configuration" and "easy removal," which could support a narrower construction requiring tool-free or simple-tool removal by a user, not just a technician (’019 Patent, col. 2:64-66, 4:6).
The Term: "photographic camera"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on whether the integrated lens-and-sensor modules inside the 360 Round are "photographic cameras." The patent explicitly references a "GoPro™ Hero3™ camera," a complete, standalone consumer product (’019 Patent, col. 7:29-32).
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term covers any device, including a sub-component, that contains a lens and sensor for capturing photographic images.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s consistent reference to using "conventional photographic cameras" and its specific examples could be argued to limit the term’s scope to self-contained, independently operable cameras, not integrated modules that are merely components of a larger system (’019 Patent, col. 2:39-40).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, stating that Samsung encourages and instructs customers on how to use the accused product for 360-degree photography (Compl. ¶¶12-13). These allegations are made in general terms without citing specific user manuals or marketing materials.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Samsung’s purported knowledge of the ’019 Patent "from at least the date of issuance of the patent or the date of the filing of this lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶12-13). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim phrase "releasably retain a plurality of photographic cameras," which the patent links to user-swappable consumer cameras, be construed to cover the highly integrated, internal camera modules of the accused Samsung 360 Round system? The outcome may depend on whether those modules are considered "photographic cameras" and if their attachment method is "releasable" within the meaning of the patent.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused product's internal chassis, which appears to be a unitary frame, actually contain structures that map to the patent's distinct elements of "support arms," "receptacles," and a "latching feature"? The dispute will likely focus on the factual comparison between the patent’s disclosed embodiments and the physical construction of the accused device.