DCT

1:24-cv-01870

Power Mobile Life LLC v. NEC Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01870, E.D. Va., 10/24/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because Defendant NEC Corporation is a foreign resident and is therefore subject to personal jurisdiction in any judicial district pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 293 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their Eufy brand surveillance products do not infringe seven U.S. patents owned by Defendant related to video analysis, object detection, and camera control technologies.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves advanced video surveillance systems that use computational methods to analyze video feeds, identify objects and events, track subjects across multiple cameras, and enable machine learning for improved detection.
  • Key Procedural History: This action follows a complaint filed by NEC against Plaintiffs' parent companies in the Eastern District of Texas on September 3, 2024, alleging infringement of several of the same patents. Plaintiffs also note that NEC sent a letter on June 3, 2024, offering to license a portfolio of 80 U.S. patents, including those now in suit. This history establishes the "actual controversy" required for a declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,999,635 Priority Date
2013-05-31 U.S. Patent No. 9,953,240 Priority Date
2013-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,210,526 Priority Date
2013-09-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,037,467 Priority Date
2015-01-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,325,160 Priority Date
2015-02-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,970,995 Priority Date
2018-04-24 U.S. Patent No. 9,953,240 Issue Date
2018-05-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,537,814 Priority Date
2018-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,037,467 Issue Date
2019-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 10,325,160 Issue Date
2021-04-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,970,995 Issue Date
2021-05-04 U.S. Patent No. 10,999,635 Issue Date
2021-12-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,210,526 Issue Date
2022-12-27 U.S. Patent No. 11,537,814 Issue Date
2024-06-03 NEC sends license offer letter to Plaintiffs' parent company
2024-09-03 NEC files patent infringement complaint in the Eastern District of Texas
2024-10-24 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,953,240 - “Image Processing System, Image Processing Method, and Recording Medium for Detecting a Static Object”

Issued April 24, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of accurately detecting a static or left-behind object in video surveillance when the scene has constant changes, such as a frequent flow of people, which can corrupt the "background" model used for comparison (’240 Patent, col. 1:44-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes generating multiple background images from different time spans (e.g., a short-term and a long-term background model). By generating a first image from a "first time span" and a second image from a "second time span" and comparing them, the system can more reliably identify an "area having a difference," which corresponds to a static object that appears in one background model but not the other (’240 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-14).
  • Technical Importance: This method purports to offer a more robust way to detect abandoned objects or loitering individuals in high-traffic areas where traditional background subtraction methods may fail.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 5, and 6 as being at issue (Compl. ¶29).
  • Independent Claim 1 (System):
    • identify static areas from input images captured at a plurality of time points, wherein...the input images include motion indicating a value smaller than a threshold value;
    • generate a first image using the static areas of respective input images captured in a first time span... a second image using the static areas... captured in a second time span... and a third image using the static areas... captured in a third time span;
    • compare the first image and the second image and identify an area having a difference; and
    • classify static objects included in the input images according to a length of a static time period, based on a comparison of the first image, the second image, and the third image.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but seeks a declaratory judgment on "any of the claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 10,037,467 - “Information Processing System”

Issued July 31, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In video analysis, different features of an object (e.g., a person's face vs. their clothing) may be best captured in different video frames. Selecting a single "best shot" frame for the entire object may result in suboptimal data for some features, reducing search precision (’467 Patent, col. 1:57-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes selecting the best frame for each feature (or "object element") independently, based on a "frame selection criterion" set for that specific element. The system then extracts the feature data from its individually-selected best frame and associates that data with information specifying which frame it came from, storing the results in a database (’467 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-26). For example, the best frame for face recognition might be different from the best frame for identifying clothing color.
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of a more accurate and robust feature profile for a tracked object by compiling the best available data for each distinct characteristic.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 11, 13, and 15 as being at issue (Compl. ¶37).
  • Independent Claim 1 (System):
    • a processor configured to:
    • detect and track an object in moving image data, and detect a plurality of object elements from the object;
    • extract a feature quantity of each of the object elements from a frame image;
    • select the frame image satisfying a frame selection criterion for each of the object elements, the frame selection criterion being set in advance for each of the object elements; and
    • associate frame specifying information for specifying the selected frame image with the feature quantity of the object element extracted from the selected frame image.
  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment on "any of the claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 10,970,995 - “System for Monitoring Event Related Data”

Issued April 6, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses surveillance systems where events are detected by sensors. It describes a system that identifies the type of detected event (e.g., sound of breaking glass vs. an explosion) and controls a "predetermined imaging range" of a camera based on that identified event type. Different event types correspond to different, predefined imaging ranges.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 6, and 11 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: Surveillance products with "imaging range adjustment functionality" (Compl. p. 7).

U.S. Patent No. 10,999,635 - “Image Processing System, Image Processing Method, and Program”

Issued May 4, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to user interfaces for multi-camera surveillance systems that track individuals. The invention describes a display control method that generates a user interface "window" for a tracked person, which includes a set of videos of that person, a diagram showing the time ranges and cameras that captured the person, and a "tab" with the person's image. The window is switchable via tabs to display similar information for other tracked individuals.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: Surveillance products with "cross-camera tracking functionality" (Compl. p. 7).

U.S. Patent No. 11,210,526 - “Video Surveillance System, Video Processing Apparatus, Video Processing Method, and Video Processing Program”

Issued December 28, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system that allows an operator to improve an AI's learning. An operator can designate a specific region of a detected object (e.g., a part of a car), generate a new category for that part with a user-inputted name, and the system then accumulates video data of that specific region as new learning data for the new category.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 6, and 9 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Accused Features: Surveillance products with "AI learning functionality" (Compl. p. 8).

U.S. Patent No. 11,537,814 - “Data Providing System and Data Collection System”

Issued December 27, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: The technology involves a system for selectively transmitting data from a sensor (e.g., a camera) to a central computer. The system uses a machine learning model to identify an object in the data and then determines whether that data should be transmitted to the computer "at a predetermined timing."
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Accused Features: Surveillance products with "AI learning functionality" (Compl. p. 10).

U.S. Patent No. 10,325,160 - “Movement State Estimation Device, Movement State Estimation Method and Program Recording Medium”

Issued June 18, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for analyzing crowd movement. It claims a method that estimates the number of people ("monitoring targets") in different local regions of an image and then uses that data to either output a graph indicating crowd flow or predict a future quantity of targets in those regions.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not specify accused features for this patent but lists numerous products under other patents with object and person detection functionality (Compl. pp. 4-12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a broad range of "Accused Eufy Products" sold under the Anker family of brands (Compl. ¶1). These include, but are not limited to, various models of Eufy video doorbells, 4G LTE cameras, indoor and outdoor security cameras, and related hardware like the HomeBase 3 hub (Compl. pp. 4-12). The complaint also names the supporting "eufy's BionicMind AI Service, eufy security application, and eufy servers" as accused instrumentalities (Compl. p. 5).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are described as consumer and business-focused smart surveillance devices (Compl. ¶4). Key functionalities identified as relevant to the patents include "package notifications ('Delivery Guard')," "object detection," "imaging range adjustment," "cross-camera tracking," and "AI learning functionality" (Compl. pp. 4-8). These features enable users to monitor their property, receive alerts for specific events like package deliveries or human presence, and track activity across multiple camera views.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

[9,953,240] Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
identify static areas from input images captured at a plurality of time points, wherein, in the static areas, the input images include motion indicating a value smaller than a threshold value Plaintiffs allege the accused products do not identify static areas based on a motion threshold as claimed. ¶¶28, 30 col. 9:43-50
compare the first image and the second image and identify an area having a difference Plaintiffs allege the accused products do not generate and compare two distinct background images from different time spans to identify a difference. ¶¶28, 30 col. 2:12-14
classify static objects included in the input images according to a length of a static time period, based on a comparison of the first image, the second image, and the third image. Plaintiffs allege the accused products do not classify objects by comparing three different background images generated from three distinct time spans. ¶¶28, 30 col. 16:55-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The central dispute appears to be methodological. The complaint raises the question of whether the Accused Eufy Products' method for detecting static objects relies on the specific multi-step process recited in the claims, which requires generating and comparing at least two distinct background images derived from different, nested time spans. The Plaintiffs' position suggests their products may use a different technical approach altogether for static object detection (Compl. ¶30).

[10,037,467] Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
select the frame image satisfying a frame selection criterion for each of the object elements, the frame selection criterion being set in advance for each of the object elements Plaintiffs allege that the frame from which their products extract a feature is not selected based on a pre-set criterion for each individual element as claimed. ¶¶36, 38 col. 2:16-21
associate frame specifying information for specifying the selected frame image with the feature quantity of the object element extracted from the selected frame image. Plaintiffs allege the accused products do not associate frame-specifying information with the extracted feature quantity in the manner recited by the claim. ¶¶36, 38 col. 2:21-26
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the meaning of "frame selection criterion being set in advance for each of the object elements." This raises the question of whether the accused products' logic for selecting a frame for analysis meets the claim's requirement for distinct, pre-set criteria for each feature (e.g., face, clothes), or if it uses a more holistic or singular method for selecting a "best" overall frame.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint suggests a potential mismatch between the data structure required by the claim (associating each feature quantity with its specific source frame) and the data structure used by the accused products (Compl. ¶38). Discovery may focus on how the accused products store and link extracted features to their source video frames.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’240 Patent

  • The Term: "compare the first image and the second image"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patented method. The Plaintiffs' non-infringement theory rests on the assertion that their products do not perform this specific comparison of two generated background images from different time spans (Compl. ¶30). The scope of what constitutes a "comparison" of two generated "images" will be critical.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the comparison in general terms, such as detecting "a static object standing still for a long time" by finding a difference between the background images (’240 Patent, col. 4:5-7). This might be argued to cover various methods of differential analysis.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses on a specific implementation where the system "compares background images of a short time window and a long time window, extracts pixels each having a difference that is larger than a threshold value, and consequently identifies the area consisting of the pixels as a static-object area" (’240 Patent, col. 4:39-44). This could support a narrower construction requiring this specific pixel-difference analysis.

For the ’467 Patent

  • The Term: "frame selection criterion"
  • Context and Importance: Plaintiffs allege their products do not use a frame image that satisfies a "frame selection criterion for each of the object elements" (Compl. ¶38). The case may depend on whether the accused products' frame selection logic qualifies as meeting a "criterion" that is set "in advance" and is specific "for each" element.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify the nature of the criterion, only that one exists for each element. This could arguably encompass any predefined rule, however simple, used to pick a frame.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of criteria, such as "a largest distance between the eyes" for the "face" element and "highest" color assurance for the "clothes" element (’467 Patent, col. 7:10-14, 31-33). This suggests the "criterion" is a specific, measurable, and technically defined parameter tailored to the nature of the feature itself, not a general-purpose "best image" rule.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege indirect or willful infringement. It notes, however, that Defendant NEC's related Texas Complaint alleges direct and indirect infringement against Plaintiffs' parent companies (Compl. ¶13).

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

This declaratory judgment action will likely center on two primary areas of dispute, both driven by the technical details of the accused products' software architecture.

  • A core issue will be one of methodological divergence: Do the Eufy products achieve static object detection ('240 Patent) and multi-feature analysis ('467 Patent) using fundamentally different algorithms than those recited in the claims? Plaintiffs' complaint frames the dispute as a mismatch in the specific, multi-step computational processes required by the patents, rather than a disagreement over the definition of a single component.
  • A second key question will be one of definitional scope: Can terms like "compare the first image and the second image" ('240 Patent) and "frame selection criterion for each of the object elements" ('467 Patent) be construed broadly enough to read on the accused products' functionality, or are they limited by the specific embodiments in the patent specifications to technical processes that the Eufy products do not perform?