DCT
2:17-cv-01764
Verasonics Inc v. Supersonic Imagine SA
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Verasonics, Inc. (Washington)
- Defendant: SuperSonic Imagine, S.A. (France)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pacifica Law Group LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-01764, W.D. Wash., 11/22/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation, and alternatively because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, where the defendant allegedly maintained an office, employed personnel, and conducted sales.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Aixplorer ultrasound systems infringe patents related to software-based, pixel-oriented ultrasound image processing technology originally developed by Plaintiff and licensed to Defendant.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns a shift from traditional, hardware-intensive ultrasound systems to a software-based architecture that leverages general-purpose computer processors for image formation, aiming to increase performance and flexibility while lowering costs.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details an extensive prior business relationship between the parties, beginning around 2005, which included a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and a license under which Defendant paid royalties to Plaintiff for using the patented technology from 2009 to 2014. Plaintiff alleges that after the JDA expired on December 31, 2014, Defendant refused to enter a new license but continued to sell products incorporating the now-patented technology, with full knowledge of the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-04-14 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit ('456, '411, '094) |
| 2005-04-25 | Parties enter Mutual Confidentiality Agreement |
| 2006-02-13 | Parties enter Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) |
| 2006-11-22 | Parties enter Joint Development Agreement (JDA) |
| Early 2009 | Defendant introduces accused Aixplorer system to market |
| 2012-10-16 | U.S. Patent No. 8,287,456 Issues |
| 2013-02-01 | Parties execute JDA Amendment |
| 2014-12-31 | JDA Amendment expires |
| 2015-05-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,028,411 Issues |
| 2017-05-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,649,094 Issues |
| 2017-11-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,287,456 - “Ultrasound Imaging System With Pixel Oriented Processing,” issued October 16, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Traditional ultrasound systems utilize a rigid "flow-through" architecture where dedicated, expensive hardware modules perform sequential processing steps like beamforming and image formation, making them costly, inflexible, and inefficient. ('456 Patent, col. 1:43-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a software-based architecture where raw radio frequency (RF) echo data from all transducer elements is first acquired and stored in memory on a general-purpose computer. ('456 Patent, col. 5:31-45). Instead of processing data along predefined scan-lines, the system processes the final image on a pixel-by-pixel basis. For each pixel in the output image, the system maps the pixel back to the specific region of stored RF data required to calculate its value, organizes that data into a matrix, and performs matrix operations in software to generate the pixel's final value. ('456 Patent, col. 7:46-67). This decouples data acquisition from image processing.
- Technical Importance: This software-centric approach allows ultrasound systems to leverage the rapid performance gains and cost reductions of the commercial computer industry, enabling more flexible and powerful imaging at a lower system cost. ('456 Patent, col. 2:38-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 25 (a system) (Compl. ¶72).
- Claim 1 recites a method with the core steps of:
- generating an acoustic signal and receiving echoes at a plurality of elements;
- organizing and storing the echo signals into a separate data set array;
- mapping a given pixel into a region of the stored echo signals;
- organizing the mapped region into a matrix for the given pixel;
- processing the matrix with a matrix operation to generate a signal response; and
- using the signal response to obtain acoustic information for the pixel.
- Claim 25 recites a system comprising a module and a processor structured to perform the key mapping, organizing, and processing steps of the method.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,028,411 - “Ultrasound Imaging System With Pixel Oriented Processing,” issued May 12, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '456 Patent, the '411 Patent addresses the same problems of cost, inefficiency, and inflexibility in conventional hardware-based, "flow-through" ultrasound architectures. ('411 Patent, col. 1:44-col. 2:9).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes the same fundamental software-based, pixel-oriented processing architecture. The claims and specification also emphasize modes of operation like "uniform illumination" or "flash transmit," where a single, unfocused acoustic pulse interrogates the entire image field at once. ('411 Patent, col. 12:56-65). The system acquires the return echoes from all elements and then reconstructs the full image in software, enabling extremely high frame rates.
- Technical Importance: The ability to achieve very high frame rates with "flash transmit" methods enables novel diagnostic applications such as shear wave imaging and advanced Doppler flow analysis that are not possible with traditional line-by-line scanning techniques. ('411 Patent, col. 13:42-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 12 (a system) (Compl. ¶82).
- Claim 1 recites a method with the core steps of:
- transmitting an acoustic pulse and receiving echoes;
- storing the echo signals and organizing them into a data set array;
- mapping a given pixel or voxel into a region of the data set array;
- organizing the mapped region into a matrix for the pixel or voxel;
- processing the matrix with a matrix operation to generate a signal response; and
- obtaining acoustic information based on the signal response.
- Claim 12 recites a system comprising a module and a processor configured to perform these steps.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,649,094 - “Ultrasound Imaging System With Pixel Oriented Processing,” issued May 16, 2017
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '411 Patent, the '094 Patent also claims a software-based ultrasound system architecture. The invention addresses the limitations of conventional hardware by first storing raw echo data from transducer elements and then using a general-purpose processor to reconstruct the image on a pixel-by-pixel basis via matrix operations, thereby decoupling data acquisition from processing. ('094 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 7 (a system) (Compl. ¶92).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the software beamforming functionality of the Aixplorer systems, marketed as the "UltraFast™ platform, UltraFast™ Imaging technology and/or sonicsoftware™," infringes the '094 Patent. (Compl. ¶92).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s "Aixplorer" line of ultrasound systems (Compl. ¶70).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Aixplorer systems contain software beamforming technology, identified as the "UltraFast™ platform," "UltraFast™ Imaging technology," and/or "sonicsoftware™." (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 82, 92).
- This accused technology is alleged to perform beamforming in software running on a personal computer and to allow for parallel processing of image data, distinguishing it from conventional architectures. (Compl. ¶66).
- The complaint alleges that Defendant touted its "UltraFast" architecture as having overcome the "technological barrier" of transferring data from an acquisition board to a host computer at rates of "several GigaBytes/s," a key feature of Plaintiff's technology. (Compl. ¶66). The complaint provides a representative image of a fetus generated by an ultrasound system to illustrate the output of the technology. (Compl. ¶12).
- Based on the parties' prior licensing agreement, which granted an exclusive license for Shear Wave Elastography, it is alleged that the Aixplorer systems perform this advanced imaging function. (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 63).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'456 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| generating an acoustic signal by an ultrasound transducer; receiving at least one echo of the acoustic signal at each of a plurality of receiving elements...and obtaining an echo signal from each receiving element; | The Aixplorer system uses a transducer to transmit acoustic waves into a body and receive the resulting echoes. | ¶¶10-11, 72 | col. 5:36-42 |
| organizing and storing each of the echo signals into a separate data set array sufficient to produce an image frame... | The Aixplorer system uses data acquisition boards to acquire RF data from transducer elements and transfers it to a host computer for storage prior to processing. | ¶¶18, 66 | col. 6:49-55 |
| mapping a given pixel from a set of pixels into a region of one or more of the data set arrays of the stored echo signals; | The Aixplorer's software beamforming allegedly embodies Plaintiff's "patented pixel-oriented processing technology," which involves mapping an output pixel to the raw data needed to form it. | ¶67 | col. 7:20-29 |
| organizing the mapped region of the stored echo signals into a matrix for the given pixel; | The accused software allegedly organizes the relevant raw RF data for a given pixel into a matrix structure for processing. | ¶67 | col. 7:66-8:2 |
| processing the matrix of the mapped region...with a matrix operation to generate a signal response for the given pixel; | The accused software running on a personal computer allegedly performs matrix operations on the pixel-specific data matrix to calculate the final pixel value. | ¶¶66-67 | col. 9:18-30 |
| using the signal response to obtain acoustic information for the given pixel. | The Aixplorer system processes the signal response to generate and display an ultrasound image. | ¶¶18, 72 | col. 9:43-50 |
'411 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| transmitting an acoustic pulse by an ultrasound transducer... receiving at least one echo of the acoustic pulse at each of a plurality of receiving elements... and obtaining an echo signal from each receiving element; | The Aixplorer system uses a transducer to transmit and receive acoustic signals. | ¶¶10-11, 82 | col. 5:38-44 |
| storing each echo signal; organizing each of the stored echo signals in a separate data set array... | The Aixplorer system's data acquisition hardware allegedly captures and stores raw RF echo data in a host computer's memory. | ¶¶18, 66 | col. 6:51-57 |
| mapping a given pixel or voxel from a set of pixels or voxels in a display into a mapped region of the one or more of the data set arrays; | The Aixplorer's "UltraFast™" platform is alleged to use the patented pixel-oriented processing method, which requires mapping pixels to raw data. | ¶¶67, 82 | col. 7:22-31 |
| organizing the mapped region into a matrix for the given pixel or voxel; processing the matrix with a matrix operation to generate a signal response...; | The accused software allegedly creates and processes a pixel-specific matrix using matrix operations to reconstruct the image. | ¶¶66-67, 82 | col. 7:67-8:2; col. 9:19-31 |
| obtaining acoustic information for the given pixel or voxel based on the signal response. | The accused system uses the calculated signal response to form a final, viewable ultrasound image. | ¶¶18, 82 | col. 9:44-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central dispute may turn on the scope of the functional claim language. A key question is whether the defendant’s "UltraFast" software architecture, which the complaint alleges performs software beamforming (Compl. ¶66), actually performs the specific, sequential steps of "mapping a given pixel...into a region," "organizing the mapped region...into a matrix," and "processing the matrix with a matrix operation" as recited in the claims. The defendant may argue that its software uses a different computational method to achieve a similar end result.
- Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary question will be what proof exists that the accused Aixplorer software operates as alleged. The complaint relies heavily on the parties' prior business relationship and defendant's marketing materials (Compl. ¶¶ 57, 66), but does not provide direct technical evidence of the accused software's internal algorithms. The infringement analysis will depend on a comparison between the specific claim limitations and the actual operation of the accused code.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "mapping a given pixel... into a region of... the stored echo signals" (’456 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This step defines the core "pixel-oriented" nature of the invention, distinguishing it from conventional "scan-line" processing. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused system performs this specific function. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the foundational step that enables the claimed software-based architecture.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the goal is to "find the region of acquisition RF data containing samples that contribute to the echo intensity calculation" for a given pixel (e.g., '456 Patent, col. 7:20-23). This may support an interpretation that covers any process that programmatically links an output pixel to the raw input data required for its computation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example where a pixel "maps to the closest acquisition line of the scan" and its corresponding data array ('456 Patent, col. 7:26-34; Fig. 5). This could support a narrower construction requiring a direct spatial mapping to a specific scan-line's data, which the defendant may argue its system does not perform.
The Term: "matrix for the given pixel" (’456 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific data structure that is the subject of the claimed "matrix operation." Infringement requires that the accused system organizes data in this manner.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this as organizing the "pixel mapped RF data" into a matrix, denoted RFPnm, without strictly limiting its form ('456 Patent, col. 7:66–col. 8:2). This could be argued to cover any array-like data structure containing the relevant RF samples for a single pixel.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly illustrates the matrix RFPnm with rows (j) and columns (k) representing samples and transducer channels, respectively ('456 Patent, col. 8:1-17). This may support a narrower definition requiring the creation of a literal, static two-dimensional matrix in memory, as opposed to a more dynamic or streaming process that might be used in the accused software.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user manuals" that instruct customers and distributors on how to use the allegedly infringing Aixplorer systems. (Compl. ¶¶ 74, 84, 94). It further alleges contributory infringement, claiming the Aixplorer software is a material component especially made for use in the patented invention and is not a staple article of commerce. (Compl. ¶¶ 75-76, 85-86, 95-96).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness allegations are based on the extensive prior relationship between the parties. The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the technology through a multi-year JDA and license, was specifically notified by Plaintiff as the patents issued, and continued to sell the accused products after the license expired on December 31, 2014, despite Plaintiff's requests to negotiate a new license. (Compl. ¶¶ 60-63, 68-70, 73, 77).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical implementation: Can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the Defendant's "UltraFast" software architecture operates by performing the specific claim steps of "mapping" individual output pixels to raw RF data and processing a "matrix for the given pixel," or will discovery reveal a fundamentally different software approach to achieve software-based beamforming?
- A key legal question will concern the impact of the parties' history: How will the detailed allegations of a prior licensing agreement, royalty payments, and subsequent termination influence the court's view on critical issues such as claim construction, willful infringement, and the determination of a reasonable royalty for damages?
- An underlying question is one of evidentiary proof: Beyond the extensive history of collaboration, what direct technical evidence can Plaintiff present to prove that the accused Aixplorer systems, as sold after the license expired, continued to practice the specific methods recited in the asserted patent claims?