Smartphone camera patent infringement suit takes aim at Apple, Nokia, others
Apple and other leading smartphone manufacturers, including Motorola, Research in Motion and Nokia, are targeted in a new patent infringement lawsuit related to integrated cameras.
Last Friday, Cayman Islands-based Imperium Holdings filed a complaint against Apple, Kyocera, LG, Motorola, Nokia, RIM and Sony. The seven companies have been accused of violating five patents related to picture taking and processing on smartphones.
The lawsuit was filed last week in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Patent infringement suits are frequently filed in that jurisdiction, in hopes of a more favorable outcome.
The five patents named in the suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 7,750,949: Automatic flicker frequency detection device and method
U.S. Patent No. 6,838,651: High sensitivity snap shot CMOS image sensor
U.S. Patent No. 6,838,715: CMOS image sensor arrangement with reduced pixel light shadowing
U.S. Patent No. 7,064,768: Bad pixel correction while preserving features
U.S. Patent No. 7,109,535: Semiconductor device for isolating a photodiode to reduce junction leakage
Specifically cited in Imperium's complaint in alleged violation of the patents is Apple's iPhone 3G. However, the lawsuit notes that the allegations are "not limited to" that device, released in 2008.
Imperium has asked the court for damages related to alleged infringement of the five patents in question. It also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Apple and the other six named companies from engaging in further alleged infringement of those patents.
Last Friday, Cayman Islands-based Imperium Holdings filed a complaint against Apple, Kyocera, LG, Motorola, Nokia, RIM and Sony. The seven companies have been accused of violating five patents related to picture taking and processing on smartphones.
The lawsuit was filed last week in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Patent infringement suits are frequently filed in that jurisdiction, in hopes of a more favorable outcome.
The five patents named in the suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 7,750,949: Automatic flicker frequency detection device and method
U.S. Patent No. 6,838,651: High sensitivity snap shot CMOS image sensor
U.S. Patent No. 6,838,715: CMOS image sensor arrangement with reduced pixel light shadowing
U.S. Patent No. 7,064,768: Bad pixel correction while preserving features
U.S. Patent No. 7,109,535: Semiconductor device for isolating a photodiode to reduce junction leakage
Specifically cited in Imperium's complaint in alleged violation of the patents is Apple's iPhone 3G. However, the lawsuit notes that the allegations are "not limited to" that device, released in 2008.
Imperium has asked the court for damages related to alleged infringement of the five patents in question. It also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Apple and the other six named companies from engaging in further alleged infringement of those patents.
Comments
Apple and other leading smartphone manufacturers, including Motorola, Research in Motion and Nokia, are targeted in a new patent infringement lawsuit related to integrated cameras.
Last Friday, Cayman Islands-based Imperium Holdings filed a complaint against Apple, Kyocera, LG, Motorola, Nokia, RIM and Sony. The seven companies have been accused of violating five patents related to picture taking and processing on smartphones.
The lawsuit was filed last week in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Patent infringement suits are frequently filed in that jurisdiction, in hopes of a more favorable outcome.
The five patents named in the suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 7,750,949: Automatic flicker frequency detection device and method
U.S. Patent No. 6,838,651: High sensitivity snap shot CMOS image sensor
U.S. Patent No. 6,838,715: CMOS image sensor arrangement with reduced pixel light shadowing
U.S. Patent No. 7,064,768: Bad pixel correction while preserving features
U.S. Patent No. 7,109,535: Semiconductor device for isolating a photodiode to reduce junction leakage
Specifically cited in Imperium's complaint in alleged violation of the patents is Apple's iPhone 3G. However, the lawsuit notes that the allegations are "not limited to" that device, released in 2008.
Imperium has asked the court for damages related to alleged infringement of the five patents in question. It also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Apple and the other six named companies from engaging in further alleged infringement of those patents.
What damages did these guys suffer? Sounds like yet another grifting attempt.
In other words - if Goodyear has a patent on a process by which rubber is vulcanized into a tire - and Bridestone infringes on that patent - then Goodyear should sue Bridgestone - not Ford and Chevy ad Honda and Toyota for using Bridgestone tires.
I still use a 3G as my primary phone! I hope no functionality will be taken away from it, at least until I can buy a white iPhone 5...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7750949.html
PDF Copy: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7750949.pdf
Assignee Corporation: http://www.avagotech.com/pages/corpo...mpany_history/
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6838651.html
PDF Copy: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6838651.pdf
Assignee Corporation: http://www.esstech.com/
...
Either these corporations are leveraging this Imperial Holdings IP to do their legal work or they sold their patents to them which begs one to question, if true, the value of the complaint if their original creators saw no value in it.
Either these corporations are leveraging this Imperial Holdings IP to do their legal work or they sold their patents to them which begs one to question, if true, the value of the complaint if their original creators saw no value in it.
What do you mean no value? They sold it for some cash and this shyster company is assuming they can get some sort of award or settlement in - wait for it! - yes, everyone's favorite Eastern District of Texas. Go figure. Is there no oversight of this court?
In other words - if Goodyear has a patent on a process by which rubber is vulcanized into a tire - and Bridestone infringes on that patent - then Goodyear should sue Bridgestone - not Ford and Chevy ad Honda and Toyota for using Bridgestone tires.
The problem is that it's not as clear-cut when it comes to software/hardware integrated devices. Like MSFT just suing B&N for using android in nook, B&N can't just say "well but we don't build android, go sue GOOG", because GOOG would just say "I'm just building something, I'm not selling it."
"Duh, Winning!" was what Sony Ericsson was saying...
I call BS.
Business based in the Cayman Islands, lawsuit over patent rights in the Eastern District of Texas -- are they trying to sound completely illegitimate?
Maybe they should have waited to file until April first...
If the accuser is from the Cayman Islands, they should have to sue in the Cayman Islands, where they will be completely ignored by the rest of world.
Let's see...so cameras in phones have been around for many years now. I'll just ballpark it and say that cameras have been standard in phones for the last 10 years. So, cameras start appearing, and then the market is saturated with camera phones. So, why does it take the patent holders 10 years to file suit? Either their law firm is completely inept, or they just dreamed up this suit last week.
I call BS.
The patents are fairly recent, most within the last several years, and from the summaries, they describe fairly specific implementations for improving picture quality from CMOS sensors, including design of the sensors themselves. Just because phones have had cameras for 10 years doesn't mean that the cameras used 10 years ago are the same as the ones used today. Just as an example, 10 years ago were phones using CMOS sensors or CCD sensors?
Of all the Apple-related lawsuits that have gone to the Eastern District of Texas, this is one of the very few that seem to be based on patentable ideas (but that still doesn't mean the patents are enforceable...there could be prior patents by someone else or prior art). Whether Apple is actually using components which infringe on those patents remains to be seen, but I assume these guys have done at least some research before filing their lawsuit (but who knows!).
What damages did these guys suffer? Sounds like yet another grifting attempt.
Actual product, and/or credible business plan really should be a mandatory requirement for claiming damage in any patent lawsuit.
Then each year the patent holder waits while the "infringing" product is on the market before initiating legal action should be an automatic 20% discount per year over whatever value that's finally awarded.
And if patent holder has no actual product and/or credible business plan at start of trial, then the result should alway be a mandatory non-exclusive licensing agreement with fee agreement part of the award.
Option two would be to close down the court in the Eastern District of Texas.
What do you mean no value? They sold it for some cash and this shyster company is assuming they can get some sort of award or settlement in - wait for it! - yes, everyone's favorite Eastern District of Texas. Go figure. Is there no oversight of this court?
Value meaning that the the R&D invested wasn't worth bringing a product to market.
The problem is that it's not as clear-cut when it comes to software/hardware integrated devices. Like MSFT just suing B&N for using android in nook, B&N can't just say "well but we don't build android, go sue GOOG", because GOOG would just say "I'm just building something, I'm not selling it."
There is no requirement that you sue the company that is the source of the infringement. You can sue the people that merely distribute/contribute to the infringement.
Sucks but that's how it works. Sue the people with the $$$. Microsoft isn't suing Google, but Motorola. Apple isn't suing Google, but HTC. So on and so forth.
How does ones determine that there is infringement without first reverse engineering the devices? And isn't that itself illegal?
It isn't illegal.
What damages did these guys suffer? Sounds like yet another grifting attempt.
a Google search turns up Imperium Holdings as:
Dallas Texas Real Estate Retail Medical Land Broker Sales Management Developer Development
Same group? Or just same name for the off-shore group? Curious.