Case 2:20-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1
`
`Jayson S. Sohi (CSB 293176)
`jayson@cotmanip.com
`COTMAN IP LAW GROUP, APLC
`35 Hugus Alley, Suite 210
`Pasadena, CA 91103
`(626) 405-1413/FAX: (626) 316-7577
`
`Daniel A. Kent (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`dankent@kentrisley.com
`KENT & RISELY LLC
`5755 N. Point Pkwy., Suite 57
`Alpharetta, GA 30022
`(404) 585-4214/FAX: (404) 829-2412
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff DigiMedia Tech, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-5595
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))
`
`
`
`
`
`DIGIMEDIA TECH, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JK IMAGING LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff DigiMedia Tech, LLC (“Plaintiff”) files this Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement against Defendant, and states as follows:
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the State of Georgia, having its principal office at 44 Milton Ave., Suite 254,
`
`Alpharetta, GA 30009.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant JK Imaging Ltd. (“Defendant”) is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of California, with a principal office located at
`
`17239 S Main St, Gardena, CA 90248, where Defendant also maintains a regular and
`
`established place of business in this judicial district.
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) on the grounds that this action arises under
`
`the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including, without
`
`limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 284, and 285.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
`
`is a California corporation with its principle place of business in this judicial district,
`
`has minimum contacts with the State of California, and has purposefully availed itself
`
`of the privileges of conducting business in the State of California. For example, on
`
`information and belief, Defendant has sold or offered to sell infringing products in the
`
`State of California and in this Judicial District, or has manufactured accused products
`
`and provided them to intermediaries for distribution throughout the country, including
`
`in the State of California and this Judicial District, with knowledge of this distribution.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court as to Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391, and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) on the grounds that Defendant incorporated in the
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`
`
`State of California and maintains its registered and principal offices in this Judicial
`
`District, and has committed acts of infringement in and maintains a regular and
`
`established place of business in this Judicial District.
`
`
`
`The ’635 Patent
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in and
`
`to United States Patent No. 6,914,635, entitled “Microminiature Zoom System for
`
`Digital Camera” (“the ’635 patent”), including the right to sue for all past, present,
`
`and future infringement, which assignment was duly recorded in the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
`
`7.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’635 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`A. The ʼ635 patent is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`8.
`
`The application that became the ’635 patent was filed on February 8,
`
`2001.
`
`9.
`
`The ’635 patent issued on July 5, 2005, after a full and fair examination
`
`by the USPTO.
`
`10. The ’635 patent is valid and enforceable and directed to eligible subject
`
`matter.
`
`11. The elements recited in the asserted claims of the ’635 patent were not
`
`well-understood, routine, or conventional when the application that became the ʼ635
`
`patent was filed.
`
`12. The claims of the ’635 patent are directed to technical solutions to the
`
`technical problem of providing zoom, autofocus, and other specific features to
`
`increasingly compact digital cameras. Other features the claimed invention enables
`
`include such things as anti-shake and image stabilization. The ’635 patent discloses
`
`and claims technical solutions to providing such features in increasingly compact
`
`digital cameras through, for example, a micro-electromechanical system support
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`
`
`mechanism with at least two positions of movement. The claims of the ’635 patent
`
`thus allow features like zoom, autofocus, anti-shake, and image stabilization to be
`
`provided even in increasingly compact digital cameras. The inventions claimed in the
`
`’635 patent therefore provide technical solutions to this technical problem, are not
`
`abstract, and claim patentable subject matter.
`
`
`
`The ’706 Patent
`
`13. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in and
`
`to United States Patent No. 6,545,706, entitled “System, Method and Article of
`
`Manufacture for Tracking a Head of a Camera-Generated Image of a Person” (“the
`
`’706 patent”), including the right to sue for all past, present, and future infringement,
`
`which assignment was duly recorded in the USPTO.
`
`14. A true and correct copy of the ’706 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`B. The ʼ706 patent is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`15. The application that became the ’706 patent was filed on July 30, 1999.
`
`16. The ’706 patent issued on April 8, 2008, after a full and fair examination
`
`by the USPTO.
`
`17. The ’706 patent is valid and enforceable and directed to eligible subject
`
`matter.
`
`18. The elements recited in the asserted claims of the ’706 patent were not
`
`well-understood, routine, or conventional when the application that became the ʼ706
`
`patent was filed.
`
`19. The claims of the ’706 patent are directed to technical solutions to the
`
`technical problem of how to identify a head in an image. One of various reasons this
`
`is important is to assist in focusing a digital camera. Since many camera users are not
`
`trained in how to properly focus a camera, and because many photographs are candid
`
`shots of moving subjects, the problem calls for technical solutions. The ’706 patent
`
`discloses and claims such technical solutions. For example, the ’706 patent
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`
`
`recognized that while a number of different techniques could be used to identify a
`
`head portion of a subject in an image, no single technique is foolproof. Thus, the ’706
`
`patent discloses applying at least two techniques to identify a head portion and basing
`
`the detection of heads on the results of the two techniques. This approach overcomes
`
`a problem that any particular technique may be fooled by or rendered inapplicable by
`
`particular circumstances (e.g., lighting conditions, orientation of the subject to the
`
`camera, etc.). The inventions claimed in the ’706 patent therefore provide technical
`
`solutions to this technical problem, are not abstract, and claim patentable subject
`
`matter.
`
`
`
`The ’476 Patent
`
`20. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in and
`
`to United States Patent No. 7,715,476, entitled “System, Method and Article of
`
`Manufacture for Tracking a Head of a Camera-Generated Image of a Person” (“the
`
`’476 patent”), including the right to sue for all past, present, and future infringement,
`
`which assignment was duly recorded in the USPTO.
`
`21. A true and correct copy of the ’476 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`C. The ʼ635 patent is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`22. The application that became the ’476 patent was filed on April 21, 2005.
`
`23. The ʼ476 patent claims priority to the application that became the ’706
`
`patent, filed on July 30, 1999.
`
`24. The ’476 patent issued on May 11, 2010, after a full and fair examination
`
`by the USPTO.
`
`25. The ’476 patent is valid and enforceable and directed to eligible subject
`
`matter.
`
`26. The elements recited in the asserted claims of the ’476 patent were not
`
`well-understood, routine, or conventional when the application that became the ʼ476
`
`patent was filed.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`
`
`27. The claims of the ’476 patent are directed to technical solutions to the
`
`technical problem of how to identify a head in an image. One of various reasons this
`
`is important is to assist in focusing a digital camera. Since many camera users are not
`
`trained in how to properly focus a camera, and because many photographs are candid
`
`shots of moving subjects, the problem calls for technical solutions. The ’476 patent
`
`discloses and claims such technical solutions. For example, the ’476 patent
`
`recognized that while a number of different techniques could be used to identify a
`
`head portion of a subject in an image, no single technique is foolproof. Thus, the ’476
`
`patent discloses applying at least two techniques to identify a head portion and basing
`
`the detection of heads on the results of the two techniques. This approach overcomes
`
`a problem that any particular technique may be fooled by or rendered inapplicable by
`
`particular circumstances (e.g., lighting conditions, orientation of the subject to the
`
`camera, etc.). The inventions claimed in the ’476 patent therefore provide technical
`
`solutions to this technical problem, are not abstract, and claim patentable subject
`
`matter.
`
`
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ635 PATENT
`
`28. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth
`
`above, as if set forth verbatim herein.
`
`29. Defendant has been and is now making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importing products that incorporate one or more of the inventions claimed in
`
`the ʼ635 patent.
`
`30. For example, Defendant infringes at least claim 1 of the ʼ635 patent,
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in connection with Defendant’s
`
`Kodak PixPro AZ401 and similar products as detailed in the preliminary claim chart
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`31. Defendant’s infringing activities are and have been without authority or
`
`license under the ’635 patent.
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`
`
`32. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendant’s
`
`infringement of the ʼ635 patent, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for
`
`Defendant’s infringement, which damages cannot be less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`33. Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff notified the Eastman Kodak Company
`
`in writing regarding the infringement of the ’635 patent. Defendant responded and
`
`confirmed that it received Plaintiff’s Eastman Kodak digital camera infringement
`
`claims, and that Defendant was the Kodak Brand licensee responsible for the digital
`
`camera equipment at issue.
`
`34. Defendant has continued to infringe the ’635 patent despite receiving this
`
`notice and having actual knowledge of the ’635 patent at least since receiving such
`
`notice, and Defendant’s infringement has therefore been willful.
`
`35. Based at least on Defendant’s willful infringement, this case should be
`
`declared exceptional, and Plaintiff should be awarded its costs, attorney’s fees, and
`
`both pre- and post-judgment interest.
`
`
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ706 PATENT
`
`36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth
`
`above, as if set forth verbatim herein.
`
`37. Defendant has been and is now making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importing products that incorporate one or more of the inventions claimed in
`
`the ʼ706 patent.
`
`38. For example, Defendant infringes at least claim 19 of the ʼ706 patent,
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in connection with Defendant’s
`
`Kodak FZ152 and similar products, as detailed in the preliminary claim chart attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`39. Defendant’s infringing activities are and have been without authority or
`
`license under the ʼ706 patent.
`
`40. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendant’s
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`6
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`
`
`infringement of the ʼ706 patent, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for
`
`Defendant’s infringement, which damages cannot be less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`41. Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff notified the Eastman Kodak Company
`
`in writing regarding the infringement of the ’706 patent. Defendant responded and
`
`confirmed that it received Plaintiff’s Eastman Kodak digital camera infringement
`
`claims, and that Defendant was the Kodak Brand licensee responsible for the digital
`
`camera equipment at issue.
`
`42. Defendant has continued to infringe the ʼ706 patent despite receiving this
`
`notice and having actual knowledge of the ʼ706 patent at least since receiving such
`
`notice, and Defendant’s infringement has therefore been willful.
`
`43. Based at least on Defendant’s willful infringement, this case should be
`
`declared exceptional, and Plaintiff should be awarded its costs, attorney’s fees, and
`
`both pre- and post-judgment interest.
`
`
`
`COUNT III – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ476 PATENT
`
`44. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth
`
`above, as if set forth verbatim herein.
`
`45. Defendant has been and is now making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importing products that incorporate one or more of the inventions claimed in
`
`the ʼ476 patent.
`
`46. For example, Defendant infringes at least claim 21, 22, and 23 of the ʼ476
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in connection with
`
`Defendant’s Kodak FZ152 and similar products, as detailed in the preliminary claim
`
`chart attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`47. Defendant’s infringing activities are and have been without authority or
`
`license under the ʼ476 patent.
`
`48. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendant’s
`
`infringement of the ʼ476 patent, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`7
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant’s infringement, which damages cannot be less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`49. Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff notified the Eastman Kodak Company
`
`in writing regarding the infringement of the ’476 patent. Defendant responded and
`
`confirmed that it received Plaintiff’s Eastman Kodak digital camera infringement
`
`claims, and that Defendant was the Kodak Brand licensee responsible for the digital
`
`camera equipment at issue.
`
`50. Defendant has continued to infringe the ʼ476 patent despite receiving this
`
`notice and having actual knowledge of the ʼ476 patent at least since receiving such
`
`notice, and Defendant’s infringement has therefore been willful.
`
`51. Based at least on Defendant’s willful infringement, this case should be
`
`declared exceptional, and Plaintiff should be awarded its costs, attorney’s fees, and
`
`both pre- and post-judgment interest.
`
`
`
`
`
`///
`
`
`
`///
`
`
`
`///
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`52. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`8
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05595 Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against
`
`Defendant, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`Entry of judgment that Defendant has infringed one or more claims of
`
`the ʼ635 patent, and that this infringement has been willful,
`
`B.
`
`Entry of judgment that Defendant has infringed one or more claims of
`
`the ʼ706 patent, and that this infringement has been willful,
`
`C.
`
`Entry of judgment that Defendant has infringed one or more claims of
`
`the ʼ476 patent, and that this infringement has been willful,
`
`D. Damages in an amount to be determined at trial for Defendant’s
`
`infringement, which amount cannot be less than a reasonable royalty,
`
`E.
`
`Entry of judgment that this case is exceptional, and that Plaintiff be
`
`awarded all of its costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred in
`
`connection with this action,
`
`F.
`
`Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages assessed, and
`
`Such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which Plaintiff may be
`
`entitled and which the Court deems just and proper.
`
` Dated: June 23, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Jayson S. Sohi
`Jayson S. Sohi
`COTMAN IP LAW GROUP, APLC
`
`Daniel A. Kent (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`dankent@kentrisley.com
`KENT & RISLEY LLC
`5755 N Point Pkwy Ste 57
`Alpharetta, GA 30022
`(404) 585-4214 / FAX: (4040) 829-2412
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff DigiMedia Tech, LLC
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`9
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`