throbber
Case 1:20-cv-07573-VSB Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 1 of 9
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`DIGIMEDIA TECH, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
` CIVIL ACTION
`
` NO. 1:20-cv-7573
`
`
` Jury Trial Demanded
`
`ELITE BRANDS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Elite Brands Inc. (“Defendant”) is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of New York, with a principal office located at 40 Wall Street, 61st
`
`Floor, New York, New York 10005. Defendant maintains a regular and established place of
`
`business in this judicial district at 40 Wall Street, 61st Floor, New York, New York 10005.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-07573-VSB Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 2 of 9
`
`4.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has
`
`minimum contacts with the State of New York, and has purposefully availed itself of the
`
`privileges of conducting business in the State of New York. For example, on information and
`
`belief, Defendant has sold or offered to sell infringing products in the State of New York 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 New York 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 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.
`
`9.
`
`USPTO.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`The application that became the ’635 patent was filed on February 8, 2001.
`
`The ’635 patent issued on July 5, 2005, after a full and fair examination by the
`
`The ’635 patent is valid and enforceable and directed to eligible subject matter.
`
`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.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-07573-VSB Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 3 of 9
`
`12.
`
`The claims of the ’635 patent are directed to technical solutions to the technical
`
`problem of providing zoom, autofocus, and other 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 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.
`
`The application that became the ’706 patent was filed on July 30, 1999.
`
`The ’706 patent issued on April 8, 2008, after a full and fair examination by the
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`USPTO.
`
`17.
`
`The ’706 patent is valid and enforceable and directed to eligible subject matter.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-07573-VSB Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 4 of 9
`
`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 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.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-07573-VSB Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 5 of 9
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`The application that became the ’476 patent was filed on April 21, 2005.
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`The ’476 patent is valid and enforceable and directed to eligible subject matter.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-07573-VSB Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 6 of 9
`
`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 Bell+Howell
`
`B35HDz and Minolta MN35Z products as detailed in the preliminary claim charts attached
`
`hereto as Exhibits D and E and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant’s infringing activities are and have been without authority or license
`
`under the ’635 patent.
`
`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 specifically notified Defendant in writing of
`
`their infringement of the ’635 patent.
`
`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.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-07573-VSB Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 7 of 9
`
`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 Bell+Howell
`
`B35HDz and Konica Minolta MN35Z products, as detailed in the preliminary claim charts
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit F and G 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 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 specifically notified Defendant in writing of
`
`their infringement of the ʼ706 patent.
`
`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 Bell+Howell
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-07573-VSB Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 8 of 9
`
`S30HDZ and Konica Minolta MN35Z products, as detailed in the preliminary claim charts
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit H and I 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 Defendant’s infringement, which
`
`damages cannot be less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`49.
`
`Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff specifically notified Defendant in writing of
`
`their infringement of the ʼ476 patent.
`
`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 DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
`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,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-07573-VSB Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 9 of 9
`
`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,
`
`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
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`entitled and which the Court deems just and proper.
`
`This 15th day of September, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Daniel A. Kent
`Daniel A. Kent
` dankent@kentrisley.com
`Tel: (404) 585-4214
`Fax: (404) 829-2412
`Stephen R. Risley
`steverisley@kentrisley.com
`Tel: (404) 585-2101
`Fax: (404) 389-9402
`Cortney S. Alexander
`cortneyalexander@kentrisley.com
`Tel: (404) 855-3867
`Fax: (770) 462-3299
`KENT & RISLEY LLC
`5755 N Point Pkwy Ste 57
`Alpharetta, GA 30022
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket