`
`By:
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`RED.COM, LLC
`Joseph R. Re
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail: BoxRedcom7C4LP@knobbe.com
`
`Filed: August 15, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RED.COM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-01065
`Patent No. 9,245,314
`__________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER RED.COM, LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Reduction To Practice Of The RED ONE Motion-Picture
`Camera By At Least March 2007 .......................................................... 4
`1.
`The origin of RED’s first commercial digital
`motion-picture camera, the RED ONE ....................................... 4
`Research and development of the RED ONE
`Camera ........................................................................................ 7
`Sir Peter Jackson’s March 2007 movie shoot with
`Boris and Natasha ..................................................................... 15
`Overview Of The ‘314 Patent ............................................................. 20
`1.
`The ’314 Patent Specification ................................................... 20
`2.
`The ‘314 Patent Claims ............................................................. 26
`3.
`Claim Construction And Level Of Skill In The Art ................. 28
`4.
`Petitioner’s Asserted Grounds .................................................. 28
`5.
`Relationship To IPR2019-01064 .............................................. 29
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 30
`A.
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 30
`1.
`Threshold For Institution .......................................................... 30
`2.
`Reduction To Practice ............................................................... 30
`Presler Does Not Qualify As Prior Art ............................................... 32
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`e.
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 33
`a.
`A video camera ............................................................... 33
`b.
`A memory device ............................................................ 34
`c.
`An image sensor ............................................................. 35
`d.
`An image sensor outputting raw data at 2K
`and 23 frames per second ............................................... 36
`Image processing and compression modules ................. 37
`Processing module for processing the raw
`image data ....................................................................... 37
`Compression module utilizing
`mathematically lossy compression ................................. 38
`Substantially visually lossless image at 2K
`resolution and 24 frames per second .............................. 39
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 41
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 42
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 42
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 43
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 43
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 44
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 44
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`10. Claim 10 .................................................................................... 45
`11. Claim 11 .................................................................................... 45
`12. Claim 12 .................................................................................... 46
`13. Claim 13 .................................................................................... 47
`14. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 48
`15. Claim 15 .................................................................................... 48
`16. Method Claims 16-30 ............................................................... 48
`17.
`Institution Should Not Be Granted On The Basis
`Of Dependent Claims 6, 8, 21 and 23 ....................................... 62
`Petitioner Has Not Satisfied Its Prima Facie Case Of
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 63
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’n, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 64
`Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P.,
`Case IPR2018-00923, Paper No. 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2018) ............................. 63
`Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc.,
`Case IPR2018-01310, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019) ............................. 63
`Dynamic Drinkware LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`No. IPR2013-00131, Paper No. 42 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2014),
`aff’d, 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 31
`Hyundai Motor Co. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2016-01476, Paper No. 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2017) .............. 69, 70
`Nintendo Am., Inc. v. iLife Techs., Inc.,
`No. IPR2015-00112, Paper No. 39 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016) ............................ 31
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH,
`237 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 30
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 64
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 29
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................ 30
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................... 30
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Description
`Declaration of Graeme Nattress
`March 8, 2007 Photograph of Boris testing
`March 8, 2007 Photograph of Boris testing
`March 8, 2007 Photograph of Boris testing
`March 8, 2007 Photograph of Boris testing
`March 8, 2007 Photograph of Boris testing
`March 8, 2007 Photograph of Boris testing
`March 8, 2007 Photograph of Boris testing
`Metadata for Exhibits 2002-2008
`April 2, 2007 Release Note for Boris and Natasha
`Declaration of James H. Jannard
`2013 Declaration of James H. Jannard
`March 30, 2007 Photograph of Boris on “Crossing the Line”
`March 30, 2007 Photograph of Natasha on “Crossing the Line”
`Metadata for Exhibit 2013
`Metadata for Exhibit 2014
`Declaration of Peter Jarred Land
`January 29, 2007 Photograph of working compact flash memory
`Metadata for Exhibit 2018
`April 16, 2007 NAB 2007 photograph
`Metadata for Exhibit 2020
`Declaration of David Macintosh
`Declaration of Rob Lohman
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023
`
`Exhibit List, Page 1
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Exhibit No.
`2024
`
`Description
`2014 Declaration of Graeme Nattress
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit List, Page 2
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313, 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, and the May 15, 2019 Notice
`
`of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (Paper 3), Patent Owner RED.COM (“RED”)
`
`submits its Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,245,314 (“the ’314 patent,” Ex. 1001) filed by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”).
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`RED has revolutionized the film industry, beginning in 2007 with the
`
`introduction of the RED ONE digital motion-picture camera. Before that time,
`
`cinematic film experts were skeptical that any digital video camera recording in
`
`compressed format could be used to shoot commercial films. Thus, the film industry
`
`at large was reluctant to believe that cinematic-quality resolution and frame rate
`
`demanded by movie goers could ever be achieved using digital compression. But
`
`the RED ONE changed all that, showing the entire industry that digital motion-
`
`picture cameras using compressed digital image data could achieve cinematic
`
`resolution and picture quality. This revolution was led from the outset by Oscar-
`
`winning filmmakers who recognized the innovative and transformative nature of the
`
`RED ONE cameras and immediately adopted their use. The revolution of digital
`
`cinematic cameras that RED ignited is now manifest, with digital cinema cameras
`
`now the industry norm, and with RED as one of the movie industry’s premiere movie
`
`camera suppliers.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`RED’s journey in creating a cinematic-quality digital motion-picture camera
`
`began in 2004 as the dream of RED’s founder, Mr. Jim Jannard. Mr. Jannard was
`
`already well-acquainted with building a successful worldwide brand, having
`
`founded Oakley, Inc., a world-renown sunglass, sports equipment and apparel
`
`company. But Mr. Jannard’s true passion was for cameras, a passion he was able to
`
`indulge while shooting Oakley’s ads for 20 years. It was from this passion that the
`
`idea for RED was born, as Mr. Jannard’s frustration with consumer hi-definition
`
`video cameras spurred him to build his own camera. This effort snowballed into a
`
`larger enterprise of building a cinematic-quality video camera that could combine
`
`the low cost and post-production ease and flexibility of digital files, with the high
`
`resolution and frame rate of cinema-grade film.
`
`The idea for how to achieve this ambitious goal took shape after a December
`
`2005 meeting between Mr. Jannard and co-inventor, Graeme Nattress. From that
`
`discussion, the idea came to life of achieving 2K and 4K resolution by compressing
`
`raw digital image data taken from a single image sensor. Thereafter, the two
`
`inventors and the design team at RED worked throughout 2006 and into early 2007
`
`to finalize the RED ONE. The results were incredible. Early RED ONE motion-
`
`picture cameras were such a success, Academy Award winning director Sir Peter
`
`Jackson immediately used them to shoot a mini-movie in late March 2007. A cut of
`
`that movie was debuted in April 2007 to great acclaim. After seeing the film, Oscar-
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`winning director Steven Soderbergh immediately adopted use of the RED ONE
`
`camera. Since that time, RED digital cameras have gone on to become ubiquitous
`
`in the film industry, being used to shoot everything from TV commercials to
`
`Hollywood’s biggest blockbusters.
`
`Against this backdrop, Petitioner argues that RED’s patents covering this
`
`industry-changing technology would have been obvious in view of its primary
`
`reference in each ground, Presler. The industry sea-change in digital motion-picture
`
`cameras ushered in by RED belies Petitioner’s contention, as does Petitioner’s failed
`
`showing on obviousness. Indeed, Petitioner fails to make its threshold showing of
`
`how or why Presler would be combined with Molgaard, its secondary reference, to
`
`render the claimed inventions obvious.
`
`Importantly, however, by at least March 2007, RED had reduced to practice
`
`two RED ONE motion-picture cameras that could capture compressed raw mosaiced
`
`video image data, and could output decompressed, demosaiced video image data in
`
`visually lossless form having 4K resolution and a frame rate of 24 frames-per-
`
`second. These RED ONE cameras, nicknamed Boris and Natasha, were used to film
`
`a production motion picture in March 2007. Thus, by at least that time, the inventors
`
`knew that their inventive concept – which would ultimately revolutionize the
`
`motion-picture camera industry – worked for its intended purpose. Moreover, prior
`
`to the April 13, 2007 filing date of Presler, the Boris and Natasha cameras embodied
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`at least 26 of the 30 claims challenged in the Petition. Because Petitioner cannot
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that Presler is prior art to at least 26 of
`
`the 30 challenged claims, or why, even if considered, Presler would be combined
`
`with Molgaard, the Board should deny institution on this record.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Reduction To Practice Of The RED ONE Motion-Picture Camera By At
`Least March 2007
`1.
`
`The origin of RED’s first commercial digital motion-picture
`camera, the RED ONE
`
`Mr. Jim Jannard, one of the two named inventors on the ’314 patent, had been
`
`a camera enthusiast for decades before founding RED. Ex. 2012 (Jannard 2013
`
`Decl.) ¶ 2. Prior to RED, Mr. Jannard had founded performance eyewear and sports
`
`equipment manufacturer Oakley, Inc. Id. In addition to his duties as President of
`
`Oakley, Mr. Jannard used his expertise in photography to personally shoot
`
`photographs for most of Oakley’s print advertisements and marketing materials, as
`
`well as video for Oakley’s televised commercials. Id. Mr. Jannard was also an avid
`
`camera collector, owning over 1000 still and motion cameras. Id. While at Oakley,
`
`Mr. Jannard was also a prolific inventor, obtaining hundreds of patents on various
`
`eyewear and display systems technologies. Id. ¶ 3. That inventive spirit carried over
`
`to RED, where Mr. Jannard has been intimately involved in the process of designing
`
`and building all of RED’s video cameras from the ground up. Id. ¶ 4.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Mr. Jannard founded RED with the objective of developing the world’s best
`
`cameras. Id. ¶ 5. In particular, Mr. Jannard sought to design digital cinematography
`
`cameras that exhibited stunningly superior quality and ease of use compared to the
`
`prior art systems. Id. In pursuit of this goal, Mr. Jannard met with his co-inventor,
`
`Graeme Nattress, for the first time in December 2005. Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 3;
`
`Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 5. The two-inventors discussed how to obtain cinema-quality
`
`resolution from a digital camera that relied on compressed files saved to portable
`
`memory. Id. This was a formidable goal because, at the time, digital video camera
`
`technology produced lower-quality video output that was inadequate for viewing
`
`audiences when enlarged to cinema-sized screens. Ex. 2024 (Nattress 2014 Decl.)
`
`¶ 12. In fact, digital compression was highly disfavored in the high-end cinema
`
`camera industry at the time due to its resulting artifacts and lower resolution, which
`
`were unacceptable in big-screen cinema. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 5.
`
`One potential solution they devised ran directly contrary to industry
`
`convention. At the time, it was believed that compressing demosaiced and enhanced
`
`image data was superior to compressing raw mosaiced image data. Ex. 2024
`
`(Nattress 2014 Decl.) ¶ 24. Raw mosaiced video data was known to be incomplete
`
`and spatially non-continuous, and could not be processed with the best
`
`compressibility-improving techniques such as color compensation. Id. However,
`
`the pair realized that compressing demosaiced and enhanced data left lasting effects
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`in the video image data that could not be reversed after decompression because the
`
`effects had essentially been “baked-in” by a combination of the demosaicing-
`
`enhancing-compression process. Ex. 2012 (Jannard 2013 Decl.) ¶ 21; Ex. 2024
`
`(Nattress 2014 Decl.) ¶ 22. These lasting effects translated into artifacts that
`
`rendered digital compression visually lossy and unacceptable for cinematic uses.
`
`Id.; Ex. 1002 at 294 (Jackson Decl. ¶ 5), 318 (Soderbergh Decl. ¶ 4). Although none
`
`of the implementation guides for the then-available compression codecs provided
`
`guidance for how to do so, the pair believed that solving the digital artifact and low-
`
`resolution problem required devising a workable method of compressing raw
`
`mosaiced data. Ex. 2024 (Nattress 2014 Decl.) ¶ 25.
`
`One key to this solution involved another move away from industry
`
`convention, this time with respect to the type of image sensor used. At the time, the
`
`industry consensus held that cinema quality cameras would need to utilize three
`
`sensors, with a prism to split red, green and blue light to each sensor. Ex. 2001
`
`(Nattress) ¶ 6. This was in sharp contrast to single sensors, in particular, single
`
`sensors with Bayer-pattern filters, that were associated with lower quality,
`
`consumer-grade video cameras. Id. Thus, Bayer-pattern filter sensors were, at the
`
`time, derided as incapable of providing motion picture quality video due to artifact
`
`and resolution issues. Id. Nevertheless, the duo recognized the potential benefits a
`
`Bayer-pattern image sensor could have if the image data remained in raw, mosaiced
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`format for compression. Id. Such a workflow could take advantage of all the post-
`
`production flexibility and cost savings of being able to manipulate the original raw
`
`data upon decompression. Id.
`
`Pursuing these lines of unconventional research and development, the pair set
`
`out to design a motion-picture camera that could shoot and compress raw mosaiced
`
`Bayer-pattern image data to achieve visually-lossless, cinema-quality output upon
`
`decompression, i.e., having at least 2K horizontal resolution and 24 frames per
`
`second. Ex. 2024 (Nattress 2014 Decl.) ¶ 6; Ex. 2012 (Jannard 2013 Decl.) ¶ 5.
`
`2.
`
`Research and development of the RED ONE Camera
`
`Throughout 2006, the pair worked to implement the solution to the problem
`
`of how to create visually lossless video from compressed digital image data from a
`
`Bayer-pattern sensor. Assisting them were a team of people at RED, which included
`
`Jarred Land, David Macintosh and Rob Lohman. Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 2; Ex. 2022
`
`(Macintosh) ¶ 2; Ex. 2023 (Lohman) ¶ 2. RED also utilized the contract engineering
`
`services of Wind River Systems, who worked at RED’s direction to implement
`
`RED’s design strategies. Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 5; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 10; Ex. 2001
`
`(Nattress) ¶ 26; Ex. 2022 (Macintosh) ¶ 2.
`
`During 2006 and into 2007, Mr. Nattress worked to refine the workflow for
`
`the digital image data obtained by the Bayer-pattern sensor of the RED ONE camera.
`
`Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶¶ 7-13. In particular, Mr. Nattress designed a data workflow,
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`known as REDCODE, that would take raw mosaiced image data from a Bayer-
`
`pattern sensor and process that image data for compression in a raw mosaiced state,
`
`after which that compressed raw mosaiced image data would be sent to the camera’s
`
`memory drive for storage. Id. ¶ 9. Two particular areas of Mr. Nattress’s focus were
`
`on the processing and compression steps. Id. Mr. Nattress eventually settled on two
`
`processing techniques known as pre-emphasis and GAS (green average subtraction),
`
`and a lossy compression technique known as JPEG 2000. Id. ¶¶ 10-12.
`
`Mr. Nattress and the RED team worked throughout 2006 and into 2007 with
`
`the goal of debuting the RED ONE at the 2007 National Association of Broadcasters
`
`(NAB) show to be held in Las Vegas on April 14-19, 2007. Ex. 2001 (Nattress)
`
`¶ 14. In preparation for that show, RED’s engineers tested a RED ONE motion-
`
`picture camera, nicknamed Boris, at RED’s headquarters in Lake Forest, California,
`
`on March 8, 2007. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶¶ 14-15; Exs. 2002-2009; Ex. 2011
`
`(Jannard) ¶ 6; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 3; Ex. 2022 (Macintosh) ¶ 3. Jim Jannard, Graeme
`
`Nattress, Jarred Land, Ted Schilowitz, David Macintosh and Stuart English were
`
`some of the RED engineers present for the testing that day. Id. Mr. Nattress captured
`
`the event with his own personal photos. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶¶ 14-15, Exs. 2002-
`
`2008; Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 6; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 3; Ex. 2022 (Macintosh) ¶ 3. As
`
`shown below, Mr. Nattress’s photos confirm Boris’s reduction to practice in
`
`succinct, vivid detail.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`In the picture below, Mr. Jannard is holding and inspecting Boris before the
`
`testing began. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 16, Ex. 2002; Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 7.1
`
`Ex. 2002.
`
`
`
`
`1 In Exhibit 2002, a portion of Boris near Mr. Jannard’s right thumb between the
`
`lens and body is powder-coated black. Subsequent to this testing, the entirety of
`
`Boris was powder-coated black. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 18, Ex. 2004; Ex. 2011
`
`(Jannard) ¶ 13, Ex. 2013; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 6.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Below, from left to right, are Messrs. Macintosh, Jannard, Schilowitz, Land
`
`and English preparing to run test footage on Boris. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 17,
`
`Ex. 2003; Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 8; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 4.
`
`Ex. 2003.
`
`
`
`The team arranged to shoot video of Mr. Schilowitz next to a color chart to
`
`test Boris’s video quality. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 20, Ex. 2006; Ex. 2011 (Jannard)
`
`¶ 9; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 5. In the picture below, Mr. Schilowitz is seen posing for the
`
`test footage. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 20, Ex. 2006.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Ex. 2006.
`
`
`
`The team then took the digital video file shot by Boris to a computer to see if
`
`the video produced cinema-quality, visually lossless video. Ex. 2001 (Nattress)
`
`¶¶ 21-22, Ex. 2007; Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 9; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 5. Below,
`
`Mr. Schilowitz is viewing the output of his test footage. Id.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Ex. 2007.
`
`
`
`The testing of Boris was a resounding success. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 22. The
`
`RED team visually inspected the video output and confirmed that Boris had taken
`
`compressed raw mosaiced Bayer-pattern video data that displayed in visually
`
`lossless form with no visible compression artifacts after decompression and
`
`demosaicing. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 22; Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 9; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 5;
`
`Ex. 2022 (Macintosh) ¶ 4. Additionally, Boris’s cinema-grade high resolution and
`
`frame rate were confirmed by the output parameters reported by the program
`
`displaying Boris’s test video. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶¶ 23-25; Ex. 2008; Ex. 2011
`
`(Jannard) ¶¶ 9-10; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 5; Ex. 2022 (Macintosh) ¶ 4. Specifically, a
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`photo shown below of the output from Boris’s test footage of Mr. Macintosh reports
`
`the resolution and frame rate of the footage. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 23; Ex. 2008;
`
`Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶¶ 8-9; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 5; Ex. 2022 (Macintosh) ¶ 4.
`
`Ex. 2008 (with annotations).
`
`
`
`Below is an enlargement of the information within the yellow annotation:
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Ex. 2008 (enlargement).
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 24; Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶¶ 9-10. As shown above, the output
`
`of the Boris test footage is reported as follows:
`
`Format Settings:
`
`Format Custom: W: 4096 H: 2048
`
`Aspect Custom: Scale: 1.0000
`
`Framerate: 24.000
`
`Show: Full res. High.
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Id. At the top of the enlargement, the “.jim” file extension denotes the new
`
`compressed raw Bayer-pattern video file type generated by REDCODE. Ex. 2001
`
`(Nattress) ¶¶ 9, 24.
`
`Boris’s output resolution is reported as 4096 x 2048, which equates to 4K
`
`resolution. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 25; Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 10. Boris’s framerate is
`
`reported as 24 frames per second. Id. Based on these reported parameters, and the
`
`visually lossless nature of the video output, Messrs. Jannard and Nattress had
`
`contemporaneous certainty, by at least March 8, 2007, that their invention worked
`
`for its intended purpose. Id. As described below, that certainty was soon confirmed
`
`by Academy-Award-winning director Sir Peter Jackson. Id.
`
`3.
`
`Sir Peter Jackson’s March 2007 movie shoot with Boris and
`Natasha
`
`Because RED’s testing of Boris was such a success, Mr. Jannard sought out a
`
`professional cinematographer who could use Boris to shoot a promotional video that
`
`RED could present at the upcoming NAB 2007 trade show in April to demonstrate
`
`the RED ONE’s revolutionary capabilities. Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 11. Mr. Jannard
`
`reached out to Sir Peter Jackson to see if he had any recommendations. Id. In a
`
`somewhat unexpected move, Mr. Jackson – who only three years earlier had won
`
`Oscars for Best Director and Best Picture for Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
`
`– proposed that Mr. Jannard bring the RED ONE cameras to New Zealand so
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Mr. Jackson could shoot the footage himself. Id.; Ex. 1002 at 297 (Jackson Decl.
`
`Ex. B at 5). Mr. Jannard jumped at the chance. Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 12.
`
`Mr. Jannard and RED President Jarred Land personally flew Boris and its
`
`companion RED ONE camera built on the same REDCODE framework, nicknamed
`
`Natasha, to New Zealand for the movie shoot during the week of March 26-30, 2007.
`
`Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 12; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 6. Messrs. Jannard and Land stayed at
`
`Mr. Jackson’s house the entire week, and oversaw his use of the cameras to shoot a
`
`mini-movie entitled “Crossing the Line.” Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 12; Ex. 2017 (Land)
`
`¶ 6.
`
`The photo below shows Boris in use at the “Crossing the Line” shoot.
`
`Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 13; Ex. 2013; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 6. Although only a portion of
`
`Boris was powder coated black during the March 8, 2007 testing, the remainder of
`
`Boris had been powder coated black prior to the “Crossing the Line” shoot. Ex. 2011
`
`(Jannard) ¶ 13; Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 6; Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 18, Ex. 2004.
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Ex. 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`The photo below shows Natasha, with its original unmilled aluminum
`
`coloring, on the set of “Crossing the Line.” Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 14; Ex. 2014;
`
`Ex. 2017 (Land) ¶ 7.
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Ex. 2014.
`
`
`During filming, Mr. Jackson treated Boris and Natasha with the same
`
`professional vigor he would any other camera, from crawling on the ground with
`
`them to using them on helicopters and Steadicams. Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 15. The
`
`cameras performed flawlessly throughout the entire week. Id. ¶¶ 15-16; Ex. 2017
`
`(Land) ¶ 9. According to Mr. Jackson, “[t]he camera was unlike anything we had
`
`ever seen before in camera technology.” Ex. 1002 at 294 (Jackson Decl. ¶ 4).
`
`Mr. Jackson confirmed that the cameras had the ability to record compressed raw
`
`image data at 2K and higher resolutions and remain visually lossless upon
`
`decompression. Id. at 293-94 (Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 3-4). Mr. Jackson’s satisfaction
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`with and enthusiasm for Boris and Natasha that week has made him one of the most
`
`vocal and devoted users of RED cameras ever since.2 Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 15.
`
`After completing the shoot, a cut of Mr. Jackson’s “Crossing the Line” was
`
`premiered in Las Vegas at NAB 2007. Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶ 16; Ex. 2017 (Land)
`
`¶ 9. The response was remarkable. Id. Academy-Award-winning director Steven
`
`Soderbergh saw “Crossing the Line.” Ex. 1002 at 318 (Soderbergh Decl. ¶ 6). So
`
`impressed was Mr. Soderbergh with the visually lossless quality of the film, he shot
`
`his next several films with RED ONE cameras. Id. at 318-19 (¶¶ 6-14).
`
`On April 11, 2007, prior to the NAB 2007 show, RED filed provisional patent
`
`application No. 60/911,196 (“the ’196 provisional”), the first of two provisional
`
`applications directed to the inventions in its RED ONE camera. Ex. 1010. The ’196
`
`provisional is directed to compressing raw mosaiced Bayer-pattern image data. Id.
`
`at 20. On December 28, 2007, RED filed its second provisional patent application,
`
`No. 61/017,406, directed to a video camera that compresses raw mosaiced Bayer-
`
`
`2 As of the filing of this Preliminary Response, a video available on YouTube.com
`
`at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-VeXLZTm24
`
`shows Mr.
`
`Jackson
`
`expressing his appreciation for Red and its team members, and referencing his use
`
`of Boris and Natasha on “Crossing the Line.” Footage of “Crossing the Line” was
`
`also available online (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZT23V07w4Q).
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`pattern image data to obtain visually lossless output when decompressed. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1011 at 21-25.
`
`B. Overview Of The ‘314 Patent
`1.
`
`The ’314 Patent Specification
`
`RED’s ’314 patent relates to digital video cameras configured to capture and
`
`compress, using lossy compression, raw mosaiced video image data such that, upon
`
`decompression and demosaicing, the image data remains substantially visually
`
`lossless. Ex. 1001 (’314 patent) at claims 1, 16. Figure 2 of the ’314 patent depicts
`
`one possible configuration of the claimed digital video cameras:
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`Aspects of the claimed video cameras recited in independent claim 1 of the
`
`’314 patent include (1) a video camera with portable housing, (3) an image sensor,
`
`(4) an image processing module configured to process raw mosaiced image data
`
`from the image sensor, (5) a compression module configured to compress the
`
`processed image data with a mathematically lossy compression technique that upon
`
`decompression achieves a substantially visually lossless image of at least 2k
`
`resolution, (6) a memory device that receives the compressed processed image data
`
`at a rate of at least about 23 frames per second. Several aspects of the claimed
`
`video camera are reflected in the Figure 1 schematic of the ’314 patent as shown
`
`below:
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`With respect to the claimed image sensor, the ’314 patent describes the use of
`
`a single CMOS sensor with a Bayer-pattern filter. Ex. 1001 (’314 patent) at 4:5-9,
`
`5:30-41, 11:3-10. Figure 3 of the ’314 patent below depicts a schematic layout of a
`
`CMOS image sensor having a Bayer-pattern filter.
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`Apple v. RED.COM
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 - IPR2019-01065
`
`
`
`As Figure 3 shows, Bayer filter patterns are characterized by two green pixels
`
`for every blue and red pixel, which takes advantage of the human eye’s sensitivity
`
`to green wavelengths. Id. at 2:22-24, 11:8-10. Figure 3 also depicts the three
`
`pluralities of light sensitive devices (green, blue and red pixels) arranged in an
`
`intermingled p
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
