ID Image Sensing LLC v. Omnivision Techs., Inc.

ID IMAGE SENSING LLC, Plaintiff, v. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 20-136-RGA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

November 24, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In this patent action filed by Plaintiff ID Image Sensing LLC ("Plaintiff") against Defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc. ("Defendant"), presently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D.I. 8) For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the Motion be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

In the operative Complaint, Plaintiff accuses Defendant's image sensors, including Defendant's OV13850, OV2655, OV3640, OV4689, OV5640, OV5642, OV5648, OV5693, OV8858 and OV8865 models of image sensors (the "accused products"), of infringing at least claim 1 of Plaintiff's United States Patent No. 7,333,145 (the "'145 patent"). (D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 7-19) The '145 patent is entitled "Camera Module," and generally speaking, it relates to circuitry for camera modules used in a variety of digital cameras, including those incorporated into mobile phones, tablets and laptop computers. (Id. at ¶ 8 & ex. A)¹ Claim 1 recites the following:

1. A camera module comprising:

an image sensor array;

a gain amplifier;

an indicator set to indicate whether a first flash device or a second flash device is present; and

a plurality of storage locations;

wherein the plurality of storage locations is configured to store an exposure time and a gain, wherein the exposure time and the gain are associated with the first flash device in response to the indicator indicating the presence of the first flash device, wherein the exposure time and the gain are associated with the second flash device in response to the indicator indicating the presence of the second flash device, wherein the image sensor array is configured to capture an image using the exposure time, and wherein the gain amplifier is configured to perform processing on the image using the gain.

('145 patent, cols. 11:65-12:14)

The Complaint includes excerpts of a schematic block diagram provided in a representative datasheet and preliminary specification ("datasheet") of one of the accused products, the OV13850 image sensor. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 11) It also provides a hyperlink to the datasheet for the OV13850 image sensor. (Id.)

Further relevant facts related to resolution of the Motion will be set out as needed in Section III.

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on January 29, 2020. (D.I. 1) The instant Motion was filed on March 30, 2020, (D.I. 8), and briefing was completed on April 20, 2020, (D.I. 12). United States District Judge Richard G. Andrews referred the Motion to the Court for resolution on April 21, 2020. (D.I. 13)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

When presented with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court conducts a two-part analysis. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the court separates the factual and legal elements of a claim, accepting all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but disregarding any legal conclusions. Id. at 210-11. Second, the court determines whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a "'plausible claim for relief.'" Id. at 211 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In assessing the plausibility of a claim, the court must "'accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.'" Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 (quoting Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)).

III. DISCUSSION

With its Motion, Defendant argues that the instant Complaint should be dismissed because: (1) claim 1 of the '145 patent fails to claim patent-eligible subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 ("Section 101"); and (2) it fails to sufficiently state claims for direct and indirect patent infringement. (D.I. 9; D.I. 12) The Court will first assess the arguments for dismissal regarding Section 101 and then will review the remaining arguments for dismissal.

A. Section 101/Patent Eligibility

1. Legal Standard

As was noted above, the first portion of the instant Rule 12(b)(6) Motion is premised on the assertion that the patent claim-in-suit is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The Court has often set out the relevant legal standards for review of such a motion, including in Genedics, LLC v. Meta Co., Civil Action No. 17-1062-CJB, 2018 WL 3991474, at *2-5 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2018). The Court hereby incorporates by reference its discussion in Genedics of these relevant legal standards. It will follow this legal guidance in assessing the Motion.

2. Argument

a. Alice's Step One

The Court first assesses Alice's step one, which asks whether the claim at issue is "directed to" an abstract idea. What is an abstract idea? It can be (but is not necessarily limited to) a "preexisting, fundamental truth" that "exis[ts] in principle apart from any human action[,]" or a "method of organizing human activity" (such as a "longstanding commercial practice"). Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 220 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256-57 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A claim to an abstract idea has been described by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as one directed to a "'disembodied' concept . . . a basic building block of human ingenuity, untethered from any real-world application." CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Lourie, J., concurring) (citation omitted). Beyond that, the "abstract idea" category has not been crisply defined, see Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (declining to "labor to delimit the precise contours of the 'abstract ideas' category"), and the Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal Circuit have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases, see Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Defendant asserts that claim 1 of the '145 patent² is directed to the abstract idea of "identifying which of two different flash lighting devices is connected to the camera and setting the camera's exposure settings accordingly." (D.I. 9 at 1; see also id. at 11; D.I. 12 at 3) Defendant then summarizes this abstract idea more broadly, as "[m]erely correlating one set of data to another" and "storing related information." (D.I. 9 at 12; D.I. 12 at 5 n.2) The Court certainly agrees that the latter concepts—correlating certain information with other pieces of information and storing information—amount to abstract ideas. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly said so, noting that these and other similar concepts are untethered from real-world application.³

But what about "identifying which of two different flash lighting devices is connected to the camera and setting the camera's exposure accordingly"? Is that an abstract idea? It does not really sound to the Court like a "disembodied concept," nor a preexisting, "fundamental truth" about the natural world. And it incorporates the act of setting a camera's exposure after identifying what lighting device is connected to the camera. That act sounds a bit like "real-world application." In any event, since it ultimately will not have an impact on resolution of thispart of the Motion, below the Court will assume arguendo that Defendant is correct and that "identifying which of two different flash lighting devices is connected to the camera and setting the camera's exposure accordingly" is in fact an abstract idea. The Court just notes for the record that it is not so sure that is correct.

Plaintiff, for its part, argues that the claims are not "directed to" this abstract idea. Instead, it argues that Defendant's articulation of the focus of the claims is at too high a level of abstraction. Plaintiff notes that the patent identifies a specific problem—providing "additional image capture features in portable electronic devices while minimizing the size and cost associated with the features"—and asserts that claim 1 is directed solving this problem through "a new and novel camera module that may be used to accommodate the processing of images captured by a device that may have more than one type of flash device." (D.I. 11 at 2, 16; see also id. at 17)

So is claim 1 of the '145 patent actually "directed to" the abstract idea at issue?⁴ The Court agrees with Plaintiff that it is not. In the end, Defendant's asserted abstract idea simply does not fairly capture claim 1's character as a whole. The Court so concludes for three primary reasons.

First, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that this is a claim to a "camera module[.]" ('145 patent, col. 11:65) And not just any camera module, but one that has a number of specific, tangible sub-components. The claimed camera module is comprised of an "image sensor array" (which captures an image), a "gain amplifier" (which performs processing on theimage), an indicator (which indicates which of two particular flash devices are present) and multiple storage locations (which store exposure times and gains associated with the respective flash devices). (Id., cols. 11:66-12:14; see also D.I. 11 at 16) Of course, the Court is aware that just because a claim is to an apparatus, that does not mean that the claim cannot be directed to an abstract idea. Cf. Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1348 ...