Based on their previous filings it wouldn't surprise me if Apple tried to patent something like that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Corephotonics Sues Apple Again Over Dual-Lens Cameras in iPhone 7 Plus and Later [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Based on their previous filings it wouldn't surprise me if Apple tried to patent something like that.
I guess you can't recognize sarcasm when you read a post sans facial and voice expressions lol.
Corephotonics, an Israeli maker of dual-lens camera technologies for smartphones, has filed a lawsuit against Apple this week alleging that the iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus infringe upon four of its patents.
The patents, filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office between November 2013 and June 2016, relate to dual-lens camera technologies appropriate for smartphones, including optical zoom and a mini telephoto lens assembly.o U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032
o U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712
o U.S. Patent No. 9,185,291
o U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152Corephotonics alleges that the two iPhone models copy its patented telephoto lens design, optical zoom method, and a method for intelligently fusing images from the wide-angle and telephoto lenses to improve image quality.
iPhone X isn't listed as an infringing product, despite having a dual-lens camera, perhaps because the device launched just four days ago.
Corephotonics showed off some of its technologies at Mobile World Congress last year. In particular, it demonstrated software capable of combining the images of two separate camera lenses to create a more detailed picture, including the ability to optically zoom up to 5x with no moving parts.
Corephotonics, founded in 2012, describes itself as a pioneer in the development of dual camera technologies for mobile devices. The company's founders, led by Tel Aviv University professor Dr. David Mendlovic, have decades of experience in the fields of optics and miniature digital cameras.
In its complaint, a copy of which was reviewed by MacRumors, Corephotonics said one of its first acts as a company was to contact Apple. Despite receiving "many encouraging reports" and "positive feedback" from the iPhone maker, the companies never reached a license of any kind.Corephotonics said Apple proceeded to release the iPhone 7 Plus with a dual-lens camera in September 2016, and has been willfully infringing upon its patents since that time. Corephotonics says Apple has knowledge of its patents, one of which the iPhone maker allegedly submitted as prior art in a patent application.
Corephotonics even claims Apple's "lead negotiator" said it "would take years and millions of dollars in litigation" before Apple might owe anything.It's worth noting that Apple acquired another Israeli camera company, LinX Imaging, back in 2015. LinX also specialized in creating multi-aperture camera equipment for mobile devices, and Apple presumably incorporated some of its technologies into the iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus cameras.
Corephotonics is seeking damages of an amount to be proven in a jury trial, plus permanent injunctive relief. The complaint was filed with a U.S. District Court in Northern California, where Apple is headquartered.
Article Link: Corephotonics Sues Apple Over Dual-Lens Cameras in iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus
Step 1: Start a shell company
Step 2: Have lawyers file patent on an obvious and general idea tangential to anything Apple does
Step 3: Start a “friendly” conversation with a low level Apple tech
Step 4: File lawsuit claiming Apple “infringed” on your patent after negotiating with Apple executives
Rinse. Repeat.
I understand this, but the point was that it used to be almost everyone filed in Eastern District of TX. Simply not the case anymore.
[doublepost=1510235381][/doublepost]
It is my understanding that you can still file in other courts. In theory a federal court is a federal court and no matter where you file, federal law should be applied the same way. The reality is that some are more plaintiff friendly and some are more defendant friendly. The downside to the Eastern District of TX is that while the federal court is one of the most Plaintiff friendly the appeals court is one of the least.
The Eastern District court's docket is starting to be filled with other types of cases currently which means that you can likely get to trial faster now in other federal courts so the "rocket docket" no longer applies like it used to.
This is my understanding as well, SCOTUS notwithstanding, as long as there is an established business incorporation in the host forum. In Apple’s case, I don’t know. I’m no patent lawyer, but it seems folly for an international company to sue Apple in Apple’s home jurisdiction if they had a choice otherwise, regardless of how tech-savvy a local judge or jury may be. Maybe they no longer had a choice, regardless of where Apple holds documents of incorporation. Maybe they’re just really confident in their case and don’t care. If there are any patent attorneys lurking around, clarification would be helpful.
(I am not a patent attorney.)
Corephotonics could have, absent some special circumstances, filed suit in any federal district in which Apple has a regular and established place of business and committed acts of infringement. So it could have, e.g., filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas as Apple has an established place of business there.
That's a special rule that applies to patent infringement cases. There are other rules which apply more generally. See, e.g., 18 USC §1391. That section uses a broader definition of residency for corporations (than what now applies when it comes to patent infringement suits). So, without getting into the nuances of that definition, corporations can generally be sued (for things other than patent infringement) in districts where they have an established place of business.
[doublepost=1510241509][/doublepost]
Fair enough. I took your previous posts as suggesting that Corephotonics couldn't have filed this suit in the Eastern District of Texas.
No matter where in the country you file a patent suit, you get the same appeals court (the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C.)
[doublepost=1510261617][/doublepost]
See In re: Cray. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Cray_2017-129_9.21.17_ORDER.pdf
other companies agreed to license their tech rather than incorporate it into their product without permission?
[doublepost=1510262780][/doublepost]
Said shell company has 50 employees and funding from Samsung and Mediatek
Last edited:
Or the patents are directed to a particular implementation of using two cameras and not the overall idea of using two cameras, or they decided to sue Apple first and use the proceeds of that suit to sue others, or ...
Cray isn't particularly instructive when it comes to whether the Eastern District of Texas would be a proper venue for the Corephotonics suit.
It's a fact-dependent inquiry. Cray didn't operate a physical location - e.g., a store - in that district. Rather, it allowed a territory manager and a sales executive to operate out of their homes in the district. Apple has a physical store in the district, so the consideration is quite different.
I'd say Cray answers it. Physical building. Check. Of the defendant. Check (I assume Apple doesn't put retail in a subsidiary or something). Regular and established. Check.
The Federal Circuit found that Cray did not have a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and therefore that a transfer of venue was warranted.
That wouldn't be the case with Apple. With Apple it's a fairly easy question to answer: It does have a regular and established place of business in the district because it has a physical retail store there. A different finding based on the different facts in Cray isn't particularly helpful.
EDIT: I think I may have been missing your point. You may have been suggesting that Cray answers the question (with regard to Apple) by reiterating the requirements for a defendant to be considered to have a regular and established place of business in a district, not by establishing something new. If that's the case, then fair enough and my apologies.
Last edited:
Wow, you got to meet Picasso and ask him what he meant? Very cool!
You can't patent ideas. For example, that you could some two images taken at the some time, combine them together, and create one higher-quality image - I knew about that idea at least 35 years ago. What you could patent is the exact method how this is done, and then Apple would need to use the exact same method.
Apple has nothing in that district now, they can't sue there. There was on a story about that several months ago.
Patents are filed by corporations very early on in any development process, long before any products hit the market. So the excuse of "Apple are slower because they do it better." doesn't apply. If someone invents something and patents it, it's their patent fair and square.
Next time, any company negotiating with Apple should surreptitiously record video and audio of all discussions, and then keep it under cover to use as record of the claims, as the one by Corephotonics.
This is not the first time Apple has been claimed to behave as a bully -- it appears to be standard operating procedure on their negotiating manual.
So, I say, let's go to the video! /s
Corephotonics even claims Apple's "lead negotiator" said it "would take years and millions of dollars in litigation" before Apple might owe anything.In fact, after one failed effort to negotiate a license, Apple's lead negotiator expressed contempt for Corephotonics’ patents, telling Dr. Mendlovic and others that even if Apple infringed, it would take years and millions of dollars in litigation before Apple might have to pay something.
This is not the first time Apple has been claimed to behave as a bully -- it appears to be standard operating procedure on their negotiating manual.
So, I say, let's go to the video! /s
not sure if anyone is keeping a tally, but the iPhone maker is chronically in the news for stealing others' IP ALL THE TIME. And they're always guilty of it.
iPhone is a collection of stolen ideas.
The worst part about it is they steal it instead of license it, then expect to settle it in the courts years later.
So next time some whiz bang new feature shows up in a future iPhone, really the only thought that should be coming to people's minds is "I wonder who they stole that from?"
iPhone is a collection of stolen ideas.
The worst part about it is they steal it instead of license it, then expect to settle it in the courts years later.
So next time some whiz bang new feature shows up in a future iPhone, really the only thought that should be coming to people's minds is "I wonder who they stole that from?"
Things said in negotiations generally can’t be used as proof of liability. See Federal Rules of Evidence 408.
Also, it seems to me that this allegation HELPS apple. They expressed contempt for the patent. Said “even if” apple infringed - in other words, apple doesn’t.
And it’s not unusual to point out to the other party in a negotiation that money in hand now may be better than uncertain money in the distant future.