Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
infringement - Coggle Diagram
infringement
the primary candidate is Druid,Orange's main competitor, who has developed a competing emoji animating software
uses regular visible light camera rather than an infrared emitter array and infrared camera (as Faceshift and Orange use with Animoji).
main question; here is whether Druid has infringed either claim 1 or claim 2 of the patent, or both
In order to determine whether the claims of the '907 patent have been infringed, a court must first construe those claims
-
Claim 1 is the broader claim here. In its preamble, it claims "a computer-implmented method practiced on a computing devise comprising..."
the use of "comprising" indicates that claim 1 is an open claim, meaning that additional element not listed or contemplated by the claim may still be covered the the claim.
Assuming that claim 1 is valid, it is a very broad claim that contemplates a great deal of technology.
Since it claims basically any method of using a base mesh to match depth information to corresponding facial expressions with the purpose of animation an emoji.
the "comprising of " language means that any base mesh created by a competitor would infringe claim 1.
Since Druid's emoji animating software incorporates technology that uses "two regular visible light cameras that ... can use to map rudimentary facial movements,"
-
Liability for direct infringement under $271(a) of the Patent Act is imposed on "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells" the patented invention within the U.S. Under Larami Corp. (E.D.Pa. 1993), if any element of a claim is missing from the alleged infringer's product, there is no literal infringement.
we would need more information about Druid's technology to determine whether there was literal infringement.
Although 'mapping" rudimentary facial movements seems to contemplate some sort of base mesh as claimed claim 1, it is not clear that the method are identical.
if the Druid software does use a base mesh to receive depth information and create a corresponding animation for an emoji, the Druid's product literally infringes claim 1 and Druid is liable for direct infringement.
Even if the software is not exactly similar, Druid could still be liable for direct, non-literal infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents]
Even if a product does not "literally infringe," it is the "substantial equivalent" if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way obtain the same result.
Druid's software undoubtedly performs the same function to obtain the same result. The question is whether it does so in substantially the same way. The fact that Animoji uses a base mesh to gain "frames of depth information" while Druid uses visible light cameras to "map" facial movements to (likely) obtain "frames of depth information" seems to be "substantially the same way" to me. a layperson.
Although claim 1 does not explicitly claim the use of visible light cameras to reach the result of the method claimed, the use the "comprising" language and the fact the claim 1 is an open claim means the claim 1 could encompass the the visible light camera anyway.
Here, testimony regarding the specific way in which he two methods are similar and different would be necessary to determine whether Druid has create and equivalent product the direct infringes on the '907 patent.
-
Therefore, it is likely that Druid has infringed claim 1, but unlikely that Druid has infringed claim 2. Druid could only defend on the grounds that claim 1 is invalid, since its use of the invention was not experimental. Stolz may be able to seek an injuntion against or collect damages from Druid for the infringement of claim 1.