Thread: Apple seeks to invalidate Red's Raw patent claims

Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Jeffrey Loewe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CO and UT
    Posts
    1,813
    Maybe I don't know enough here, but whats to gain from having a Patent on compressed raw being recorded internally anymore?

    Can't RedCode coexist with other companies using their own versions of compressed raw? Seems like a win win for all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    I write and prosecute patents for a living and took a quick look at Apple's IPR petition against RED's '314 patent

    FWIW Apple is seeking review of the patentability of the claims in RED's '314 patent with a procedure known as inter partes review, essentially seeking to invalidate the patent, or at least some of the claims of the patent. It looks like RED has asserted the '314 patent in litigation against Sony and Nokia (I'm assuming for infringement but have not investigated further), and it is common to counter a lawsuit by challenging the validity of a patent asserted in litigation with inter partes review.

    In the IPR petition, Apple is asserting: a) at least some of the claims of RED's '314 patent aren't entitled to the earliest priority date of the application; and b) many of the claims of RED's '314 patent should be held unpatentable because it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to combine prior art elements to arrive at the combination of features of those claims of RED's '314 patent at the time RED filed the application.

    I haven't looked at it any further but hope the relationship between RED and Apple can stay amicable...I'll leave it to the USPTO to comment on Apple's petition further
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd C. Deveau View Post
    (b) many of the claims of RED's '314 patent should be held unpatentable because it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to combine prior art elements to arrive at the combination of features of those claims of RED's '314 patent at the time RED filed the application.
    Yes, and that might partially explain why all of the claims in the original patent were initially rejected.

    I'll leave it to the USPTO to comment on Apple's petition further
    Do you know how long an inter partes review generally takes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member Audy Erel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Jakarta-Bandung, Indonesia (Bali)
    Posts
    248
    I won't be surprised if one day Apple decided to make their own digital cinema camera..
    SCARLET-W #004760
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Misha Engel View Post
    "There is no such thing a bad publicity"
    I don’t think Harvey Weinstein would agree. ; )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Garcia-Diaz View Post
    Yes, and that might partially explain why all of the claims in the original patent were initially rejected.



    Do you know how long an inter partes review generally takes?
    You can't read into the initial rejection of the claims. Claims are almost always initially rejected because generally you draft claims with broad scope that inevitably are narrowed throughout prosecution. Generally speaking, the joke is if you get a first action allowance, you've drafted claims with narrower scope than necessary. That said, this was a "track one" application, meaning that RED paid extra $$ for expedited prosecution, and sometimes with this the claims are narrower than you would file normally since the goal to quickly get an issued patent (track one can go from file to issuance within a year i think whereas the standard app takes 3-4 years on average).

    Anyone interested can look at the prosecution history of the RED patent (which is available to the public for this application) in the USPTO PAIR system. The claims were initially rejected as obvious (under 35 USC 103) in view of a couple references (not the same references asserted in Apple's IPR petition), but for these types of rejections especially you can't take them at face value. Examiners frequently do nothing more than keyword searching for obviousness-type 103 rejections and piece rejections together based on hindsight - almost every office action I respond to has a 103 rejection, and rarely do I see a "good" 103 rejection. Simply because the Examiner initially asserted the claims were rejected under 103 shouldn't be an indication of their patentability or validity.

    I think IPR decisions take around a year to be decided usually (I think they have 12-18 months to decide them). I'm never really involved in IPR proceedings so don't know a whole lot about the procedure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,345
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    I think even Red is arguing about the prior art claim. Compreed RAW recording already existed at the time of the patent (Silicon Image using Cineform codec). Bayered sensors obviously already existed. 4k sensors already were used (Dalsa Origin)
    I was shocked to find out that Dalsa owned quite a few patents, and every Bayered CMOS camera out there pays them X dollars as a license fee. I'm not sure when their patent expires or if it can be renewed. I got this from a top Panavision executive, back around 2005 when Panavision in Tarzana was right around the corner from the Dalsa building. (This was very near Frys in Woodland Hills, if you know that area.) This was long before Red had any patents.

    I thought that Dalsa was a huge failure, but the Panavision exec said they actually made a "tidy income" from their CMOS camera patents. It's kind of like the Discovision laserdisc company that made tons of money from Compact Discs and DVDs: the original invention was a failure, but the patents kept them going for many years.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
    I was shocked to find out that Dalsa owned quite a few patents, and every Bayered CMOS camera out there pays them X dollars as a license fee. I'm not sure when their patent expires or if it can be renewed. I got this from a top Panavision executive, back around 2005 when Panavision in Tarzana was right around the corner from the Dalsa building. (This was very near Frys in Woodland Hills, if you know that area.) This was long before Red had any patents.

    I thought that Dalsa was a huge failure, but the Panavision exec said they actually made a "tidy income" from their CMOS camera patents. It's kind of like the Discovision laserdisc company that made tons of money from Compact Discs and DVDs: the original invention was a failure, but the patents kept them going for many years.
    My understanding, Red pretty much reconstituted Dalsa team after Dalsa closed its doors. I think that is why Red was able to get Red One into shape in such record short time.
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Isn't this just standard Corporate America these days? Suits flying left right and centre *all the time*

    Apple are currently being sued by the supposed originators of the camera system on the iPhones, if the filings are to be believed it was a very underhand stealing of IP and tech that makes them look like the evil corporation everyone is seemly painting Red with.

    Honestly on the other forums it's getting crazy, it's personal, it's unsubstantiated, all dark opinion - to me this is like people venting about life in general and the state of the world. Just saying anything without having to substantiate it. I don't remember a time in the past where it was like this...

    Crazy times and i hope people are able to work through it

    cheers
    Paul
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    My understanding, Red pretty much reconstituted Dalsa team after Dalsa closed its doors. I think that is why Red was able to get Red One into shape in such record short time.
    Yes, RED did poach the DALSA talent, namely Deanan DaSilva, who was on the DALSA engineering team. That happened in early 2007, before DALSA shuttered the camera division in 2009. I don't know who else they poached before or after that, but he was definitely a big help to RED in getting the ONE and DSMC concepts into usable products.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts