RED and now Nikon lost against Panasonic RAW Patent litigation.

[fgonz031]

On June 30, 2026, the Intellectual Property High Court ruled in favor of invalidating a patent held by Nikon (which acquired Nikon's US company RED) for image processing of compressed RAW video, finding it lacking inventive step. This upheld Panasonic's victory.

Background and History of the Lawsuit and Trial: Patent in Question: A patent for image processing and compression technology related to compressed RAW data, held by the US cinema camera manufacturer RED.com. Conflict Between Parties: Nikon acquired RED, inheriting rights such as those related to the lawsuit. Meanwhile, Panasonic had filed an invalidation trial for the patent with the Japan Patent Office. Japan Patent Office and High Court Decisions: The Japan Patent Office ruled that the patent was a combination of existing technologies and lacked inventive step (creativity), resulting in a partial invalidation. Nikon appealed this decision to the Intellectual Property High Court. Latest judicial decision: On June 30, 2026, the Intellectual Property High Court upheld the Patent Office's invalidation decision, finalizing the judgment dismissing Nikon's lawsuit. Impact on the industry and future trends: Impact after the RED acquisition: Nikon had been developing technology utilizing RED's video technology, but the invalidation of some of its core compressed RAW patents in Japan may affect its intellectual property strategy and relationships with competitors.

Source:

You Can’t Make This Up​

In a near perfect example of irony, the Japanese Intellectual Property High Court last week invalidated one of RED’s key patents.

If you’re forgotten, RED used the threat of legal action to hold off competitors from creating raw video files, claiming patent to the idea. RED sent cease and disist letters and demanded licensing fees from anyone trying to create raw video files.

Nikon was the first major player to reject RED’s patent claims and the two initially brought their disagreement to court. Nikon presented fairly clear evidence of prior work as well as obviousness in their briefs and legal arguments. However, before that case could be heard, Nikon bought RED, and Nikon had the case dismissed.

When the patent that Nikon now held was challenged again in Japan by Panasonic, Nikon reversed position and argued to validate the claims of the (original RED) patent. The Intellectual Property High Court in Japan has now rejected the patent claim, and deemed it invalid.

zystemuser.com

 

[Brian Timmons]

It’s a setback for RED/Nikon.
Interesting that it was upheld for so long in the US including Apple’s challenge of the patent (if this is the same patent).

I don’t know much about patent law to give much discussion.
From my own recollections before RED almost all companies approached motion picture digital image acquisition and the recording of that data from the starting point of color space (RGB) and chroma sub sampling (4:2:0, 4:2:2, 4:4:4) and Raw was seldom considered and compressed Raw was not a thing (which is where RED Raw enters the picture.

I think Dalsa Origin (Perhaps the 1st 4K cinema camera) did use uncompressed Raw and initially needed a RAID tower to record the images.

Arri had the D20 camera which captured Raw sensor data but it too was uncompressed.

RED was the truly the 1st to offer compressed Raw with Redcode which really changed the game in making Raw acquisition a realistic option.

Other Digital Cinema camera manufacturers like Sony (with the F900 and successors) and Panasonic with Varicam were both using the usual chroma subsampling like 4:2:2 and were initially tape based and thus still tied to TV standards like NTSC and PAL. Granted those cameras came out in 1999 (a good 5+years before the earlier mentioned cameras) but those early cameras did set the general direction those companies went in terms of image acquisition for digital cinema.

The obvious argument for the validity of the REDCode patent is if compressed Raw was so obvious and unoriginal why did none of the other manufacturers employ that approach with their cameras. In 2005-2007 the industry was in the early stages of leaving tape for file based media. The equivalent of today's 2TB CFexpress was a 16GB Compact Flash card and the majority of them were too slow to handle REDcode.

Of course therein lies the legal arguments and as mentioned it’s not my expertise.

Filmmakers do not buy RED cameras for the patents. They recognize the unique products RED makes as tools to help them with their filmmaking endeavors.

Yes, it’s a tough break for RED and Nikon but at the end of the day they have to continue to execute on creating cutting edge cameras, lenses, and associated gear that truly inspires people to create films.

Despite the tough year Nikon has experienced (they had a bit of ¥$€ losses) I think they have the means to turn things around pretty quickly.
Particularly if they give big support to the little cinema company based in southern California and start taking Z Cinema more seriously in light of the release and shortcomings of the Nikon ZR.

RED knows how to make proper cinema cameras. They’ve been doing it for 20 over years. They still have much to give to the filmmaking world. I hope there is more of that expertise included for future releases in RED/Nkion crossover products like the ZR.


Anyway, thanks for the post fgonz.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[fgonz031]

It’s a setback for RED/Nikon.
Interesting that it was upheld for so long in the US including Apple’s challenge of the patent (if this is the same patent).

I don’t know much about patent law to give much discussion.
From my own recollections before RED almost all companies approached motion picture digital image acquisition and the recording of that data from the starting point of color space (RGB) and chroma sub sampling (4:2:0, 4:2:2, 4:4:4) and Raw was seldom considered and compressed Raw was not a thing (which is where RED Raw enters the picture.

I think Dalsa Origin (Perhaps the 1st 4K cinema camera) did use uncompressed Raw and initially needed a RAID tower to record the images.

Arri had the D20 camera which captured Raw sensor data but it too was uncompressed.

RED was the truly the 1st to offer compressed Raw with Redcode which really changed the game in making Raw acquisition a realistic option.

Other Digital Cinema camera manufacturers like Sony (with the F900 and successors) and Panasonic with Varicam were both using the usual chroma subsampling like 4:2:2 and were initially tape based and thus still tied to TV standards like NTSC and PAL. Granted those cameras came out in 1999 (a good 5+years before the earlier mentioned cameras) but those early cameras did set the general direction those companies went in terms of image acquisition for digital cinema.

The obvious argument for the validity of the REDCode patent is if compressed Raw was so obvious and unoriginal why did none of the other manufacturers employ that approach with their cameras.

Of course therein lies the legal arguments and as mentioned it’s not my expertise.

Filmmakers do not buy RED cameras for the patents. They recognize the unique products RED makes as tools to help them with their filmmaking endeavors.

Yes, it’s a tough break for RED and Nikon but at the end of the day they have to continue to execute on creating cutting edge cameras, lenses, and associated gear that truly inspires people to create films.

Despite the tough year Nikon has experienced (they had a bit of ¥$€ losses) I think they have the means to turn thing around.
Particularly if they give big support to the little cinema company based in southern California and start taking Z Cinema more seriously in light of the release and shortcomings of the Nikon ZR.

RED knows how to make proper cinema cameras. They’ve been doing it for 20 over years. They still have much to give to the filmmaking world. I hope there is more of that expertise included for future releases in RED/Nkion crossover products like the ZR.


Anyway, thanks for the post fgonz.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

Anytimes, dear Brian!

 

[Alex Zeder]

More details here:
What Actually Killed RED’s Compressed RAW Patent in Japan