Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.
Patentability filed 7 Jan 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 16 Oct 2023, with US10326942B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case remanded.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10326942B2
- Application no.
- US15/865869
- Case no.
- 22-1341
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 7 Jan 2022 – 16 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 647 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Remanded
- Products & marks
- Dual aperture zoom digital camera
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Dual aperture zoom digital camera
A dual-aperture zoom digital camera operable in both still and video modes. The camera includes Wide and Tele imaging sections with respective lens/sensor combinations and image signal processors and a camera controller operatively coupled to the Wide and Tele imaging sections. The Wide and Tele imaging sections provide respective image data. The controller is configured to combine in still mode at least some of the Wide and Tele image data to provide a fused output image from a particular point of view, and to provide without fusion continuous zoom video mode output images, each output image having a given output resolution, wherein the video mode output images are provided with a smooth transition when switching between a lower zoom factor (ZF) value and a higher ZF value or vice versa, and wherein at the lower ZF the output resolution is determined by the Wide sensor while at the higher ZF value the output resolution is determined by the Tele sensor.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 18 Jun 2019
- Earliest priority
- 12 Jun 2014
- Est. expiry
- 12 Jun 2034
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2020-00860 · Patentability · filed by Apple Inc.IPR2020-00860 · filed by Apple Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHABTAY, GAL · GOLDENBERG, EPHRAIM · GIGUSHINSKI, ODED · COHEN, NOY
- Classification
- H04N5/232G02B13/00H04N5/225G02B27/00H04N23/958
- Prosecution counsel
- Nathan & Associates Patent Agents Ltd
- Examiner
- SEGURA, CYNTHIA
Parties of record
Corephotonics, Ltd.
- Core tech
- H04N5/232G02B13/00H04N5/225G02B27/00
- Counsel
- Neil Rubin
- Firm
- Russ August & Kabat LLP
Apple, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- David W. O’Brien
- Firm
- Haynes & Boone, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Neil Rubin | Corephotonics, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| David W. O’Brien | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“VACATED AND REMANDED”
Case 22-1341 · Fed. Cir. · closed 16 October 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 22-1341?
22-1341 is a patent patentability brought by Corephotonics, Ltd. against Apple, Inc., filed on 7 Jan 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 16 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1341?
US10326942B2 (“Dual aperture zoom digital camera”), assigned to COREPHOTONICS LTD., currently active. The record also lists Dual aperture zoom digital camera.
How was case 22-1341 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case remanded. The termination text reads: “VACATED AND REMANDED”
How long did case 22-1341 take?
647 calendar days, from filing on 7 Jan 2022 to closure on 16 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1341?
Neil Rubin is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Corephotonics. David W. O’Brien appears for defendant Apple.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1341 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.