Image Processing Technologies v. LG Electronics: Claim 1 of US6959293 Stipulated Invalid
Image Processing Technologies, LLC filed suit against LG Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US Patent No. 6,959,293, covering automatic visual perception methods. Following an adverse claim construction ruling, IPT stipulated that Claim 1 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §102, and the case was dismissed without prejudice after 468 days.
Claim construction triggers stipulated invalidity of sole asserted claim
Image Processing Technologies, LLC (IPT) filed suit on 11 March 2022 in the Eastern District of Texas against LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc., asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,959,293, which covers a method and device for automatic visual perception. Only Claim 1 of the '293 Patent was at issue. IPT was represented by Winstead PC; LG was represented by O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Potter Minton PC.
The court entered a Claim Construction Order construing the term 'the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter' to mean 'the histogram calculation units being configured to form one or more histograms representative of the at least one parameter.' Following that construction, IPT conceded that prior art reference WO 99/36893 (Pirim) discloses the construed limitation, and the parties jointly stipulated that Claim 1 is not valid under 35 U.S.C. §102. The court entered final judgment of invalidity against IPT and ordered the case terminated. The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice'; the docket order styles the disposition as a final judgment of invalidity with LG's unadjudicated counterclaims dismissed as moot and without prejudice.
The case resolved in approximately 15 months, consistent with a trajectory shaped entirely by claim construction rather than merits discovery or trial. The stipulated invalidity finding suggests the claim construction outcome was dispositive — once the court's reading of the histogram limitation broadened the claim scope, the Pirim prior art became fatal. The specific terms of any broader resolution between the parties, including any understanding regarding the remaining patent portfolio, are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 468 days
468 days from filing to dismissal — typical E.D. Tex. patent cases resolve in 12–24 months
US6959293B2 — Method and device for automatic visual perception
Any company developing or commercialising products that incorporate histogram-based image analysis, visual perception algorithms, or automated image parameter processing — including display processors, camera systems, and computer vision modules — should assess exposure to the '293 Patent. The without-prejudice dismissal and preserved appeal rights mean the patent's enforceability is not permanently resolved. If IPT appeals the claim construction and prevails, the patent could re-enter active enforcement posture against LG and potentially other defendants.
Official order — verbatim text
The final judgment entered on the parties' stipulation reflects a court-ordered invalidity finding, not merely a voluntary dismissal — the histogram claim construction was the operative trigger. IPT's concession that Pirim anticipates the construed Claim 1 under §102 is a merits-level concession, and the judgment binds IPT accordingly. LG's unadjudicated counterclaims survive in suspension, revivable only if appellate review alters the claim construction foundation.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the invalidity stipulation means for both parties
Claim construction drove a stipulated invalidity and final judgment
After the court construed a key histogram limitation in Claim 1 more broadly than IPT's litigation position required, IPT acknowledged that prior art WO 99/36893 (Pirim) disclosed that limitation as construed. The parties stipulated to invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §102, and the court entered final judgment accordingly. LG's unadjudicated counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving them if any appeal revives IPT's infringement claims.
Stipulated invalidity — §102IPT takes nothing; Claim 1 ruled invalid against it
The court ordered that IPT shall take nothing from LG with respect to Claim 1 of the '293 Patent. The dismissal is without prejudice, preserving IPT's right to appeal the claim construction and any other court rulings. If the claim construction is reversed or modified on appeal, IPT retains the ability to revive its infringement claims, and LG retains the right to reassert its counterclaims. The broader patent portfolio implications are not disclosed in the available record.
No damages — appeal right preservedLG obtains invalidity judgment; counterclaims preserved for any appeal scenario
LG secured a final judgment of invalidity of Claim 1 without proceeding to trial. All of LG's unadjudicated claims, counterclaims, and defenses were dismissed as moot and without prejudice, with an explicit right to reassert them if IPT's infringement claims are revived on appeal. Costs and attorneys' fees motions are tolled pending any appeal, meaning LG's fee recovery position, if any, remains unresolved.
Invalidity confirmed — fees unresolvedClaim construction scope is the pivotal risk variable for visual perception patents
This case illustrates how a single claim construction ruling can collapse an entire patent assertion before trial. The broadening of the histogram limitation made Claim 1 vulnerable to a §102 anticipation finding from a single prior art reference. Companies operating in image processing and computer vision should treat claim construction outcomes as go/no-go decision points for litigation strategy, and conduct FTO analysis against both the claim language and plausible judicial constructions of that language.
Claim construction risk — image processingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Image Processing Technologies, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LG Electronics, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | LG Electronics USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jamie H. McDole | Attorney | Counsel for Image Processing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Daley Karson | Attorney | Counsel for Image Processing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Phillip Brett Philbin | Attorney | Counsel for Image Processing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Shawn Williamson | Attorney | Counsel for Image Processing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Winstead PC | Law Firm | Representing Image Processing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Winstead PC(Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Image Processing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Betelhem Zewge Gedlu | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian M. Cook | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Clarence Rowland | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Sebastian Almeling | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Earl Glenn Thames , Jr | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Grant Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Margaret O'Boyle | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Liang | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael E. Jones | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas J. Whilt | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shaun William Hassett | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O'Melveny & Myers LLP | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O'Melveny & Myers LLP (LA) | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O'Melveny & Myers LLP - NY | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O'Melveny & Myers LLP - San Francisco | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Potter Minton PC | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the image processing and visual perception IP space
This case surfaces actionable patent intelligence signals for teams working in image processing, computer vision, and histogram-based visual analysis — the core technology domain of US6959293B2.
Image Processing Technologies' assertion portfolio beyond the '293 Patent
IPT has asserted patents in image processing against multiple consumer electronics defendants. Understanding the breadth and filing activity of IPT's portfolio — beyond US6959293B2 — is critical for any company operating in visual perception, display processing, or camera systems. Monitoring IPT's continuation and divisional filings can signal future assertion targets.
PAE portfolio — image processingHistogram-based image analysis patent filing trends
Histogram calculation and image parameter extraction remain active areas of patent filing in computer vision and display processing. Mapping the current filing landscape around histogram-based feature extraction — including applications in AI-driven image analysis — helps R&D teams identify crowded claim spaces and potential design-around opportunities relative to the '293 Patent's construed claim scope.
Filing trends — histogram image analysisLG Electronics' image processing and visual perception patent activity
LG Electronics maintains a substantial patent portfolio in display processing, camera systems, and image quality enhancement. Analysing LG's offensive patent filings in the histogram and image parameter processing domain — alongside the prior art it surfaced through the Pirim reference — can reveal competitive IP positioning and potential cross-licensing leverage points for the sector.
LG Electronics — display IPDesign-around opportunities in automatic visual perception systems
The court's broadened construction of the histogram limitation in US6959293B2 simultaneously opened the patent to prior art invalidation and identified claim scope boundaries. R&D teams can use the construed claim language to map white-space areas in automatic visual perception — particularly approaches that avoid histogram-representative-parameter architectures — as freedom-to-operate design targets.
Design-around — visual perceptionSimilar patent cases: image processing assertions in E.D. Tex.
Explore related patent infringement cases involving image processing and computer vision patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas against consumer electronics defendants.
What this case signals for the image processing IP landscape
A single claim construction ruling invalidated the only asserted claim — a pattern with broad implications for visual perception patent assertions.
Claim construction is the de facto trial for visual perception patent cases
IPT's entire case collapsed when the court broadened the histogram limitation. For patent holders in image processing and computer vision, the construction of functional claim terms is the decisive battleground. Investing in prosecution history and claim drafting that constrains judicial interpretation is a material risk-mitigation step.
Prior art searches must account for plausible claim constructions, not just literal scope
Pirim (WO 99/36893) was only fatal once the court broadened the claim. FTO and validity analyses in the image processing space should map prior art against multiple plausible constructions of functional terms — not just the patentee's preferred narrow reading.
Image v LG — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice following a stipulated final judgment of invalidity. After the Eastern District of Texas construed a key histogram limitation in Claim 1 of US6959293B2, IPT conceded that prior art WO 99/36893 (Pirim) anticipated the claim as construed under 35 U.S.C. §102. IPT takes nothing; LG's counterclaims were dismissed as moot without prejudice.
Following claim construction, the court interpreted 'the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter' to mean 'one or more histograms representative of the at least one parameter.' Under that broader construction, IPT conceded that prior art reference WO 99/36893 (Pirim) discloses the limitation, rendering Claim 1 anticipated under §102.
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice; the docket order is styled as a final judgment of invalidity. The dismissal without prejudice preserves IPT's right to appeal the claim construction and related rulings. If the Federal Circuit reverses or modifies the claim construction on appeal, IPT's infringement claims could be revived and LG's counterclaims would also be revivable.
IPT asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,959,293 (US6959293B2), titled 'Method and device for automatic visual perception,' application number US09/792,436. Only Claim 1 was at issue. No other claims of the '293 Patent were asserted in this lawsuit.
The court's order tolls the time for filing any petition or motion for costs and attorneys' fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) pending a final non-appealable decision on any appeal of the final judgment. If no appeal is filed, LG may file for costs or fees within fourteen days after the last day for filing a notice of appeal. The specific merits of any fee claim are not addressed in the available record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.