DCT

2:26-cv-10431

Irdeto USA Inc v. SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-10431, E.D. Mich., 02/06/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district and Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Irdeto hybrid middleware" product does not infringe twenty-five U.S. patents owned by Defendant related to the H.266/HEVC/VVC video compression standards.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on advanced video compression technologies, specifically the H.266/HEVC/VVC standards, which are fundamental to the efficient transmission and storage of high-definition digital video.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes extensive ongoing patent litigation between the parties in the U.S., Europe, and China. This action follows correspondence from Defendant DJI alleging that Plaintiff's products infringe the patents-in-suit and demanding that Plaintiff take a license.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-04-02 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. 11,350,124; 11,363,294; 11,381,839; 11,490,118; 11,490,120; 11,871,032; 11,949,911; 11,949,912; 11,997,312; 12,294,736; 12,294,737; 12,294,738; 12,389,030
2019-01-03 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. 11,178,420; 11,689,736; 11,743,482
2021-11-16 Issue Date for U.S. 11,178,420
2022-05-31 Issue Date for U.S. 11,350,124
2022-06-14 Issue Date for U.S. 11,363,294
2022-07-05 Issue Date for U.S. 11,381,839
2022-11-01 Issue Date for U.S. 11,490,118; 11,490,120
2023-01-09 Issue Date for U.S. 11,871,032
2023-01-09 Issue Date for U.S. 11,871,004
2023-06-27 Issue Date for U.S. 11,689,736
2023-08-29 Issue Date for U.S. 11,743,482
2023-09-02 Issue Date for U.S. 12,407,814
2024-03-19 Issue Date for U.S. 11,936,847
2024-04-02 Issue Date for U.S. 11,949,911; 11,949,912
2024-05-28 Issue Date for U.S. 11,997,254; 11,997,312
2024-08-20 Issue Date for U.S. 12,069,252
2024-11-26 Issue Date for U.S. 12,155,856
2025-02-18 Issue Date for U.S. 12,231,696
2025-04-15 Irdeto files patent infringement claims against DJI in the Unified Patent Court
2025-05-06 Issue Date for U.S. 12,294,736; 12,294,737; 12,294,738
2025-08-12 Issue Date for U.S. 12,389,030
2025-07-15 Issue Date for U.S. 12,363,311
2025-10-20 DJI sends email correspondence to Irdeto identifying Asserted Patents
2025-10-24 DJI files suit against Irdeto in the Eastern District of Texas on other patents
2025-11-05 DJI files a complaint against Irdeto in China
2025-11-26 DJI sends further correspondence with exemplary claim charts
2025-12-22 N.Y. Times article date cited regarding a U.S. ban on DJI drones
2026-02-06 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed
2024-07-16 Issue Date for U.S. 12,041,231

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,350,124 - "Image Processing Method and Image Processing Device" (Issued May 31, 2022)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In video compression, predicting motion between frames is essential for efficiency. However, existing prediction methods may be inefficient when dealing with "long-term reference images"—artificially created background frames—because their temporal relationship to the current frame is not as clear as with standard, sequentially decoded frames (’124 Patent, col. 7:45-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a differential processing method for motion compensation that depends on the type of reference image being used ('124 Patent, abstract). If the reference images are standard "short-term" frames, the system performs a search to find and correct a motion vector ('124 Patent, col. 14:1-13). However, if one or both reference images are designated as "long-term," the system bypasses this computationally intensive correction step and performs the prediction directly with the initial motion vector ('124 Patent, col. 14:14-26). This branching logic is depicted in the patent's Figure 1 ('124 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve video encoding efficiency by avoiding computationally expensive and potentially inaccurate motion vector correction searches when referencing long-term frames, which often lack clear, linear temporal correlation with the current frame.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Claim 1 (Method) includes the elements of:
    • determining an image before a current frame as a long-term reference image according to an identifier;
    • obtaining first and second initial motion vectors pointing to first and second reference images, respectively;
    • in response to both reference images being short-term, performing searches to obtain corrected motion vectors and performing prediction; and
    • in response to one or both reference images being a long-term reference image, performing prediction using the initial motion vectors without correction.
  • The complaint also states that it does not infringe any dependent claims of the '124 Patent (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 11,363,294 - "Image Processing Method and Image Processing Device" (Issued June 14, 2022)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the '124 patent, this patent addresses inefficiencies in motion prediction when using long-term reference frames in video compression (’294 Patent, col. 7:45-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a video processing method where, upon determining that a reference image is a "long-term reference image," the system performs prediction for the current coding unit using an initial motion vector "without correcting" it ('294 Patent, abstract). This creates a simplified, direct prediction path specifically for long-term reference frames, as illustrated in the patent's Figure 1 flowchart ('294 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: By forgoing the motion vector correction step for long-term reference frames, the patented method may reduce computational complexity and improve encoding speed in scenarios involving static or slowly changing backgrounds represented by such frames.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Claim 1 (Method) includes the elements of:
    • determining, according to an identifier, an image before a current frame in time sequence as a long-term reference image;
    • obtaining an initial motion vector of a current coding unit, the initial motion vector pointing to the reference image; and
    • in response to determining the reference image to be a long-term reference image, performing prediction for the current coding unit according to the initial motion vector without correcting the initial motion vector.
  • The complaint also states that it does not infringe any dependent claims of the '294 Patent (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 11,381,839 - "Method and Device for Image Motion Compensation" (Issued July 5, 2022)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a video processing method involving the determination of a first initial motion vector pointing to a forward reference frame and a second initial motion vector pointing to a backward reference frame for a 64x64 pixel image block (Compl. ¶60). A key aspect is that the temporal distance from the first reference image to the current image is the same as the distance from the second reference image to the current image (Compl. ¶60).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 2, and 3 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Irdeto's products do not practice the claimed method, particularly the step of determining motion vectors for a 64x64 pixel block with symmetric forward and backward reference frames (Compl. ¶¶29, 60).

U.S. Patent No. 11,490,118 - "Method and Device for Image Motion Compensation" (Issued November 1, 2022)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a video processing method that involves determining a specific neighboring image block that is spatially adjacent to a coding unit (Compl. ¶68). The method requires that a reference image of this neighboring block be the same as a co-located reference image of the coding unit itself (Compl. ¶68).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 2, and 3 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: The "Irdeto Hybrid Middleware" is accused of infringing, though Irdeto pleads that its products do not meet the limitations related to identifying and using a neighboring image block with an identical co-located reference image (Compl. ¶¶29, 68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Irdeto Hybrid Middleware," identified as the "Accused Product" (Compl. ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint states that DJI alleges the Accused Product is employed in platforms such as the Realtek Semiconductor RTD1319D System-on-Chip (SoC) (Compl. ¶¶29, 31). This SoC platform is described as supporting the VVC/H.266 codec and being compatible with Android TV and RDK systems (Compl. ¶31).
  • DJI allegedly identified two set-top box products, the "Vivensis VX Smart" and "Dafeng 大大寬頻 TV STB," as examples of products that implement the VVC/H.266 standard by utilizing the RTD1319D chip, which includes Irdeto's products (Compl. ¶31).
  • Irdeto alleges that it "does not make, use, offer to sell, or sell any product that infringes the Asserted Patents" and has never sold or shipped software in the United States that encodes or decodes video according to the H.266/HEVC standard (Compl. ¶¶6, 43).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts mapping Irdeto's products to the patent claims. Instead, as an action for declaratory judgment, it identifies specific claim limitations that Irdeto's products allegedly do not meet. The complaint alleges that DJI provided exemplary claim charts (Compl., Exs. E-I) purporting to show how the H.266/HEVC video standard practices the patented inventions; however, these exhibits are not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶30). DJI's infringement theory, as presented by Irdeto, is that because Irdeto's products implement the video standard, they necessarily practice the inventions of the Asserted Patents (Compl. ¶31).

Irdeto's narrative theory of non-infringement for the lead patents is as follows:

  • '124 Patent: Irdeto alleges its software and services do not infringe because they do not perform the claimed step of "determining, according to an identifier, an image before a current frame in time sequence as a long-term reference image" (Compl. ¶44). It also alleges non-infringement of limitations related to performing a "first search near an image block pointed to by the first initial motion vector" (Compl. ¶44).
  • '294 Patent: Irdeto alleges its software and services do not infringe because they do not perform the step of "determining, according to an identifier, an image before a current frame in time sequence as a long-term reference image" (Compl. ¶52). It further alleges non-infringement of the limitation requiring, in response to such a determination, "performing prediction for the current coding unit according to the initial motion vector without correcting the initial motion vector" (Compl. ¶52).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The central issue appears to be a factual one: do the accused "Irdeto Hybrid Middleware" products, as sold or offered for sale in the United States, practice the H.266/HEVC/VVC video standard? The parties present conflicting positions on this threshold question (Compl. ¶31; Compl. ¶41).
    • Technical Question: Assuming for the sake of analysis that the products do practice video compression, a key technical question for the '124 and '294 patents will be whether Irdeto's methods utilize a structure that can be defined as a "long-term reference image" as that term is used in the patents. The dispute will likely focus on whether Irdeto's system performs the specific differential processing steps (i.e., correcting or not correcting motion vectors) based on the type of reference image being used.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "long-term reference image"
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because Irdeto's asserted basis for non-infringement of both lead patents rests on its products not meeting limitations that require determining or using a "long-term reference image" (Compl. ¶44; Compl. ¶52). The construction of this term will be critical to determining the scope of the claims and whether Irdeto's products, if they perform any video compression, fall within that scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the '124 Patent states that a "long-term reference image is not a decoded image, but an artificially composed image" that may include blocks "taken from different decoded images" ('124 Patent, col. 7:18-24). This language could support a construction that covers any non-standard, synthetically generated reference frame.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently contrasts "long-term reference images" with "short-term reference images," which are described as standard decoded frames in the video sequence ('124 Patent, col. 7:25-27). This consistent distinction may support a narrower construction limited to specific types of artificially composed background frames, potentially excluding other types of reference frames that Irdeto's system might use.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement. As a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer, the complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement on all grounds, including direct, induced, and contributory infringement, but does not plead facts that would form the basis of such claims against it (Compl. Prayer for Relief, A).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What evidence can be adduced to demonstrate whether the "Irdeto Hybrid Middleware" actually performs video encoding or decoding that complies with the H.266/HEVC/VVC standard? The case may turn on this fundamental factual dispute before any detailed claim analysis is reached.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "long-term reference image"? The outcome of this construction will likely determine whether Irdeto's technology, irrespective of its compliance with a formal standard, performs the specific differential processing steps required by the asserted claims of the lead patents.
  • A threshold procedural question will be one of jurisdiction: Has DJI's pattern of global litigation and pre-suit licensing demands created a sufficiently "immediate and substantial controversy" to support the court's subject matter jurisdiction over this action for declaratory judgment?
Loading Complaint