 |
A new lawsuit, submitted by reps for cinema camera producer Pink, accuses Nikon of illegally making use of its patented info compression engineering in its Nikon Z9 total-frame mirrorless digital camera.
In accordance to the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court docket for the Central District of California, the plaintiff, Pink.com, LLC (Purple), is accusing the defendant, Nikon Company (Nikon), of patent infringement. Specially, Red is accusing Nikon of knowingly employing technological innovation described in RED’s patents pertaining to ‘highly compress[ed] video clip data in a visually lossless manner’ in its Nikon’s Z collection mirrorless cameras, ‘such as the “Nikon Z9 with Firmware 2..”’
As we noted again in December 2021, Nikon is licensing intoPIX’s TicoRAW technological innovation for the 8K/60p N-Uncooked online video in its Z9 mirrorless digicam. What is intriguing is that intoPIX describes its patented TicoRAW engineering as ‘mathematically lossless and visually lossless down to 1 bit for every pixel,’ which is incredibly related to how Crimson describes its technological innovation.
 |
| A screenshot from intoPIX’s site showing the advantages of its patented TicoRAW know-how. |
Crimson further more alleges Nikon understood about these patented systems and its ‘prior lawsuits involving a single or additional of the asserted patents.’ Especially, Pink mentions its grievances in opposition to Kinefinity, Nokia and Sony, with Sony going so much as to countersue Red for infringing on its patents.
In accordance to RED’s criticism, Nikon’s use of its patented compression know-how is ‘likely to lead to irreparable harm to Crimson, which cannot be sufficiently compensated by dollars damages,’ by way of ‘lost product sales and earnings, decreased enterprise, and harm to its general popularity and industry standing.’ Regardless of alleging it ‘cannot be sufficiently compensated by cash damages, Pink suggests it is ‘entitled to an increase of damages up to a few times the amount discovered or assessed at the very least owing to Nikon’s willful and deliberate infringement [and] entitled to an award of its attorneys’ costs mainly because Nikon’s infringement provides an fantastic case.’
Purple is also trying to get ‘a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Nikon from infringing the statements,’ meaning it wants Nikon to quit promoting and marketing the goods allegedly infringing on RED’s know-how. What isn’t clear is why Pink is suing Nikon as an alternative of intoPIX, thinking about Nikon’s licensing of intoPIX’s TicoRAW technology was fairly properly protected in field. However, Crimson does precisely point out that Nikon sells goods in the exact same channels as it does in the complaint and notes income Nikon’s allegedly infringing merchandise will hurt RED’s bottom line.
This is purely speculation, but it’s doable Pink does not experience as even though they have a case towards intoPIX, considering that they are in distinct markets: digital camera components vs codec licensing, respectively. It’s also achievable Purple is hoping this criticism will end result in a settlement with Nikon, who can very likely afford to pay for to come to a a lot more considerable economic agreement in contrast to intoPIX.
Underneath is the comprehensive complaint:
We have contacted both Nikon and Pink for opinions on this matter. As of publishing this posting, only Nikon responded, but said it was ‘unable to remark on the subject.’