Defendant
2 cases as defendant.
Overview. Olympus Corporation (short name: Olympus) is a Japanese medical-technology company founded on October 12, 1919, originally as Takachiho Seisakusho. It is headquartered in Hachioji, Tokyo, and is publicly listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange (ticker 7733) — an independent public company, not a subsidiary. Olympus reports roughly 29,000 employees worldwide and consolidated revenue of about ¥936 billion for the fiscal year ended March 2024 (per its own financial results), rising to roughly ¥997 billion in FY2025 (per Olympus company facts).
Products / operations. Olympus is a medical device maker built on two main segments: Endoscopic Solutions (gastrointestinal and surgical endoscopes, plus medical services) and Therapeutic Solutions (surgical energy devices and related treatment instruments). It is an operating company, not an NPE. Historically it also made consumer digital cameras (OM-D, Pen, Tough lines) and scientific/inspection equipment; it exited the imaging business (sold to Japan Industrial Partners, now OM Digital Solutions) and the scientific-solutions business (sold to Bain Capital, now Evident), refocusing on medical devices.
Patent-litigation posture. The tracked data lists Olympus only as plaintiff (2 cases, 0 as defendant), but both entries stem from a single 2018 dispute with Maxell, Ltd., a Japanese operating company that actively enforces a patent portfolio inherited from the Hitachi group. Maxell sued Olympus and Olympus America in D. Del. (C.A. 18-310) asserting camera-related patents (e.g., U.S. 6,765,616; 7,199,821; 7,551,209; 8,130,284; 8,059,177). Olympus's "plaintiff" appearances reflect its responsive filings — a declaratory-judgment action in D. Del. (C.A. 18-216) and PTAB inter partes review petitions (e.g., against U.S. 7,995,897) — rather than an assertion campaign. Both venues were D. Del., not the Eastern District of Texas.
Context. The patents at issue concern the consumer-imaging products (OM-D E-M1 Mark II, Pen-F, Tough TG models) and technologies such as white-balance control, video recording/reproduction, and battery/power management. Olympus's tracked litigation is confined to this one Maxell dispute.
Fleet Connect Solutions LLC asserted the '153 patent against OM Digital Solutions Corp. and Olympus Corp. in E.D. Tex. The case was voluntarily dismissed on 2025-02-10.
IV sued Canon and originally Olympus entities; Olympus was dismissed with prejudice on Dec. 11, 2012. Jury verdicts in 2014 went for Canon on induced infringement of claims 19 and 20 of the '960 patent and for IV on '081 claim 3 and '686 claims 14 & 16. The court later found the '960 claims anticipated and granted IV a new trial on infringement of the '348 and '960 patents; a subsequent ruling found a claim 1 limitation indefinite. No final liability win on the '960 patent for IV against Canon.