US 8198574

Summary: US Patent 8,198,574 B2 ("Large dynamic range cameras")

Search note / sourcing: I searched for "8198574" in USPTO/Google Patents and for CAFC 2026 docket activity. The bibliographic data below is corroborated by Google Patents, Justia, and the USPTO-front-page PDF (Docket Alarm exhibit of the patent). I found no CAFC 2026 appeal for this patent number; the only USPTO-adjacent proceedings surfaced were PTAB matters — IPR2022-00710 (Toyota Motor Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC), which exhibited the patent (Exhibit 1029), and IPR2025-00222 (Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II), which exhibits assignment-chain records for the patent family. Neither is a CAFC docket, and I have no evidence of a 2026 CAFC appeal. (I could not confirm the current status of those IPRs.)

Bibliographic data

• Title: Large dynamic range cameras
• Patent / publication no.: US8198574B2 (also shown as US 8,198,574 B2); application no. US12/496,854
• Filing date: July 2, 2009 (continuation chain: continuation of US11/788,122, filed Apr. 19, 2007, issued as US7564019B2; which was a continuation-in-part of US11/212,803, filed Aug. 25, 2005)
• Priority date: August 25, 2004 (provisional 60/604,854; also provisional 60/695,946 filed Jul. 1, 2005, and provisional 60/795,882 filed Apr. 28, 2006)
• Issue date: June 12, 2012
• Inventors: Richard Ian Olsen, Darryl L. Sato, Feng-Qing Sun, and James Gates (all listed as Irvine, CA, US)
• Original assignee at issue: Protarius Filo AG, L.L.C. (Dover, DE). Chain later: Newport Imaging Corp. → Protarius Filo AG, L.L.C. → Callahan Cellular L.L.C. (merger, 2015) → Intellectual Ventures II LLC (assignment, 2021) — the currently listed assignee on Google Patents.
• Legal status: Active (Google Patents shows an adjusted expiration of ~Jan. 20, 2027); the Google Patents family page flags "Family has litigation."

Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"A digital camera includes a plurality of channels and a processing component operatively coupled to the plurality of channels. Each channel of the plurality of channels includes an optics component and a sensor that includes an array of photo-detectors. The processing component is configured to separately control an integration time of each channel, where a first integration time of a first channel is less than a second integration time of a second channel. The processing component is also configured to combine data from the plurality of channels to generate an image."

Plain-language overview of the invention

The patent is directed to extending the single-frame dynamic range of a digital camera. Instead of one image sensor with one integration (exposure) time — which either saturates in bright areas or loses dark detail — the camera uses two or more camera channels, each with its own optics component and its own sensor array (typically multiple arrays on one semiconductor substrate). Each channel's integration time is controlled independently and (near-)simultaneously within the same frame, so a long-integration channel captures shadow detail while a short-integration channel captures highlight detail without saturation. The channel outputs are combined (with per-pixel correction for nonlinearity/gain/offset) into a composite image having a dynamic range larger than any single channel could provide, avoiding the temporal-aliasing problems of sequential multi-exposure prior art (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 4,647,975). Channels may be color-dedicated (e.g., R/G/B) and/or exposure-dedicated (e.g., 0.1/1/10 ms), with optional closed-loop integration-time control per frame.

Independent claims — important caveat

I must flag a significant uncertainty: the patent text supplied to me (the Google Patents HTML full text) does not include the claims section, and my searches did not retrieve the verbatim claim language of US8198574B2. I therefore cannot authoritatively recite or number the independent claims, and I will not fabricate their wording. What I can say with confidence is that the abstract itself mirrors the claim 1-style apparatus recitation, which the USPTO front page and family members (e.g., US9232158B2, same abstract) confirm. Based on the abstract and specification, the independent claim set appears to include at least an apparatus claim directed to:

• A digital camera having a plurality of channels (each channel = an optics component + a sensor with an array of photo-detectors), plus a processing component that (a) separately controls each channel's integration time such that a first channel's integration time is less than a second channel's integration time, and (b) combines data from the channels to generate an image (i.e., a wide-dynamic-range composite from simultaneously captured frames).

The specification also describes method embodiments (selecting integration times per channel, integrating photo-signals within a single frame, correcting and combining pixel responses into a continuous monotonic response), so the patent may include one or more method independent claims of that character — but I have not verified their existence or wording from the actual claims text.

Bottom line: If you need the exact independent claim language, the authoritative source is the USPTO full-text (claims PDF/PatentCenter) for 8,198,574 or Google Patents' claims tab, which I could not fully retrieve in this session. My high-confidence data covers title, inventors, assignee, dates, abstract, and the core inventive concept; the claim-by-claim breakdown above is a faithful paraphrase of the abstract/specification rather than a verified transcription of the granted claims.

Based on the searches I was able to complete, here is what can be verified and what cannot.

Direct litigation naming US 8,198,574 B2

I could not confirm any district-court or PTAB proceeding in which US 8,198,574 B2 itself ("Large dynamic range cameras") is the specifically asserted or challenged patent. The search results that reference the '574 patent do so only in the context of its patent family — chiefly through its continuation, US 9,232,158 B2 (also "Large dynamic range cameras"). The Google Patents record for the '574 family carries a "Family has litigation" designation, but the identified litigations concern family members rather than the '574 patent by number.

Verified proceedings against the related continuation patent 9,232,158 B2 (family member)

Because these are the litigations actually surfaced and they involve the direct continuation of '574, they are the closest known matters, but they should not be conflated with suits asserting '574 itself:

1. Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00222 (P.T.A.B.)

   • Petitioner: Tesla, Inc.
   • Patent Owner: Intellectual Ventures II LLC
   • Patent at issue: US 9,232,158 B2 (claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–11, 13–16, and 19) — not '574 itself
   • Filed: November 26, 2024
   • Status: Trial instituted (Institution Decision July 8, 2025); Patent Owner Response (Oct. 7, 2025), Petitioner Reply (Dec. 30, 2025), Sur-reply (Feb. 3, 2026), requests for oral argument filed Feb. 17, 2026, panel change order Mar. 24, 2026 — pending/trial instituted as of the search date.

2. Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. General Motors Company, No. 6:21-cv-01088-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

   • Identified in the IPR papers as the "GM Litigation," filed October 19, 2021
   • Concerned the '158 patent (9,232,158); the court issued claim-construction rulings (Dec. 1, 2022) that were later adopted in the Tesla IPR for terms such as "integration time" and "image capture device." The same automotive campaign asserted camera patents 9,232,158 and 7,916,180, but '574 is not listed as a patent-in-suit in the materials I retrieved.

3. IV's 2024 Tesla district-court filings — W.D. Tex. Nos. 1:24-cv-00390 (Austin) and 6:24-cv-00188 (Waco) (per RPX, filed April 2024) asserted a dozen IV patents including 9,232,158 but not 8,198,574.

Bottom line

• No confirmed litigation directly involving US 8,198,574 B2 was found in the available search results.
• The '574 patent's continuation (9,232,158 B2) is actively litigated — most notably in PTAB IPR2025-00222 (Tesla v. IV) and in the W.D. Tex. automotive campaign (GM, Toyota, Honda, Volvo, Tesla cases) — which is presumably why the family is flagged as having litigation.
• If you need a definitive statement that '574 has never been asserted, that would require a deeper PACER/RPX/Darts-IP family-level search (e.g., checking every complaint listing the '574 patent number), which exceeded the available search steps. I can run those additional targeted checks if you'd like.

I'll research any AIA trial proceedings on US Patent 8,198,574, starting with direct searches and cross-checking the IPRs mentioned in prior work.

The initial results confirm the '574 patent appears only as an exhibit in IPRs against its continuation (9,232,158). Let me run additional targeted checks to confirm no IPR/PGR/CBM directly challenges '574 itself.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) have ever been filed against US 8,198,574 B2 itself — the USPTO Open Data Portal block supplied with this prompt returns no proceedings for the patent, and targeted searches confirm that 8,198,574 appears on PTAB dockets only as exhibits (file history / assignment evidence) in IPRs directed at its continuation, US 9,232,158 B2. The breakdown is therefore: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied — and the bottom-line defensive posture is that every claim of 8,198,574 is completely untested at the PTAB: no claim has been canceled, no estoppel binds any would-be challenger, and all § 102/§ 103 grounds remain fully available.

Related proceedings — not against 8,198,574 (same family; continuation 9,232,158 B2)

Before the per-proceeding detail, an important framing point: two IPRs surfaced repeatedly in searching for 8,198,574, but both challenge US 9,232,158 B2 — the direct continuation of 8,198,574 — not the '574 patent. In both, the '574 patent appears only as evidence (e.g., Ex. 1032 in IPR2025-00222 is the file history "FH 12496854 issued as US 8,198,574"). They are summarized below because they are the closest PTAB activity to this patent and are highly probative of how the family's claims fare before the Board, but they create no estoppel and no claim cancellation for 8,198,574.

IPR2022-00710 — Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-04-11 (petition; notice of filing date accorded 2022-04-27)
• Status: Terminated — settlement after institution (Termination Decision 2023-04-04, Paper 17); no Final Written Decision ever issued
• Judge panel: Not retrieved in available search results (panel names not surfaced in the docket snippets I obtained)
• Petition grounds: Directed at claims of US 9,232,158 B2 (the '574 continuation). Petitioner relied on, inter alia, US 5,801,773, JP Laid-Open H11-317905, US 6,943,837, and WO 02/0198112 A2, with a declaration of Dr. Alan Conrad Bovik (Ex. 1004). Statutory basis § 102/§ 103 — this proceeding did not challenge any claim of 8,198,574.
• Institution decision: Instituted — Institution Decision issued 2022-10-26 (Paper 13). Toyota sought rehearing 2022-11-23 (Paper 14).
• Final Written Decision: None. The proceeding was terminated before a merits decision. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate (2023-03-27, Paper 15) after the underlying W.D. Tex. litigation (Intellectual Ventures v. Toyota, E.D. Tex.) was "dismissed pursuant to Court Order dated March 20, 2023 [Dkt. No. 159] on joint motion of the parties" following a settlement agreement (treated as business-confidential, Paper 16). The Board granted termination 2023-04-04 (Paper 17) — the same order terminated a group of related IV/Toyota IPRs (IPR2022-00708, -00709, -00710, -00857, -00970, -00971).
• Settlement / termination: Settled; terms confidential. Termination decision: "ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate are GRANTED; and FURTHER ORDERED that Cases IPR2022-00708, IPR2022-00709, IPR2022-00710, IPR2022-00857, IPR2022-00970, and IPR2022-00971 are hereby terminated." (35 U.S.C. § 317, 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.)
• Appeal: None — no FWD, nothing appealable.
• Defensive value for a '574 defendant: None directly (different patent, no merits holding). But it is a pattern signal: the Board instituted against the continuation, and IV settled with Toyota rather than litigate to an FWD — suggesting vulnerability in this claim family and a patent owner willing to resolve rather than risk cancellation.

IPR2025-00222 — Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-11-26
• Status: Trial instituted — pending (Institution Decision 2025-07-08, Paper 10; as of 2026-09-04 I found no Final Written Decision in my searches). Panel change order issued 2026-03-24; requests for oral argument filed 2026-02-17.
• Judge panel: Scott A. Daniels, Frederick C. Laney, and Matthew S. Meyers, Administrative Patent Judges; Laney, APJ, author of the Institution Decision.
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–11, 13–16, and 19 of US 9,232,158 B2 (again the continuation — not 8,198,574). Grounds rely on US 6,611,289 (Yu), US 7,365,780 (Miyazaki), JP2003-319231 (Matsushima), and Eastman Kodak shutter-operation/CMOS literature, with a declaration of R. Michael Guidash (Ex. 1003). Statutory basis § 102/§ 103. Patent Owner IV filed a Request for Discretionary Denial (Paper 6), which the Acting Director denied 2025-06-13 (Paper 9).
• Institution decision: Instituted 2025-07-08 on all challenged claims. Panel reasoning: "we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in the Petition." The panel rejected IV's construction attempts to import "independent control" / "focal-plane" implementation limits into "control an integration time."
• Final Written Decision: None identified as of 2026-09-04. Statutory FWD deadline was ~2026-07-08 (one year from institution), but the 2026-03-24 panel change and 2026-02-17 oral-argument requests indicate schedule activity; I could not confirm whether an FWD has issued or the deadline was extended (Board may extend up to six months for good cause). Check PTAB E2E/PTACTS for the current docket.
• Settlement / termination: None indicated — proceeding is active.
• Appeal: N/A (no FWD yet).
• Defensive value for a '574 defendant: No estoppel and no claim action against '574. But the Institution Decision construes overlapping family terminology (e.g., "integration time," "control an integration time") and rejects IV's narrowing constructions — reasoning that would likely be persuasive, though not binding, in a future IPR on '574. Note also that in the parallel Tesla W.D. Tex. litigation (per the complaint exhibited as Ex. 1017 in this IPR), the patents-in-suit include the '158 patent and numerous other IV patents, but 8,198,574 is not among the patents identified in the portions of the complaint I retrieved — consistent with the finding that '574 has not been the subject of district-court assertion either.

Strategic summary

Claim status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Every claim of US 8,198,574 B2 is UNTESTED. No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition has ever been filed against the '574 patent; the USPTO Open Data Portal lists no AIA trial for it; and my web searches surfaced the '574 patent only as an exhibit (file-history and assignment evidence) inside IPRs directed at its continuation, 9,232,158. Because I could not retrieve the granted claim text of '574 in this session (flagged in the earlier claim summary), I cannot enumerate individual claims — but the operative statement is that no claim of '574 has been canceled or even challenged before the Board, and the patent remains in force with an adjusted expiration around 2027-01-20.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e) estoppel attaches only to claims actually challenged (or challengable) in a completed IPR by a petitioner and its privies. Since there has been no proceeding on '574, no petitioner is estopped from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground against it. Critically, the Toyota and Tesla IPRs estopped those petitioners only as to the '158 patent's claims — they do not bar re-assertion of the same or similar art against '574, and they bind neither the patent owner nor unrelated defendants. For a defendant facing '574 today: all prior-art grounds are available, subject only to the § 315(b) one-year clock measured from service of a complaint asserting '574.

Pattern signals. The family is under sustained attack from the automotive sector: Toyota (IPR2022-00710, instituted then settled), GM (the W.D. Tex. "GM Litigation" 6:21-cv-01088 that produced the claim constructions later adopted in the Tesla IPR), Volvo, and now Tesla (IPR2025-00222, instituted and pending). Two institution decisions against the continuation, plus IV's settlement with Toyota rather than face an FWD, indicate the Board views this claim family as vulnerable. That is a favorable signal for a defendant: 8,198,574 has never been stress-tested, and the playbook used against '158 (Yu/Miyazaki/Matsushima/Kodak shutter art, plus the rejection of IV's "independent control"/"focal-plane" narrowing constructions) maps closely onto the shared specification of '574. The countervailing caveat: '574's claims differ in text from '158's (the parent application amended claim 1 to remove "simultaneously," per Tesla's reply), so a new petition must be built against '574's actual claim language, and with the patent expiring ~2027-01-20, an IPR filed now may not yield an FWD before expiration.

Recommended next steps

• Confirm the current IPR2025-00222 docket on USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) — determine whether a Final Written Decision on the '158 continuation issued around the July 2026 statutory deadline or was extended after the 2026-03-24 panel change. If an FWD cancels the '158 claims, it will be highly persuasive (though not binding) authority for parallel § 102/§ 103 arguments against the substantially-shared disclosure of '574. Useful public records located in this session: the IPR2025-00222 Institution Decision (Paper 10, 2025-07-08, Laney, APJ) and the IPR2022-00710 Termination Decision (2023-04-04).
• If you are served with a complaint asserting 8,198,574, calendar the § 315(b) bar date — an IPR petition must be filed within one year of service. Because no IPR has ever been filed on '574, you are not foreclosed from any ground, but the window starts on service.
• Run a fresh prior-art search against '574's actual claims (pull the claims from USPTO PatentCenter/Google Patents claims tab, which this session could not fully retrieve). No estoppel exists, so every § 102/§ 103 ground — including the art already tested against '158 — remains available.
• Weigh timing against remaining life: '574's adjusted expiration is ~2027-01-20. If you are sued now, an IPR's FWD (roughly 18 months after filing) may post-date expiration; consider whether district-court invalidity or a focused IPR filed promptly is the better vehicle, and whether the PTAB's "settled expectations" discretionary-denial guidance (litigated in the Tesla/Google v. VirtaMove line) creates an additional hurdle for a late-in-life challenge.
• Do not assume family proceedings help directly: no claim of '574 has been canceled, and the Toyota/Tesla IPRs estop only those petitioners as to '158. Any demand letter citing '574 claims must be answered with arguments addressed to '574's own claim language — but the absence of any PTAB challenge to date is itself notable: for a patent whose family is actively litigated, '574's total lack of PTAB testing means the challenger's field is wide open.

I hit the search-step limit before I could pull every Assignment Center reel/frame and correspondent, so below I've separated verified entries from gaps rather than inventing details. The verified spine of the chain comes from Google Patents legal events for US8198574B2 and from the PTAB recordation exhibit (IPR2025-00222, Ex. 1064), which confirms the final link as reel 057795/0618.

Inventors

All four named inventors — Richard Ian Olsen, Darryl L. Sato, Feng-Qing Sun, James Gates (all listed as Irvine, CA, US) — are consistent with engineers of Newport Imaging Corporation, the original operating assignee of the application family (the first recorded assignment for this patent is from Newport Imaging, and inventor-to-company assignments would have flowed to Newport Imaging before that). I could not verify individual employment agreements or W-2 relationships in this session, so employer attribution is inferred from the assignment chain, not from a sworn record.

Unusual pattern check: I found no evidence all four inventors departed Newport Imaging within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of inventor-side renegotiation or inventor litigation. Not flagged.

Original assignee

• Assignee of record named on the issued patent: Protarius Filo AG, L.L.C. (Dover, DE) — the pre-issuance assignment from Newport Imaging Corporation was recorded 2011-03-08, before the June 12, 2012 issue date, so the patent issued into IV's hands directly.
• Prior operating entity: Newport Imaging Corporation — a fabless developer of multi-array / multi-channel "digital camera subsystem" image-sensor chips (the technology this patent claims). I found no verified evidence that Newport Imaging shipped a product embodying the claims, and I could not confirm its current corporate status (dissolved/acquired/dormant) — mark unclear.
• Current status of Protarius Filo AG, L.L.C.: An Intellectual Ventures holding LLC; its interest in this patent was merged out to Callahan Cellular LLC in 2015 and then assigned to Intellectual Ventures II LLC in 2021.

Assignment timeline

I could not open USPTO Assignment Center directly in this session (search limit reached). Verified below are the three recorded post-filing events shown on the Google Patents legal-events tab for '574 (dates/parties), plus reel 057795/0618 for the final link (corroborated by Google Patents legal events on family member US9232158B2 and by PTAB IPR2025-00222 Ex. 1064). Reel/frame numbers and correspondents for the 2011 and 2015 entries were not retrievable in this session — I will not guess them. No inventor→Newport Imaging recordation was surfaced for this specific patent number.

• Executed not retrieved / recorded 2011-03-08 — Reel/frame not retrieved (Google Patents legal event only)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Newport Imaging Corporation
  • Assignee: Protarius Filo AG, L.L.C.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Transfer of the entire application family from the operating developer to an Intellectual Ventures holding LLC, before issuance — the classic inventor-company-to-NPE handoff. (Google's own record shows the July 2, 2009 continuation application as "filed by Protarius Filo AG LLC," suggesting the family was already earmarked for IV by 2009.)

• Executed not retrieved / recorded 2015-10-02 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Protarius Filo AG, L.L.C.
  • Assignee: Callahan Cellular L.L.C.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal IV reorganization — consolidation of the camera portfolio into the Callahan Cellular LLC holding vehicle (an IV subsidiary whose corporate parent is Invention Investment Fund II, LLC, per the Delaware counterclaim disclosure in The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al., No. 1:26-cv-00397, D. Del.).

• Executed 2021-10-14 / recorded 2021-10-14 — Reel 057795 / Frame 0618 (verified)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Patent Rights
  • Assignor: Callahan Cellular L.L.C. (executed at Bellevue, WA, by its CFO)
  • Assignee: Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808
  • Correspondent: not retrieved from the exhibit snippet I obtained
  • Context: Final consolidation of the portfolio into the flagship IV II entity — the entity now listed as current assignee on Google Patents.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8198574
    2004 : Priority provisional filed
    2009 : Continuation application filed
    2011 : Newport Imaging assigns to Protarius Filo AG
    2012 : Patent issued to Protarius Filo AG
    2015 : Merger to Callahan Cellular LLC
    2021 : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures II
    2025 : Tesla IPR on family patent 9232158

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The patent moved from operating developer Newport Imaging Corporation to Protarius Filo AG, L.L.C. (recorded 2011-03-08, before the 2012 issue date), then through IV holding vehicles Callahan Cellular L.L.C. (merger, 2015-10-02) to Intellectual Ventures II LLC (reel 057795/0618, 2021-10-14). Protarius Filo AG and Callahan Cellular are licensing-only Delaware LLCs; Callahan's corporate parent is IV's Invention Investment Fund II, LLC per the 2026 D. Del. disclosure. This is an operating-company → licensing-LLC chain, not naming alone.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Current assignee Intellectual Ventures II LLC is a flagship entity on every public NPE directory (Unified Patents, RPX). Intermediate assignees Protarius Filo AG LLC and Callahan Cellular LLC are IV subsidiaries; Callahan Cellular is a named party in the 2026 Delaware DJ action (Travelers) and appears throughout IV's assertion campaigns. The '574 family is flagged "has litigation" on Google Patents, and the direct continuation US9232158B2 is asserted in the W.D. Tex. automotive campaign (GM, Toyota) and challenged in IPR2025-00222 (Tesla).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (not verifiable in this session). I could not retrieve correspondent names/firms for any of the three recorded entries. No finding either way. This is the single biggest evidentiary gap in my reconstruction — the Assignment Center record would show whether one repeat attorney filed all three entries.

4. Cascading transfers — weak / partially present. Three successive transfers (2011 → 2015 → 2021) all move the patent between Intellectual Ventures affiliates, which is the cascading-LLC pattern — but the gaps are 4 and 6 years, not <24 months, so the rapid-fire tell is absent. The strength here is that every hop is internal to one NPE family, not that they were rapid.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear for '574 itself, but striking at family level. The 2021-10-14 assignment to IV II (reel 057795/0618) came five days before the 2021-10-19 GM complaint in W.D. Tex. (6:21-cv-01088-ADA) asserting the direct continuation '158 — a textbook standing/venue cleanup move. No complaint naming '574 itself was confirmed in my searches, so for this patent number the signal is "not present," with a family-level caveat.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy, § 363 sale, or insolvency proceeding surfaced for Newport Imaging, Protarius Filo, Callahan, or IV II.

7. Privateering — not present / unclear. No SEC filing or press coverage surfaced showing IV asserting this portfolio on behalf of a retained operating company against its competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain terminates at Intellectual Ventures II LLC, an offensive monetization entity — the inverse of an RPX/AST/LOT terminus.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals drive this: (1) the pre-issuance transfer of the entire family from operating developer Newport Imaging Corporation to the IV holding LLC Protarius Filo AG, L.L.C. (recorded 2011-03-08) and subsequent internal IV reshuffling through Callahan Cellular L.L.C. (merger 2015-10-02) to Intellectual Ventures II LLC (reel 057795/0618, 2021-10-14) — a pure shell-entity chain; and (2) the chain's terminus and intermediate holders are all Intellectual Ventures entities, with Callahan Cellular's parent disclosed as IV's Invention Investment Fund II, LLC in the 2026 D. Del. litigation and the '574 continuation actively asserted in the GM/Tesla/Toyota matters. The Oct. 14, 2021 transfer landing five days before the Oct. 19, 2021 GM complaint on the continuation is consistent with IV arranging clean standing before assertion. Caveat: correspondent-of-record names and the reel/frames for the 2011 and 2015 entries remain unverified — pull the full record at USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/, search by patent 8198574) to close those gaps; corroborating recordation evidence is in IPR2025-00222 Ex. 1064 (reel 057795).

Prior-Art Analysis for US Patent 8,198,574 B2 ("Large dynamic range cameras")

A. USPTO record verification for 8,198,574 (no near-number substitutions)

Verified against Google Patents, the USPTO file-history exhibit in the PTAB docket (IPR2025-00222, Ex. 1032, "FH 12496854 issued as US 8,198,574"), and the pre-grant publication record:

• Patent: US 8,198,574 B2; application no. US 12/496,854
• Filed: July 2, 2009; Issued: June 12, 2012
• Title: Large dynamic range cameras
• Inventors: Richard Ian Olsen, Darryl L. Sato, Feng-Qing Sun, James Gates (Irvine, CA, US)
• Examiner (recorded on the '574 application): Seung C. Sohn (per the file-history exhibit and US 2009/0268043 A1 publication)
• Continuity (verified): Continuation of US 11/788,122 (issued as US 7,564,019 B2) → CIP of US 11/212,803 (filed Aug. 25, 2005; published as US 2006/0054782 A1; abandoned) → provisional 60/604,854 (filed Aug. 25, 2004); also 60/695,946 (Jul. 1, 2005); 60/795,882 (Apr. 28, 2006) via the parent
• Effective filing date (earliest claimed): August 25, 2004 (60/604,854)
• Assignee chain: Protarius Filo AG LLC → Callahan Cellular L.L.C. → Intellectual Ventures II LLC (current listed assignee)
• Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8198574/en; PTAB IPR2025-00222 Ex. 1032 (file history of 12/496,854); https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0268043.html

B. Important retrieval caveat — read before relying on the claim mapping below

I must flag a verification gap. In this session I could retrieve the bibliographic record, the abstract, and the specification of 8,198,574, but not the verbatim granted claims or the front-page "References Cited" table of 8,198,574 itself from the USPTO/Google full-text rendering (the Google Patents full text supplied for this patent ends before the claims/citations; the USPTO full-text page was not crawlable within the permitted steps).

Consequently, I cannot truthfully enumerate "each patent citation" on the face of 8,198,574 as individually verified. What I can provide, and do below, is:

1. The verified front-page References Cited list of the immediate parent US 7,564,019 B2 (same inventors, same specification, same priority chain, same primary examiner Seung C. Sohn) — retrieved in full from uspto.report/patent/grant/7564019. Continuations normally carry forward the family's cited art, so this is the best available proxy, but it is a proxy.
2. The prior-art set listed in the Unified Patents dossier for the direct continuation US 9,232,158 B2 ("Patent Art (99)"), which is a continuation of 8,198,574 (via 8,334,494) and shares the same specification — also a proxy (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/9232158).
3. The patent documents named in the specification of 8,198,574 itself (4,647,975; 5,168,532; 5,671,013) — these appear in the text of the patent supplied to me.

Likewise, the verbatim claim text of 8,198,574 could not be retrieved. The abstract of 8,198,574 is an exact mirror of its claim-1-type recitation, and the parent patent's claims (1, 20, 28, 40 of 7,564,019) were fully retrieved. I therefore map prior art below to the claim 1 concept that is verified via the abstract: a digital camera with a plurality of channels (each channel = optics component + sensor with an array of photo-detectors), a processing component that separately controls each channel's integration time such that a first integration time is less than a second, and combines data from the channels to generate an image — plus the dependent concepts consistently present in the specification and parent claims (sensors integrated in a semiconductor substrate; each sensor imaging the same field of view; auto/operator control; integration times set per incident light level; combining data received "during the frame"; subsequent-frame integration-time determination). The claim numbers and wording of the granted '574 must be pulled from USPTO Patent Center before any formal § 102 chart is finalized.

C. Most relevant cited prior art and § 102 assessment

All dates below are as verified from the parent front page (uspto.report/patent/grant/7564019), the Unified Patents dossier, and/or Google Patents. Since the earliest claimed priority date is August 25, 2004, a reference must generally predate August 25, 2004 to be anticipatory under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(e), or be patented/published more than one year before the U.S. filing date under § 102(b). Post-2004 family citations (e.g., the Gruhlke 2005–2006 publications, Olsen 2007/0002159) are noted as not § 102 prior art on the dates shown unless they have earlier effective filing dates.

Tier 1 — Closest anticipatory candidates

1. US 5,760,832 — Yamanaka et al. (Minolta Co., Ltd.), "Multiple imager with shutter control"

• Dates (verified): priority/filing date Dec. 15, 1994 (Unified Patents); issued June 2, 1998 (parent front page lists "5760832 | June 1998 | Yamanaka et al.")
• Brief description: A camera with multiple image pickup devices (imagers), each with shutter/exposure control, in which different shutter speeds (equivalent to integration times) are applied to the different imagers so that bright and dark scene portions can be captured acceptably, with the imager outputs combined.
• § 102 mapping: This is the single closest reference in the family record to the independent-claim concept. If '832 discloses (i) plural channels each with its own optics and sensor, (ii) different exposure times set per channel, and (iii) combination of the channel outputs into one image, it potentially anticipates the claim 1-type apparatus claim (separate integration-time control; first time shorter than second; data combined to form an image). Open limitations that must be checked against the full '832 text: sensors integrated in a common semiconductor substrate, each channel imaging the same field of view simultaneously within one frame, and a processor that separately controls the times. If any of those structural limits is missing, '832 would instead be the primary obviousness anchor for the independent claims.

2. US 6,137,535 — Meyers, compound-eye / multi-aperture camera (issued Oct. 24, 2000)

• Dates (verified): issue date Oct. 24, 2000 (parent/sibling front pages list "6137535 | October 24, 2000 | Meyers"). Exact title/assignee not independently retrievable in this session; described here at a high level.
• Brief description: An early multi-lens/multi-sensor ("compound eye" type) camera in which an array of lenses directs scene portions onto corresponding sensor regions — cited throughout this family alongside the Tanida/Duparré compound-eye literature.
• § 102 mapping: Potentially anticipates the structural elements of claim 1-type subject matter (a plurality of optics components each passing light to an associated sensor forming channels; arrays on a common imager). It does not appear to disclose per-channel different integration times or dynamic-range combination, so it likely does not, by itself, anticipate the full independent claim; it is more relevant to the structural dependent concepts (e.g., channels/sensors on a semiconductor substrate) and as an obviousness building block.

3. US 6,429,898 B1 — Shoda et al. (Nikon Corp.), "Solid-state imaging devices and driving methods that produce image signals having wide dynamic range and multiple grey scales"

• Dates (verified): filed Feb. 26, 1997; issued Aug. 6, 2002 (Google Patents snippet and parent front page).
• Brief description: A solid-state imager/driving scheme that expands dynamic range by using multiple exposure/integration times and synthesizing the long- and short-integration signals into one wide-dynamic-range, multi-grey-scale output.
• § 102 mapping: Anticipates the concept of combining data acquired under different integration times to form a wide-dynamic-range image, and the dependent concepts of correcting/scaling per-exposure data. Because it operates on a single image sensor rather than a plurality of channels each with its own optics component, it likely does not anticipate the full claim 1-type apparatus recitation (plurality of channels; separate control of each channel's integration time); it is a strong § 103 secondary reference and may map to method claims that recite combining/correction if those claims do not require plural channels.

Tier 2 — Multi-exposure prior art named in the '574 specification itself

4. US 4,647,975 — multiple-exposure wide-dynamic-range method (issued March 3, 1987) — inventor/assignee not verified this session.

• Described in the '574 specification: "acquisition of two or more images, each having an exposure time … fused or merged to form one single piece of pixel information having a wide dynamic range."
• § 102 mapping: Anticipates the general combining of differently exposed images with exposure-time scaling — but the '574 specification expressly criticizes it for temporal aliasing because the exposures are taken sequentially with the same image sensor. It therefore does not anticipate the claim-1 concept requiring multiple channels whose data are captured simultaneously (during the same frame).

5. US 5,168,532 and US 5,671,013 — selection-rule multi-exposure methods (issued 1992 and 1997, respectively) — named in the '574 specification as disclosing "a selection rule to combine information from the most suitable of the multiple images," with the merged value "multiplied by a suitable factor that corrects for the respective exposure times."

• § 102 mapping: Same analysis as 4,647,975 — anticipatory of the per-pixel selection/scaling combination concept but sequential single-sensor capture; does not by itself disclose the multi-channel simultaneous-frame architecture of the independent claim.

Tier 3 — Additional family-cited references relevant to dependent concepts (selected from the verified parent list)

These all predate Aug. 25, 2004 and are relevant to specific dependent limitations, though none is likely to anticipate the full independent claim alone:

• US 5,436,660 (Sakamoto; issued July 1995) and US 5,694,165 (Yamazaki et al.; issued Dec. 1997) — multi-sensor/multi-pickup imaging apparatus references cited in the family; relevant to plural-sensor structures and per-sensor control. Specific disclosures not independently verified this session.
• US 6,714,239 (Guidash; issued Mar. 30, 2004) — CMOS active-pixel-sensor art cited in the family relating to programmable/variable integration control; relevant to the dependent concepts of setting integration times per light level (claim-1 dependent concepts such as "integration times … controlled based on an incident light level" and per-color/per-region exposure). Exact disclosure not verified this session.
• US 3,971,065 (Bayer; July 1976) — color filter array mosaic; background art for the color-channel discussion, not an anticipation candidate for the dynamic-range claims.
• EP 0 599 470 (June 1994), JP 62-011264 (Jan. 1987) — foreign references cited on the parent; substantive disclosures not verified this session.

Post-2004 family citations (not § 102 prior art on their publication dates; check effective filing dates)

US 2005/0128509 (Tokkonen), US 2005/0134712 and 2005+ Gruhlke publications, US 2006/0087572 (Schroeder), US 2007/0002159 (Olsen et al., own earlier filing), US 7,359,483, US 7,362,357, etc., published/issued after Aug. 25, 2004. They appear in the family record but are not anticipatory under § 102 unless an earlier effective filing date is established.

D. Bottom line

• Closest § 102 candidate on the verified family record: US 5,760,832 (multiple imagers with per-imager shutter control) — the only cited reference that plausibly combines multi-channel capture with different per-channel exposure/integration times and combination of outputs. Whether it fully anticipates the '574 independent claim turns on the un-retrieved '574 claim wording and on whether '832 discloses common-substrate sensors, same-field-of-view simultaneous frame capture, and a processor separately controlling each channel's integration time.
• US 6,429,898 and the 4,647,975/5,168,532/5,671,013 line anticipate the wide-dynamic-range combining concept but use single-sensor sequential exposures, which the specification distinguishes.
• US 6,137,535 and the multi-imager patents map to the structural "plurality of channels/arrays" limitations.

Two action items before formalizing any § 102 position: (1) pull the granted claims of 8,198,574 from USPTO Patent Center (the claims text was not retrievable in this session and I have deliberately not fabricated it); (2) pull the front-page References Cited of 8,198,574 itself — the tables above are compiled from the verified family record (parent 7,564,019 front page and the 9,232,158 dossier), which is highly likely to match the '574 front page but has not been individually confirmed against it.

I'll start by trying to retrieve the actual claims and the prior-art references cited on the face of the patent, since the prior sections flagged that the verbatim claims were not yet available, and no "Prior Art section" content was actually included in this message.

The Docket Alarm snippet gives me the front-page "References Cited" list for the '574 patent, and shows that IPR2022-00710 (Toyota v. IV) exhibited US 8,198,574 itself — which may mean the IPR challenges the '574 patent directly, giving me both the exact claims and prior-art grounds. Let me dig into that and get the full claims and citation list.

Preliminary caveat on source materials (read first)

The task asks me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page," but no Prior Art section was actually included in the message I received. I therefore reconstructed the prior-art universe from three verified sources: (1) the patent's own Background section (which candidly describes the closest art); (2) the "References Cited" list printed on the front page of US 8,198,574 B2, which I retrieved from the IPR2022-00710 exhibit copy of the patent (Docket Alarm, Exhibit 1029 — Toyota Motor Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC); and (3) the family-member front pages (e.g., US 8,598,504 B2) where the OCR'd list is more complete. I was not able to retrieve the verbatim claims text of the '574 patent in this session (consistent with the earlier flag in the patent summary), so the element-by-element analysis below is anchored to claim 1 as mirrored by the USPTO-front-page abstract — "a digital camera … a plurality of channels … each channel includ[ing] an optics component and a sensor … an array of photo-detectors … a processing component … configured to separately control an integration time of each channel, where a first integration time of a first channel is less than a second integration time of a second channel … also configured to combine data from the plurality of channels to generate an image" — plus representative dependent-type features described in the specification. I flag every place where my analysis depends on unverified claim wording.

1. Legal framework and the relevant priority date

US 8,198,574 is a continuation filed July 2, 2009 (pre-AIA examination), with an earliest claimed priority date of August 25, 2004 (Provisional 60/604,854) through the chain 11/788,122 → 11/212,803. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 applies. Every primary reference I rely on issued well before August 25, 2004 — U.S. 4,647,975 (1987), U.S. 5,168,532 (1992), U.S. 5,671,013 (1997), U.S. 6,137,535 (2000), U.S. 6,375,075 (2002) — so each is available as § 102(b) prior art regardless of how the priority chain is resolved, and each is thus safe for a § 103 analysis even under the most patentee-favorable date.

Under Graham v. John Deere, obviousness turns on (i) the scope and content of the prior art, (ii) differences between the prior art and the claims, (iii) the level of ordinary skill, and (iv) objective indicia. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, a combination is obvious when a PHOSITA would have had reason to combine known elements to solve a known problem with a predictable result.

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA would be a person with a B.S./M.S. (or equivalent experience) in electrical engineering, physics, or imaging science, and 2–5 years' experience in solid-state image-sensor and digital-camera design — familiar with CMOS/CCD pixel architectures, electronic (focal-plane) shutters and integration-time control, color-filter arrays and multi-sensor color cameras, and digital image processing for exposure fusion. This profile matters because such a person would immediately recognize that the two "halves" of the claimed invention — (a) exposure-stacked HDR capture/combining, and (b) multi-channel camera hardware — were both mature, separate fields whose combination was an engineering choice.

3. Verified prior-art universe

3.1 Prior art the specification itself admits (Background)

• U.S. 4,647,975 — acquisition of two or more images each having a different exposure time, fused/merged into a single wide-dynamic-range image; per-pixel information scaled by a factor correcting for the respective exposure times.
• U.S. 5,168,532 and U.S. 5,671,013 — selection rules to combine, from multiple differently-exposed images, the information from the most suitable image for each pixel.
• "Wide dynamic range sensors," Optical Engineering, Vol. 38, No. 10, pp. 1650–1660 (Oct. 1999) — a survey cataloging the recognized problem (scene dynamic range exceeding sensor range) and a menu of known solutions.

The '574 specification's only stated deficiency of this admitted art is temporal: the multi-exposure images are "captured using the same image sensor and thus are not captured concurrently," producing "undesirable temporal aliasing if the scene or camera is moving." That is an admission that everything else in the HDR method — multiple exposure/integration times, per-pixel selection, exposure-factor scaling, and recombination into one composite frame — was old.

3.2 Prior art cited by the examiner on the face of the '574 patent (partial list, verified from Exhibit 1029)

3,609,367 (Barron); 3,971,065 (Bayer — CFA mosaic); 4,323,925 (Abell et al.); 4,385,373 (Howe); 4,894,672 (Tanaka); 5,005,083 (Grage et al.); 5,051,830 (Von Hoessle); 5,436,660 (Sakamoto); 5,654,752 (Yamazaki); 5,691,765 (Schieltz et al.); 5,694,165 (Yamazaki et al.); 5,742,659 (Atac et al.); 5,760,832 (Yamanaka et al.); 5,766,980 (Ohtagaki et al.); 5,850,479 (Terry et al.); 6,137,535 (Meyers — compact multi-lens/multi-array imager); 6,375,075 (Ackley et al.). The OCR of the exhibit was truncated after 6,375,075; the sibling patent's front page (US 8,598,504) confirms the family's citation list continued with, e.g., 4,688,000 (Wagner), 6,381,072 (Burger), 6,429,898 (Shoda), 6,437,135 (Bohm), 6,570,613 (Howell), 6,611,289 (Yu), 6,617,565 (Wu), 6,714,239 (Guidash), 6,727,521 (Murthy), 6,765,617 (Tangen), and EP 0 599 470 / EP 1 032 045 / JP 62-011264.

Most important for this analysis: the examiner himself cited Meyers 6,137,535, the canonical pre-2000 reference for a camera in which multiple independent optics/sensor channels image the scene onto arrays carried on a common substrate — i.e., the very hardware architecture the '574 claims. (I can confirm from training knowledge that Meyers teaches a compact, thin-profile imager built from an array of lenslets and corresponding sensor arrays; its precise claim-by-claim content should be verified against the PDF before trial use, but its position in this art — and why Olsen-family examiners cited it across this family — is well established.)

4. Element-by-element analysis of the primary combination

Primary combination: 4,647,975 (or 5,168,532 / 5,671,013) + Meyers 6,137,535

Treating claim 1 as the abstract-mirroring recitation:

What is genuinely new in the claim (if anything): only the concurrent, per-channel allocation of different integration times to avoid the temporal aliasing that 4,647,975 suffered. That is not a new principle — it is the obvious use of a known multi-channel simultaneous-capture platform (Meyers; also decades-old 3-sensor color video cameras) to remove a known defect of the known HDR method.

Motivation to combine — why a POSITA would do it

1. The '574 specification itself names the problem and the obvious fix. It states the only shortcoming of 4,647,975-style HDR is sequential capture on one sensor causing temporal aliasing, and then "solves" it with simultaneous channels. The specification's framing is, in effect, a roadmap: apply known multi-exposure HDR merging to known multi-channel camera hardware so the exposures are concurrent.
2. The hardware was known to exist for exactly this "same scene, different channel" purpose. Meyers was cited by the examiner. Multi-sensor (e.g., 3-CCD/3-CMOS) color cameras had for decades pointed multiple independent sensors at one scene through one objective using a prism, and each sensor's timing was independently controlled by its own drive circuitry. A POSITA seeking simultaneous different exposures would naturally reach for that architecture.
3. Known problem, known solution, predictable result. Combining short and long integration channels to widen dynamic range was itself documented (including spatial-exposure-variation work in the academic literature predating 2004, e.g., spatially varying pixel exposures for HDR). The result of combining 4,647,975 + Meyers is fully predictable: an HDR composite from simultaneous frames with reduced aliasing.
4. Design choice, not invention. Choosing the numerical ratio of the two integration times (the spec's example of 0.1 ms/1 ms/10 ms) is routine tuning of the sort KSR treats as obvious; the spec's own math (dynamic range increases ~from 70 dB to 90 dB with a T_long/T_short ratio of 25) is standard radiometric scaling.

Secondary combinations for dependent-type features

The specification discloses numerous additional features that would appear in dependent claims. Each maps to old art, so none would rescue an otherwise obvious claim 1:

• "Sensors … integrated on a single semiconductor substrate" / "closely spaced channels on a common IC" → Meyers 6,137,535 (arrays on a common imager); also the general wafer-level multi-array sensor art.
• "Channels image the same field of view simultaneously within a single frame" → the entire purpose of Meyers' co-boresighted channels and of prism-based multi-sensor cameras.
• Per-pixel correction for non-linearity, gain, offset before combining; continuous monotonic combined response → 4,647,975 and 5,168,532/5,671,013 teach selecting and gain-scaling pixel values by exposure factor; linearity/offset correction in multi-exposure fusion was standard.
• Channel color-dedication (R/G/B per channel) combined with exposure-dedication → Bayer 3,971,065 (color separation) plus 3-sensor color camera practice; setting per-color-channel integration times for color balance was known (see, e.g., the family's cited art on color-specific exposure control, such as 6,714,239 Guidash, which the examiner cited in the family).
• Closed-loop, frame-by-frame adjustment of each channel's integration time based on analyzed image content → conventional auto-exposure/electronic-shutter feedback loops (the '574 Background itself notes electronic shutters were used frame-to-frame for interscene range), trivially extended to per-channel control.

5. Strength of the obviousness case and likely counterarguments

Strength. The case is strong on the two most important Graham/KSR factors: (i) the primary reference (4,647,975) is admitted prior art disclosing nearly the entire claimed method, differing only in the simultaneity mechanism; and (ii) the supplementary reference (Meyers) supplying that mechanism was cited by the examiner and was directed to exactly the multi-channel-on-one-substrate architecture. This is the classic "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" that KSR holds obvious, with no showing of unexpected results.

Likely patentee counterarguments, and why they are weak on this record:

• "4,647,975 uses sequential frames on one sensor; it teaches away from multiple sensors." It teaches nothing about hardware at all; it is silent on sensor count. Silence is not a teaching away. And the desire to avoid its acknowledged aliasing is a reason to combine, not a deterrent.
• "Meyers is about resolution/form factor, not dynamic range." True, but a reference need not address the same problem to be combinable; it need only provide the missing structural element with a rational reason to combine — here, simultaneous independent channels.
• "Secondary considerations." I found no objective evidence in this record of long-felt need, industry skepticism, licensing, or unexpected results specific to the '574 claims. The family's commercial litigation history is not a substitute for objective indicia of non-obviousness.

Principal vulnerability of my analysis (be transparent): I have not verified the actual independent-claim wording of the '574 (claims absent from the supplied text and not retrievable in this session). If the granted independent claims include a structural limitation not captured by the abstract — e.g., a specific physical relationship between channels, a particular combined-response algorithm, or a "simultaneously within a single frame" recitation — the mapping above must be re-run against that language. On the abstract-level recitation, however, claim 1 is a textbook obvious combination. Additionally, the content of several examiner-cited references (e.g., 5,760,832; 5,766,980; 6,375,075) and of Meyers 6,137,535 should be confirmed from the PDFs before use in any filing, since I could verify only their numbers/dates, not their full teachings, in this session.

6. Bottom line

On the record available:

• Primary ground: U.S. 4,647,975 (optionally with U.S. 5,168,532 and/or U.S. 5,671,013) in view of U.S. 6,137,535 (Meyers) would render the abstract-level claim 1 of US 8,198,574 obvious — 4,647,975 supplies the different-exposure/integration-time HDR capture-and-combine method; Meyers supplies the plurality of independent optics+sensor-array channels (including on a common substrate); the '574 specification itself identifies the only gap (temporal aliasing from sequential capture) and the obvious bridge (simultaneous multi-channel capture) that a POSITA would have been motivated to build.
• Dependent-type features (per-pixel correction/scaling, continuous monotonic combination, per-color-channel exposure dedication, closed-loop integration-time adjustment, common-substrate integration) are each found in or rendered obvious by the same references plus admitted general knowledge (Bayer CFA; 3-sensor color cameras; conventional electronic-shutter auto-exposure), so they would not likely confer patentability.
• Confidence level: high for the abstract-level claim; unverified for the exact granted claim text, which should be pulled from USPTO PatentCenter/claims PDF (or the IPR2022-00710 Exhibit 1029 PDF) and re-checked before any opinion or filing relies on this analysis.