US 6396599

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 6396599, including any recent litigation activity.

Let me dig deeper on recent litigation and any CAFC appeals involving this specific patent.

US Patent 6,396,599 — Summary

Important scope note: I searched for the literal number 6,396,599 and excluded look‑alikes. Two search hits contained near‑matching strings that are not this patent: the "6,616,397" in the Orange Electronics v. Autel (TPMS) case is a damages figure, and the "6396599" in an Alkane Exploration quarterly report is a geological assay value. Neither relates to this patent. I also could not locate any CAFC 2026 docket naming this patent (see "Litigation" below).

Bibliographic data

Continuation‑in‑part: US 10/106,760 → US 7,133,155 B2 (filed 2002‑03‑26, granted 2006‑11‑07), same 1998‑12‑21 priority.
Foreign family: EP 1014172 B1, DE 69925449 T2, JP 2000‑196908 A, CN 100403804 C.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method and apparatus for modifying images. The method includes the steps of analyzing a digital image file of an image so as to identify at least one predetermined colorimetric parameter; and automatically modifying that portion of said image having said at least one predetermined colorimetric parameter to a second predetermined colormetric parameter so as to produce a modified digital image."

Independent claims — plain language

The patent has two independent claims: claim 1 (method) and claim 14 (apparatus). All other claims depend on one of these.

• Claim 1 (method): A two‑step image‑modification method. (a) Analyze a digital image file to identify at least one predetermined colorimetric parameter (i.e., detect pixels/regions matching a pre‑defined colorimetric signature). (b) Modify that identified portion to a selected second predetermined colorimetric parameter, producing a modified digital image. In practice the "predetermined colorimetric parameter" is a skin‑tone signature and the "selected second parameter" is the customer/lab‑preferred skin tone.

• Claim 14 (apparatus): The device counterpart — an analyzer that analyzes a digital image file to identify at least one predetermined colorimetric parameter, plus means for automatically modifying the identified image portion to a selected second predetermined colormetric parameter to produce a modified digital image. (Note the literal claim language uses "colormetric." Also note claim 15 is written as "An apparatus … according to claim 1", i.e., it purports to be an apparatus claim but depends on the method claim 1 — a drafting inconsistency in the printed patent, which I'm reporting literally rather than correcting.)

Representative dependent claims: skin tone of a particular type (2); light‑skinned individuals (3); dark‑skinned individuals (4); automatic determination (5); image file from scanning (6) or from a digital camera (7); identification limited to facial‑feature regions (8); printing/storing/transferring the modified file (9), digital printer (10), electronic display (11); two colorimetric parameters in a single scene (12), light + dark skin tones (13); apparatus where the parameter is skin tone (15), printer (16), digital printer onto photosensitive media (17), photographic paper (18), display device (19).

Technical substance (from the specification)

The problem addressed is that conventional film/paper/printer setups are optimized for one market's skin tone, so darker skin tones get "compressed" and facial features are lost. Rather than marketing different films, the invention introduces a digital photofinishing algorithm (in a CPU/computer controlling a digital minilab, e.g., Gretag Masterlab 740 with Kodak Digital Printer and a CRT printer) that (1) colorimetrically identifies skin‑tone regions and (2) remaps only those regions. Preferred implementation is a 3D look‑up table or matrix applied only to skin‑tone pixel values, so the rest of the scene's colors are preserved. Typical adjustment: reduced skin‑tone colorfulness and reduced contrast within the skin‑tone region. Colorimetry techniques are incorporated by reference from U.S. Pat. No. 5,528,339. Named skin‑tone categories include Caucasian, Oriental, Asian, Indian, and Black. Selection can come from an order‑form checkbox, film‑encoded data, a customer profile, or automatic detection.

Litigation / post‑grant activity

• Google Patents litigation data lists three district‑court suits against this patent (all pre‑2022): E.D. Tex. 4:21‑cv‑00683, E.D. Tex. 2:20‑cv‑00098, and W.D.N.Y. 6:20‑cv‑06263.
• Unified Patents Patroll contest (May–June 2023, $2,000 prize, now closed) sought prior art against at least claim 1 of US‑6,396,599 B1, describing Monument Peak Ventures as a Dominion Harbor entity; an award was announced in August 2023.
• 2026 activity: My searches for a Federal Circuit 2026 docket specifically naming 6,396,599 returned no results. The 2025–2026 Monument Peak Ventures campaign dockets I did find (e.g., MPV v. Carl Zeiss AG, E.D. Tex. 2:26‑cv‑00100; MPV v. Arnold & Richter Cine Technik, 2:25‑cv‑01159; MPV v. Arashi Vision/Insta360, 2:25‑cv‑00956) assert other patents — e.g., US 7,062,085 and US 7,065,255 in the Zeiss complaint — and I found no confirmation that 6,396,599 is asserted in any of them. Given the patent expired in December 2018, any 2026 CAFC appeal would necessarily relate to pre‑expiration damages.

Uncertainty flags: (1) I could not confirm any 2026 CAFC appeal involving this exact patent; absence in my results is not proof none exists. (2) Priority/issue/expiration dates differ by one day between Google Patents and the Unified Patents portal; the Google Patents values (filing 1998‑12‑21, issue 2002‑05‑28) are consistent with the official file wrapper data shown on the patent page. (3) The OCR of the patent text renders "colorimetric" as "calorimetric" and "colormetric" in several claim/description passages; this appears to be OCR/typographical noise in the source, and I have flagged rather than silently corrected it.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 6396599. Let me run several targeted searches.

The Google Patents record lists three litigation entries for this patent. Let me investigate each specific case number.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 6,396,599

Important framing note first: US 6,396,599 ("Method and apparatus for modifying a portion of an image in accordance with colorimetric parameters") is a Kodak-origin patent that passed to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (2013) and then to Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (2017). It expired on/about 2018‑12‑21, so any enforcement activity concerns past damages. I flag below exactly what I could confirm versus what remains unverified.

The patent's own Google Patents record lists three litigation entries. Two of them turn out to be the same case (a transfer), so the number of distinct suits is smaller than it appears.

1. Xerox Corporation v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC — CONFIRMED

This is the only case I could fully substantiate. It is a declaratory-judgment action brought by the accused party (Xerox) against the patent owner (MPV) — Xerox is the plaintiff, MPV the defendant.

Sources: UniCourt case page for Xerox Corporation v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (case 4:21-CV-00683), listing complaint Exhibit 1‑4 = U.S. Patent No. 6,396,599; Justia docket, Xerox Corp. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, No. 4:2021cv00683 (E.D. Tex.), Doc. 48.

So the two entries on the patent record — "New York Western District Court 6:20-cv-06263" and "Texas Eastern District Court 4:21-cv-00683" — refer to a single action that was transferred, not two separate lawsuits.

2. Texas Eastern District Court, Case 2:20-cv-00098 — LISTED BUT NOT CONFIRMED

The Google Patents litigation record for US 6,396,599 lists a second E.D. Tex. case, 2:20-cv-00098. I was unable to confirm the parties, filing date, patents asserted, or outcome for this specific case number from the sources I checked. I am therefore not asserting who the plaintiff/defendant were; doing so without a source would risk conflating it with one of MPV's other camera/scanner assertions from that period (MPV filed numerous suits in 2020, including an E.D. Tex. action against Tommon North America Inc. / Tommon International, B.V., No. 6:21-cv-00379, W.D. Tex., 4/19/2021 — but that case involved different patents: 6,282,317; 7,035,461; 7,680,340; 7,860,320, and is not this one).

Action item: this case should be verified directly on PACER (E.D. Tex.) or via the Unified Patents litigation database before being relied upon.

3. Non-litigation matter worth noting (not a lawsuit)

For completeness — and not litigation — US 6,396,599 was the subject of a Unified Patents PATROLL crowdsourced prior-art contest (contest titled "Monument Peak Ventures: US-6396599-B1 (Image Color Editing)," prize $2,000, running May 3–June 30, 2023, winner announced August 4, 2023). This is a defensive prior-art effort against a Dominion Harbor/Monument Peak entity, not a court or PTAB proceeding.

One data-integrity caveat: the PATROLL page and related portal references render the patent inconsistently (e.g., "US-6396599-B1," "US639659-B2," "US639659"), and the portal lists a priority date of 1998‑12‑20 / expiration 2018‑12‑20, whereas the granted patent's own record shows a priority/filing date of 1998‑12‑21 and anticipated expiration 2018‑12‑21. I am reporting these verbatim rather than "correcting" them.

Bottom line

• One confirmed lawsuit touching US 6,396,599: Xerox Corp. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (W.D.N.Y. 6:20-cv-06263 → E.D. Tex. 4:21-cv-00683) — a Xerox declaratory-judgment action in which the '599 patent was one of eight patents-in-suit; transferred and then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice (Sept. 2021). No merits ruling.
• One additional E.D. Tex. case (2:20-cv-00098) is listed on the patent record but its party details/outcome are unverified here.
• No CAFC appeal, PTAB/IPR, or ITC proceeding involving US 6,396,599 surfaced in these searches; the only related post-grant-style activity was a Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art contest (2023).

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" block against live sources before drafting.

Let me dig for any IPR filed on this patent (including the Unified Patents PATROLL contest lead).

Let me check whether the Unified PATROLL contest converted into an actual filed petition, and scan PTAB dockets for this patent number.

PTAB Proceedings — US 6,396,599 B1

"Method and apparatus for modifying a portion of an image in accordance with colorimetric parameters"
Patton, Fredlund & Buhr · Eastman Kodak (orig.) → Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 → Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (current) · Filed 1998-12-21 · Granted 2002-05-28 · Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2018-12-21)

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 6,396,599: 0 — the USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding against this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my follow-up web searches did not surface any filed AIA petition that ODP has failed to index. The breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

The defensive posture this gives a defendant is unusual and is not "the patent was tested and survived." It is: the patent was never tested at the PTAB at all, and it expired on 2018-12-21. All 19 claims stand exactly as issued, with no PTAB or Federal Circuit claim-cancellation history to point to — but an expired patent cannot support prospective injunctive relief, and pre-suit damages are capped by the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback. The real defensive leverage here is the expiration date, the § 101 record built in Monument Peak Ventures v. Hitachi Kokusai, and the untouched prior-art space that Unified Patents was actively soliciting in 2023.

Source discipline note: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is the canonical list, and it is empty. I searched for a corresponding petition following Unified's PATROLL campaign (below) and found none. I did not find, and do not assert, any proceeding number. Anything stating that this patent "survived an IPR" would be fabrication.

Proceedings

None to report. There is no proceeding to order by impact, no judge panel, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, and no Rule 36/CAFC appeal from a PTAB FWD. Records that a defendant's clearance team may wrongly pull on a docket sweep:

No PTAB proceeding — for completeness

• Type: N/A — no Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review ever instituted.
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceeding on file (USPTO ODP, most recent ingest).
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim of US 6,396,599 has ever been canceled, narrowed, or confirmed by the Board.
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — the Federal Circuit docket activity involving this patent that I could identify arises from district-court litigation, not from a PTAB appeal.
• Defensive value: You cannot rely on a PTAB kill to dispose of this patent, so the invalidity case must be built in district court or via a fresh petition — and the freshness clock is favorable: no petitioner has yet burned the art, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone.

False-positive / adjacent records a defendant will encounter (do not conflate)

Strategic summary

Claim status: 19 claims, all UNTESTED at the PTAB, all EXPIRED as of 2018-12-21. There is no CANCELED set and no SUSTAINED set, because no trial ever ran. Per the Google Patents record, the granted claims are: method claims 1–13 (claim 1 being the colorimetric-parameter analyzing/modifying method, with 2–4 reciting skin-tone types, 5 automatic determination, 6–7 scan/digital-camera sourcing, 8 facial-feature restriction, 9 printing/storing/transferring, 10–11 digital printer and electronic display, 12–13 two colorimetric parameters including light and dark skin tones) and apparatus claims 14–19 (claim 14 the analyzer plus automatic-modifying means, 15 skin tone, 16–18 printer/photosensitive media/photographic paper, 19 display device). In the E.D. Tex. case, MPV's infringement contentions asserted claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13 of the '599 patent — that is the practical assertion set to plan around, and it is fully intact.

Estoppel landscape: clean, and that cuts both ways. Because no IPR was instituted against this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one. A current defendant is free to raise any §§ 102/103 ground in district court, including art that a prior petitioner would have been estopped from using had a trial been instituted. The flip side: there is no prior IPR record to mine for the Board's claim constructions or obviousness reasoning, and no Institution Decision to quote in a § 101 or § 103 brief. Similarly, § 315(b)'s one-year bar is the only clock a would-be petitioner must respect, and it runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent.

Pattern signals. Two things stand out. First, Monument Peak Ventures is a well-worn PTAB patent owner — GE, Bosch, and Toshiba all petitioned against MPV patents in the 2019–2021 window, which tells you MPV responds to PTAB pressure and has settled at least one instituted trial (IPR2019-01029). Second, and more directly: Unified Patents ran a PATROLL crowdsourcing contest on US 6,396,599 ($2,000 for prior art on at least claim 1), open 2023-05-03 to 2023-06-30, with the winner announced 2023-08-04. Unified's own announcement notes "[t]he patent had been asserted against Hitachi." That is a defensive aggregator publicly identifying this exact patent as a target and funding art development against claim 1 — yet I find no resulting petition. Whether that means the art was insufficient, the campaign went in a different direction, or the patent's 2018-12-21 expiration made a filing economically pointless, I cannot confirm; treat it as an open question. The family also includes a continuation-in-part, US 7,133,155 B2 (filed 2002-03-26, claiming the same 1998-12-21 priority), which is itself a separate assertion vehicle and a separate target — worth checking on your own for PTAB filings I did not surface.

District-court context for the assertion. The Google Patents record flags three suits: Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Hitachi Kokusai Electric, Inc., E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00098; a second E.D. Tex. case, 4:21-cv-00683; and a W.D.N.Y. declaratory-judgment action, Xerox Corp. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, 6:20-cv-06263. In the Hitachi case, Kokusai moved to dismiss on 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing the asserted claims of the '599 patent are directed to an abstract idea. I could not verify the disposition of that motion from the sources retrieved, and any appeal from it would be a district-court appeal rather than a PTAB appeal. Use it as a starting point for a § 101 attack, not as a holding you can cite.

Recommended next steps

1. If your demand letter cites claims 1-5, 7-9, or 11-13 — those claims are alive but the patent is dead. US 6,396,599 reached its anticipated expiration on 2018-12-21 (Google Patents legal status: "Expired - Lifetime"). That means:

• No preliminary or permanent injunction can issue for conduct after that date;
• Damages are limited by 35 U.S.C. § 286 to infringement occurring within six years before the complaint was filed;
• The patent owner cannot amend claims in a reissue or IPR to keep pace with your product.

Verify the expiration date against the USPTO Patent Center record, including any terminal disclaimer or PTA, before you build a defense around it.

2. There is no FWD to link, because none exists. Do not let an adversary represent that this patent "survived PTAB review." The accurate statement is the inverse: it was never reviewed. If MPV or its counsel asserts otherwise in a demand letter or complaint, that is directly checkable at the PTAB E2E portal and in the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions database — pull the full proceeding list for the patent and put the printout in your file.

3. Target the § 101 record first. The most developed public invalidity theory on this patent is Kokusai's § 101 motion in E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00098, Reply filed 2021-02-05 (CourtListener docket 17048340). Retrieve the motion, the opposition, and the court's order — the reply brief itself complains that MPV argued from unasserted claims and made "pleas for unnecessary claim construction proceedings," which is a roadmap for how to avoid those traps.

4. Mine the Unified PATROLL campaign output. The contest page (patroll.unifiedpatents.com) states that Apex Standards contributed prior US patent art, non-US patent art, NPL, and claim charting against US 6,396,599. Those charts, plus the winning submission described here, are a free head start on a § 102/§ 103 case and on a new IPR petition. Note the contest's ground rule — "prior art that has been previously cited during prosecution will not be considered" — and confirm each reference's prior-art date.

5. Check the '599 claim set for § 112 hooks. Claim 15 reads "An apparatus for modifying digital images according to claim 1…," i.e., an apparatus claim depending from a method claim — a classic indefiniteness/claim-formatting defect. A Certificate of Correction issued on 2002-11-05 and may or may not have addressed it; pull the corrected claim set from the USPTO before relying on it.

6. Mind the de facto privity clock. If you are sued today, your IPR petition is due within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement of the '599 patent (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)). Because no prior petitioner instituted a trial, there is no estoppel against you — but there is a § 315(a)(1) trap: do not file a declaratory-judgment action of invalidity first. The Xerox W.D.N.Y. DJ posture (6:20-cv-06263) is exactly the road that forecloses a later IPR.

Citations and where to verify:

• Patent and claim text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6396599/en
• PTAB proceeding search (canonical check): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• PTAB decisions and FWDs: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions
• Unified PATROLL contest on US-6396599-B1: https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/dKw4eHEEaR554SdSa
• Unified winner announcement (2023-08-04): https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2023/8/4/2000-awarded-for-dominion-harbor-entity-monument-peak-ventures-color-editing-patent-prior-art
• Hitachi § 101 record, E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00098: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17048340/monument-peak-ventures-llc-v-hitachi-kokusai-electric-inc/

Confidence and limits. High confidence that no AIA trial proceeding is on file for US 6,396,599 — the ODP block is empty and targeted searches found no petition. Medium confidence on the cause (expiration vs. insufficient art) and low confidence on the exact party names in the two E.D. Tex. suits beyond 2:20-cv-00098, which the structured data does not identify. I did not verify the disposition of the Hitachi § 101 motion, the contents of the 2002 certificate of correction, or whether US 7,133,155 has attracted its own PTAB filings. Run those four checks before relying on this memo.

I'll verify the litigation and assignment-chain details against live sources before writing up.

Good context. Let me pin down the second Texas case, the Xerox dispute posture, and inventor employment.

Ownership Chain Analysis — US 6,396,599 B1

"Method and apparatus for modifying a portion of an image in accordance with colorimetric parameters"
Patent no. 6,396,599 · Appl. 09/216,900 · Filed 1998‑12‑21 · Granted 2002‑05‑28 · Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2018‑12‑21)

Sourcing note (important): Reel/frame numbers, conveyance types and execution dates below are taken from the Google Patents legal‑events record for this patent (which mirrors USPTO assignment data). I was not able to retrieve the Assignment Center correspondent of record field (the filing attorney/firm for each recording) — Google Patents does not expose it and I did not reach the Assignment Center UI within my search budget. I therefore do not report a correspondent, and signal #3 below is scored unclear rather than guessed. Verify correspondents directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) by searching patent number 6396599.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• No unusual pattern. All three inventors executed an assignment to Eastman Kodak Company four days before the 1998‑12‑21 filing date (effective 1998‑12‑18), the classic employee‑invention assignment. There is no evidence of inventors departing the assignee within 12 months of filing, and no inventor‑retained rights, licenses, or reversion recorded.
• I could not independently verify the inventors' later career movements; treat that as undetermined rather than as a negative finding. Note that co‑inventor John R. Fredlund appears as the named inventor of U.S. Pat. No. 5,726,737 to Fredlund et al., cited in this patent's own background section — i.e., the inventors were embedded in Kodak's photofinishing patent estate.
• Related filing: continuation‑in‑part US 10/106,760 → US 7,133,155 B2, filed 2002‑03‑26, same title, claiming the same 1998‑12‑21 priority. This is a Kodak‑era family extension, not a separate ownership event.

Original assignee

Eastman Kodak Company (original assignee, per reel 012445/0928, executed 1998‑12‑18, recorded 1998‑12‑21).

• Product embodiment: Yes — the patent is squarely directed at Kodak's shipped photofinishing pipeline. The specification names the Gretag Imaging Masterlab 740 Digital with Kodak Digital Printer, the Kodak Digital Science Scanner 3500, and the Kodak DC 265 Digital Camera, and describes a digital minilab workflow altering skin‑tone reproduction in prints. This was a commercial practice, not a paper patent.
• Primary line of business: Photographic film, paper, photofinishing equipment and digital imaging (with a large, actively licensed patent estate — the MPV complaint below cites $838M in 2010 Kodak patent licensing revenue).
• Current status: Operating, post‑Chapter 11. Kodak filed Chapter 11 in January 2012 (S.D.N.Y.), sold its digital‑imaging patent portfolio in the bankruptcy proceedings (see below), and emerged as a commercial imaging company. It no longer owns this patent.

Assignment timeline

1. 1998‑12‑18 (executed) / recorded 1998‑12‑21 — Reel 012445/0928

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
   • Assignor: David L. Patton; John R. Fredlund; John D. Buhr (individual inventors)
   • Assignee: Eastman Kodak Company, New York
   • Correspondent: Not exposed in the source used — confirm at Assignment Center. Assignment‑record correspondent metadata was not retrievable here.
   • Context: Routine employee‑invention assignment at filing; original prosecution‑era ownership.

2. 2012‑02‑15 (executed) / recorded 2012‑02‑21 — Reel 028201/0420

   • Conveyance: Security Interest (grant of security interest)
   • Assignor: Eastman Kodak Company; PAKON, INC.
   • Assignee: CITICORP NORTH AMERICA, INC., AS AGENT, New York
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from source used.
   • Context: Securitization — Kodak's Chapter 11 debtor‑in‑possession / exit financing collateral package, creditor lien over the patent estate.

3. 2013‑02‑01 (executed) / recorded 2013‑02‑01 — Reel 029913/0001

   • Conveyance: Patent Release (release of the security interest)
   • Assignor: CITICORP NORTH AMERICA, INC.; WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
   • Assignee: The Kodak family entities (Kodak Realty, Qualex, Eastman Kodak Company, Laser‑Pacific Media, Creo Manufacturing America, Kodak Philippines, Kodak Imaging Network, Far East Development, FPC Inc., Pakon, Eastman Kodak International Capital, Kodak Americas, Kodak Portuguesa, Kodak Aviation Leasing, Kodak (Near East), NPEC Inc.)
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from source used.
   • Context: Securitization unwind — lien release clearing title immediately before the portfolio sale to IV.

4. 2013‑02‑01 (executed) / recorded 2013‑04‑08 — Reel 030170/0717

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
   • Assignor: Eastman Kodak Company
   • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 83 LLC, Nevada
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from source used. This is one of the highest‑volume Kodak‑portfolio rec ordings; if a single attorney recurs across the IV Fund 83 reel series, that recurrence would be the tell — but I have not verified it and will not assert it.
   • Context: Bankruptcy fire‑sale / transfer to an IP‑holding fund — part of the ~1,100‑patent, $527M digital‑imaging portfolio sale approved by the bankruptcy court; purchase funded by IV plus an RPX‑organized licensee consortium (Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Fujifilm, Google, HTC, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung, Shutterfly). Kodak received a grant‑back license.

5. 2017‑02‑15 (executed) / recorded 2017‑03‑09 — Reel 041941/0079

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
   • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 83 LLC
   • Assignee: MONUMENT PEAK VENTURES, LLC, Texas
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from source used.
   • Context: Divestiture by IV to an assertion vehicle — RPX reported that IV sold the former Kodak portfolio (and others) to Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC affiliates; Monument Peak Ventures is the Dominion Harbor "Peak Ventures" vehicle created to monetize the former Kodak assets. MPV announced a "comprehensive global plan to commercialize" the Kodak portfolio via a licensing partnership with Parallel North IP AB (May 2017).

6. 2023‑07‑28 (executed) / recorded 2023‑08‑15 — Reel 064599/0304

   • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
   • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES FUND 83 LLC (as secured party)
   • Assignee: MONUMENT PEAK VENTURES, LLC, Texas
   • Correspondent: Not retrievable from source used.
   • Context: Financing‑lien release — releases a security interest IV held over MPV's assets; confirms MPV as unencumbered owner at the end of the chain. Not a title transfer.

(Intervening events with no ownership effect: certificate of correction recorded 2002‑11‑05; maintenance fee payments 2005‑09‑28, 2009‑10‑23, 2013‑10‑11; patent grant status 2002‑05‑10.)

Litigation overlay (for timing, not an assignment event):

• 2020‑04‑07 — Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Hitachi Kokusai Electric, Inc., No. 2:20‑cv‑00098 (E.D. Tex., Gilstrap, J.). MPV's complaint expressly groups the "'684, '116, '599, '746, '345 and '604" patents as Kodak‑origin assets — US 6,396,599 was a patent‑in‑suit. Case stayed on settlement 2021‑05‑20 and dismissed with prejudice 2021‑06‑15.
• 2020‑09‑01 — Xerox Corporation v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, No. 6:20‑cv‑06263 (W.D.N.Y.), transferred to E.D. Tex. as No. 4:21‑cv‑00683 (Judge Sean D. Jordan) on 2021‑09‑01; U.S. Patent No. 6,396,599 appears as Exhibit #4 to Xerox's filing. Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 2021‑09‑02. MPV's own mirror suit against Xerox was No. 2:21‑cv‑00345 (E.D. Tex., filed 2021‑09‑01). This is a declaratory‑judgment posture (Xerox as plaintiff), so the '599 assertion posture here is inverse to the Hitachi case.
• Other MPV campaigns on sibling Kodak/IV patents (GoPro, SZ DJI, Victor Hasselblad, Bosch, GE Healthcare, Toshiba, TCL, Sensormatic/Johnson Controls) confirm this is a portfolio‑wide monetization program.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6396599
    1998 : Filed by three Kodak inventors
         : Assigned to Eastman Kodak Company
    2002 : Patent granted
    2012 : Citicorp security interest recorded
         : Kodak files Chapter 11
    2013 : Lien released reel 029913/0001
         : Sold to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83
    2017 : Assigned to Monument Peak Ventures
         : First MPV assertion campaign begins
    2020 : US 6396599 sued on vs Hitachi
         : Xerox files DJ action in New York
    2021 : Hitachi case dismissed after settlement
    2023 : Security interest released to MPV
    2018 : Anticipated expiration reached

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
The patent moved from an operating manufacturer (Eastman Kodak, reel 012445/0928) to a finance‑fund holding entity, Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC, Nevada (reel 030170/0717, executed 2013‑02‑01), and then to Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, Texas (reel 041941/0079, executed 2017‑02‑15). MPV is not a naming hypothesis: RPX identifies MPV as a Dominion Harbor Enterprises affiliate created to hold and monetize the former Kodak portfolio, and it has zero product footprint (Patsnap: 1,159 applications/882 families, 0 new filings in the trailing 12 months — a pure acquisition portfolio). A "Fund 83 LLC" name plus a Texas single‑purpose assertion LLC is the pattern.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.

• Intellectual Ventures is on the standard NPE list and appears at reel 030170/0717.
• Monument Peak Ventures, LLC is classified by Unified Patents as "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)" in its litigation database (e.g., Monument Peak Ventures LLC v. Sensormatic Electronics / Johnson Controls GMBH, No. 6:21‑cv‑01009, N.D. Tex./W.D. Tex., 2021‑09‑29). RPX documents MPV's assertion campaign as a Dominion Harbor program, alongside sister vehicles Liberty Peak Ventures, Vista Peak Ventures, Sovereign Peak Ventures and Principle Packaging.
• Note the inverse case is not present: although RPX co‑funded the purchase of the Kodak portfolio in 2012‑13 for its members' defensive licenses, nothing in this patent's chain terminates at RPX/AST/LOT/Unified — the assets were routed onward to an assertion vehicle instead.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not scored as a finding).
I could not obtain the recorded correspondent (attorney/firm) for any of reels 012445/0928, 028201/0420, 029913/0001, 030170/0717, 041941/0079 or 064599/0304 — that field is not present in the Google Patents legal‑events data I relied on and I did not reach the Assignment Center interface. I will not assert a repeat correspondent without the reel‑level data. Action item for a definitive call: query "6396599" and "Intellectual Ventures Fund 83" / "Monument Peak Ventures" at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and compare the correspondent of record across the IV Fund 83 and Peak Ventures reel series; a single recurring recording attorney across those series is the expected finding.
Separately, and importantly: the litigation counsel of record for MPV in MPV v. Hitachi is John J. Edmonds (John J. Edmonds, P.C. / Edmonds & Schlather) — a well‑known high‑volume NPE plaintiffs' lawyer. That is counsel of record in the suit, not the assignment correspondent, and I do not conflate the two.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT (moderate).
Three substantive transfers in a compressed window on the IV side of the chain: Kodak → IV Fund 83 (executed 2013‑02‑01), IV Fund 83 → Monument Peak Ventures (executed 2017‑02‑15). The 2012 lien grant and its 2013 release (reels 028201/0420 and 029913/0001, both effective 2013‑02‑01) sit in the same 60‑day window as the IV sale, forming a four‑recording cluster around the bankruptcy sale. The IV → MPV leg is ~48 months after the IV acquisition, so this is not a sub‑24‑month churn, and I do not find common correspondent addresses (unverifiable). Score the transfer density, not the pace.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (with a caveat).
The transfer to Monument Peak Ventures executed 2017‑02‑15; the first suit naming this patent (MPV v. Hitachi, 2:20‑cv‑00098) was filed 2020‑04‑07 — a gap of roughly three years and two months, well outside the 6‑month window. The chain was not assembled to enable a single imminent filing. Caveat: MPV's assertion campaign began with the GoPro/DJI/Hasselblad suits in March 2018 (filed 2018‑03‑16) over sibling Kodak patents, so the transfer preceded the campaign by ~13 months, which is the more meaningful measure for the portfolio.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — PRESENT.
Eastman Kodak filed Chapter 11 in January 2012 (S.D.N.Y.). The patent was carried as collateral under a Citicorp security interest (reel 028201/0420), released (reel 029913/0001), and sold out of the estate to Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC for a $527M portfolio price, under a Sale Agreement disclosed in Kodak's Form 8‑K (filed 2012‑12‑18) with the final sale order approved by the bankruptcy court and the closing reported in early 2013. Kodak retained a grant‑back license. This is a textbook bankruptcy fire‑sale of a captive operating‑company portfolio.

7. Privateering — PRESENT (partial).
Kodak's portfolio was not sold to a competitor for defensive use; it was sold to Intellectual Ventures, which co‑organized a licensee consortium with RPX (Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Fujifilm, Google, HTC, Microsoft, RIM, Samsung, Shutterfly) — the consortium members bought peace, and the residual assets (including this patent) went to IV and were later transferred to Dominion Harbor's MPV to be asserted against third parties, notably GoPro, DJI, Hasselblad, Hitachi, Bosch, GE Healthcare, Toshiba, TCL and Xerox. Assertion was therefore conducted through an intermediary rather than by the operating originator. This is the privateering shape, though the sales proceeds inured to Kodak's estate rather than to a still‑competing operating company.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti‑NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN. RPX's involvement was as co‑funder/licensee at the 2012‑13 acquisition stage only; the asset was thereafter conveyed to IV Fund 83 and then to Monument Peak Ventures for assertion (reels 030170/0717, 041941/0079). The final recorded event (reel 064599/0304, 2023‑07‑28) is a security‑interest release, not a defensive aggregation. The patent has not been neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain runs Kodak → Citicorp lien (reel 028201/0420) → lien release (reel 029913/0001) → Intellectual Ventures Fund 83 LLC (reel 030170/0717, executed 2013‑02‑01) → Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (reel 041941/0079, executed 2017‑02‑15). That is a bankruptcy fire‑sale of an operating company's patent into an IP‑holding fund, followed by transfer to an entity Unified Patents classifies as a patent‑assertion entity and RPX identifies as a Dominion Harbor monetization vehicle — and MPV then sued on this very patent (MPV v. Hitachi Kokusai Electric, 2:20‑cv‑00098, E.D. Tex., filed 2020‑04‑07, where '599 is named among the patents‑in‑suit), with '599 also appearing as an exhibit in Xerox Corp. v. Monument Peak Ventures (transferred to 4:21‑cv‑00683). Two strong signals (shell‑entity transfer, known asserter) plus three moderate/contextual ones (cascading transfer cluster, bankruptcy fire‑sale, privateering) are each independently grounded in recorded reel/frame entries and dates. The only signal I could not substantiate is the repeat‑correspondent test, because the correspondent field was not retrievable from the sources available to me — flagging that honestly rather than inferring it.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "6396599"; also search assignees "Intellectual Ventures Fund 83" and "Monument Peak Ventures" to compare correspondents of record)
• Legacy assignment search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Legal‑events record used here — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6396599/en#legalEvents
• Kodak 8‑K on the IV sale — https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/31235/000119312512513381/d458185d8k.htm
• RPX on MPV/Dominion's Kodak campaign — https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/8501
• Unified Patents NPE classification for Monument Peak Ventures — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
• Hitachi complaint showing '599 as patent‑in‑suit — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17048340/1/monument-peak-ventures-llc-v-hitachi-kokusai-electric-inc/

I'll start by verifying the patent itself and its citation record, then research the key cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 6,396,599 B1

1. The patent, as confirmed in the record

I searched for the specific number 6396599. The results returned the record for US 6,396,599 B1 (not a similar number), mirrored from USPTO data via Google Patents and the Unified Patents portal. I did not retrieve a page directly from uspto.gov itself, so the bibliographic data below is drawn from those USPTO-derived mirrors plus the authoritative full text you supplied.

The two independent claims that drive the §102 analysis:

• Claim 1 (method): (a) analyzing a digital image file of an image so as to identify at least one predetermined colorimetric parameter; and (b) modifying that portion of said image having said at least one predetermined colorimetric parameter to a selected second predetermined colorimetric parameter so as to produce a modified digital image.
• Claim 14 (apparatus): (a) an analyzer for analyzing a digital image file to identify at least one predetermined colorimetric parameter; and (b) means for automatically modifying that portion of the image having said parameter to a selected second predetermined colorimetric parameter to produce a modified digital image.

Methodological caveat (important): Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102 requires that a single reference disclose every element of the claim, arranged as claimed. Most of the 30 references below were cited by the examiner as background art, and several are relevant only under §103 (obviousness) or as §102(a)/§102(b)/§102(e) art as to isolated features. Where I map a reference to a claim as "potentially anticipating," that is a provisional, element-by-element reading — not a legal conclusion — and each would require full claim-charting against the reference's complete disclosure.

2. The most relevant prior art (top candidates)

1. US 5,296,945 A (Olympus Optical) — "Video ID photo printing apparatus and complexion converting apparatus." Filed 1992-02-27 (priority 1991-03-12); published 1994-03-22. The single strongest §102 candidate: it extracts complexion data from a face image, compares it to predetermined standard complexion data, and converts the skin color to a desired skin color via a look-up table, then prints the modified image. This maps closely onto claim 1 (analyze → identify skin color parameter → modify to second predetermined colorimetric value) and claim 14.
2. US 5,488,429 A and US 5,638,136 A (Mitsubishi Denki) — flesh-tone detection using color-difference + luminance signals, with correction applied only to the flesh-tone area. Directly relevant to the "skin tone" dependent claims (2, 15) and to the "modify only the skin-tone region" concept.
3. US 5,300,974 A (Eastman Kodak) — user-selectable color-balance preference carried with the film to the photofinisher. Relevant to the "selected"/customer-preference language of claims 1 and 14.
4. US 5,528,339 A and US 5,447,811 A (Eastman Kodak) — preferential tone mapping/color enhancement; US 5,528,339 is expressly incorporated by reference in the 6,396,599 specification as the source of the colorimetric technique.

3. Element-by-element prior-art table (all 30 cited references)

Dates are given as filing (or priority) → publication. "Anticipates" = potential §102 mapping only, with the caveat above.

4. Additional ("family-cited") references

The record also lists 19 references cited at the family level (mostly Japanese): US 3,649,748; JP S53-12330; JP H02-298194; US 5,390,380; JP 3,366,357 B2; JP H06-111083; JP 3,036,285 B2; JP 3,136,850 B2; US 5,710,954; JP H08-275195; JP 3,516,786 B2; JP H09-171555; JP H10-221773; JP 3,437,922 B2; US 6,643,398 B2; US 6,738,510 B2; US 7,088,386 B2; US 2002/0030831 A1; JP 2002-044469 A. Several of these (e.g., US 6,643,398; US 6,738,510; US 7,088,386) post-date the 1998 filing and are therefore not §102 art against it.

5. Bottom line

• Most relevant single reference for §102: US 5,296,945 A (Olympus, 1994) — extract complexion, compare to standard, convert to a desired skin color via LUT, print. It is the closest to claims 1, 2 and 14.
• Flesh-tone detection pair (US 5,488,429 A / US 5,638,136 A, Mitsubishi) — best support for dependent claims 2 and 15 (skin tone) and for the "modify only the skin-tone region" limitation.
• User-preference reference (US 5,300,974 A, Kodak) and the incorporated US 5,528,339 A are better characterized as §103 support than as standalone anticipations.
• Not prior art under §102 as to the 1998-12-21 priority date: US 6,293,284 B1 (#29) and US 6,207,874 B1 (#30), both filed in 1999.
• Flagged discrepancies (not auto-corrected): the caption in the specification cites 5,710,954 (Inoue) while the examiner citation table lists 5,710,654 (Fuji Xerox scanning lens); and US 5,390,381 (beach towel/beach bag) is facially unrelated to the subject matter.

If you want, I can produce full element-by-element claim charts for claims 1 and 14 against the two strongest references (US 5,296,945 and US 5,488,429), quoting the specific passages.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent page. Let me verify the content and dates of the most load-bearing references.

Now let me verify the remaining core references — the Kodak tone-mapping patents, the Quantum Fund skin-recognition patent, and the EPO search report that accompanied the European family member.

Obviousness analysis — US 6,396,599 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Built on the previously generated summary. I do not repeat the bibliographic/technical sections here; this section assumes them and focuses on the § 103 combinations.

0. Scope note on the prior art actually available

The analysis below draws exclusively on the references listed in the Prior Art / Citations section of the patent page. Two threshold cautions before any combination is proposed:

(a) Some listed "citations" are not prior art to the 1998‑12‑21 critical date. The front‑page list is a mixed bag of examiner citations, third‑party citations, and post‑filing documents. Applying § 102(a)/(b)/(e):

So the Conopco "Virtual makeover" and Felton tattoo patents must be excluded from any § 103 combination — a common error when a front-page citation list is used uncritically.

(b) The specification makes damaging admissions about the two most relevant references. The Background expressly states: "U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,488,429 and 5,638,136 to Kazuaki et al describes a method and apparatus that detects skin tones in an image." The applicant thus conceded on the face of the patent that the "identify a predetermined colorimetric parameter" step (claim 1(a)) was known. That concession leaves essentially only step (b) — modify the identified portion to a selected second parameter — as the alleged point of novelty.

(c) A same-family discrepancy worth flagging (not auto-corrected). The Background cites "U.S. Pat. No. 5,710,954 to Inoue" for a video color-balance-selection system, but the front-page list contains US 5,710,654 A (Fuji Xerox — "Scanning lens and an optical scanner using the same"), an unrelated reference. The patent number appearing in the narrative (§ 5,710,954) and the number in the citation list (§ 5,710,654) differ. I report both literally; this looks like a drafting/transcription inconsistency, and it means the Inoue reference cannot be relied on without pulling its original.

1. The governing standard and the PHOSITA

• Standard: Graham v. John Deere factors as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). A claim is obvious if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention. Where a combination was "a combination of familiar elements according to known methods" yielding "predictable results," KSR holds it obvious; an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation is not a prerequisite.
• Because the patent's earliest possible priority is 1998‑12‑21, the relevant knowledge base is the state of the art as of that date. The field — digital flesh-tone / skin-tone color correction — was already crowded by 1992–1997.
• PHOSITA: a person with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or imaging science, plus roughly two to three years of experience in digital image processing and color management (or equivalent), familiar with color-difference representations (R‑Y/B‑Y, YCbCr), lookup-table color transforms, and photographic/digital photofinishing.

2. Claim 1 — element decomposition

Claim 1 is a two‑step method:

The output is a modified digital image file. The "predetermined colorimetric parameter" is, in the specification's own usage, a skin-tone signature; the "selected second parameter" is the customer/lab-preferred skin tone.

3. Primary § 103 combinations

Combination A — Mitsubishi flesh-tone detection + Olympus complexion conversion

US 5,488,429 / US 5,638,136 (Mitsubishi Denki) + US 5,296,945 (Olympus Optical)

• US 5,488,429 A ("Video signal processor for detecting flesh tones in an image," Kojima et al., priority 1992‑01‑13, issued 1996‑01‑30). A flesh-tone area is detected from color-difference and luminance signals, referencing a predetermined table; then "luminance correction, color correction, and aperture correction are performed only on the flesh-tone area or a human face area identified in the flesh-tone area." That is 1(a) (predetermined table = predetermined colorimetric parameter) and the "only that portion" concept of 1(b). Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5488429; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US5488429A](/patent/US5488429A)
• US 5,638,136 A (Mitsubishi, divisional of the same 1992 application, issued 1997‑06‑10) — same disclosure, claims directed to accessing a color-saturation table from memory and detecting flesh tone. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/5638136.html
• US 5,296,945 A ("Video ID photo printing apparatus and complexion converting apparatus," Ishibashi et al., Olympus, priority 1991‑03‑12, granted 1994‑03‑22). The abstract is remarkably close to claim 1(b): a skin-color portion in a face image is detected; a comparator compares the detected value with a desired standard skin color stored in advance in a standard color memory; the skin color of the picked-up face image is converted into a desired skin color by a look-up table and written into a frame memory; the converted face image is then printed by a full-color printer. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5296945 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[5296945](/patent/5296945)-A

Why the combination is obvious: Mitsubishi discloses the detection + localized modification architecture but only corrects toward a generic "flesh color close to the human sensation of the color." Olympus teaches the missing limitation — converting a detected skin region to a specific, pre-stored "desired" target skin color via a lookup table, with the target selectable from a menu of standard colors. Both are in the same field (flesh/skin color correction in image reproduction), address the identical problem (undesirable skin-color rendition caused by capture/printer color balance), and use the same class of tool (stored color tables). A POSITA would combine them to obtain the predictable result of a system that both finds skin tones and re-colors them to a chosen preference. No new structural principle is required.

Corroborating evidence — the European search report. For EP 1 014 172 A1, the sibling of this patent, the EPO search report categorized EP 0 552 016 A (Mitsubishi Electric, published 1993‑07‑21 — the EP member of the 5,488,429 family) as "X" — particularly relevant if taken alone — against claims 1–5, 7 and 8, and listed US 5,638,136 A as "A" for claims 1 and 7. See EP1014172A1, search report (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/58/5e/31/628671db1f3494/EP1014172A1.pdf). A patent office already treated a single Mitsubishi reference as bearing on the very claim set corresponding to US claims 1–5, 7, 8. This is strong, if non-binding, evidence of obviousness (or even anticipation) of claim 1.

Combination B — Mitsubishi detection + Kodak user-preference selection + Kodak tone mapping

US 5,488,429 / 5,638,136 (Mitsubishi) + US 5,300,974 (Eastman Kodak, Stephenson) + US 5,528,339 / 5,447,811 (Eastman Kodak, tone mapping)

• US 5,300,974 A ("System and apparatus for accommodating user preferences in reproduced images," Eastman Kodak, 1994‑04‑05). A user views progressively different color-balance versions of a scene on a display monitor and selects a preferred color balance; data representing the preference is generated and transferred with the film to the photofinishing operation, which reproduces the images accordingly. https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5300974A](/patent/US5300974A) This supplies the "selected second predetermined parameter" and the customer-preference/profile concept, plus the printing/display elements (claims 9–11, 19).
• US 5,528,339 (Kodak, "Color image reproduction of scenes with color enhancement and preferential tone mapping") — the reference the '599 specification itself incorporates by reference for colorimetry. Its very title supplies "preferential tone mapping," i.e., remapping reproduction to a preferred target.
• US 5,447,811 (Kodak, "Color image reproduction of scenes with preferential tone mapping") — companion disclosure.

Motivation: The applicant already conceded (Background + incorporation by reference) that colorimetric identification (5,528,339) and flesh-tone detection (Mitsubishi) were known. Kodak's own 5,300,974 establishes that letting the customer choose the color-balance preference at the photofinishing stage was known. Combining "detect skin tone" + "apply the customer's selected preference" is precisely claim 1, and it is a combination of two references from the same assignee family's own prior art portfolio addressing the same photofinishing workflow.

Combination C — Olympus 5,296,945 as a near-complete single reference

Olympus 5,296,945 alone discloses: skin-color detection in a face region; comparison with a pre-stored standard target skin color; lookup-table conversion of the detected skin color to the target; storage into a frame memory (a "modified digital image"); and output via a full-color printer. The principal gap versus claim 1 is framing the input as a "digital image file" and the camera's video-based (rather than scanned-film) acquisition. Those are formal differences a POSITA would bridge trivially — and the patent's own claim 7 explicitly contemplates a camera-derived digital file. Even if 5,296,945 were held not to anticipate, it renders claim 1 obvious when combined with any skin-detection reference (Combination A) or with the Kodak scanning/photofinishing art.

4. Claim-by-claim § 103 chart

Weak references to note (and exclude from reliance):

• US 4,805,223 A (The Quantum Fund Limited, "Skin-pattern recognition method and device") is cited on the cover but concerns fingerprint ridge/trough pattern matching for authentication, not colorimetric skin-tone analysis. It is not analogous enough to supply the colorimetric limitation; I would not build a combination on it. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4805223
• US 5,390,381 / 5,390,380 (Lamantia / James-Wallace — towels/beds) and US 5,710,654 (scanning lens) are cited on the cover but are plainly unrelated; they add nothing to § 103.

5. Motivation to combine, and the weakest links

Motivation (Graham/KSR factors)

1. Same field, same problem. Mitsubishi, Olympus, and Kodak all address color rendition of skin/faces in captured images; all identify the cause as capture/printer color balance rather than the subject.
2. Predictable result. Detection (known) + lookup-table remapping to a stored target color (known) = selective skin-tone correction. KSR: combination of familiar elements yielding predictable results.
3. Explicit suggestions exist (so the analysis holds even under a stricter pre‑KSR TSM approach): Olympus 5,296,945 expressly converts detected skin color to a "desirable"/target complexion chosen from a standard-color menu; Mitsubishi 5,488,429 expressly shifts flesh tone "close to the human sensation of the color"; Kodak 5,300,974 expressly implements user-selected color-balance preferences at photofinishing.
4. Market/design pressure identified in the patent itself. The specification frames the problem as serving a worldwide market with differing local skin-tone preferences without manufacturing multiple films — an acknowledged, purely commercial design driver (KSR recognizes such demands as motivations).
5. Admissions by the applicant. The Background identifies 5,488,429/5,638,136 as known flesh-tone detection, and incorporates 5,528,339 for colorimetry. These admissions narrow the case to whether "modify to a selected second parameter" was known — and Olympus 5,296,945 answers that.

Where a patent owner would push back (§ 103 counter-arguments)

• Claims 12–13 (two colorimetric parameters / light + dark skin tones in a single scene). This is the best non-obviousness candidate. The cited detection art (Mitsubishi) identifies flesh tone generically; Olympus converts to a single chosen target. Independently identifying and differently remapping two distinct skin tones in one image (the FIG. 2 scenario) is closer to the patent's actual contribution. Rebuttal: (i) Mitsubishi's detection operates pixel-region by region across a whole frame and would naturally produce multiple detected regions; (ii) a lookup table inherently maps a range of input color values to different outputs, so supporting two target colors requires no new technique; (iii) claim 12 does not require different treatment for the two parameters — only that two are "identified." On that reading it is plainly met. Still, this is where the validity fight would concentrate.
• "Colorimetric" precision. The patent's claims recite "colorimetric parameter" (CIE-style, per incorporated 5,528,339) rather than generic RGB/R‑Y/B‑Y thresholds. A patentee may argue the prior art operates in device-dependent color-difference space, not colorimetric space. Rebuttal: the specification borrows the colorimetry from 5,528,339 by incorporation, which undercuts the argument that this was the novel contribution.
• Secondary considerations. No evidence of unexpected results, long-felt but unmet need, failure of others, or industry praise is presented in the patent or in the record I reviewed. The Background attributes the problem to deliberate market-segmentation design choices, not to a technical barrier — which weakens any "teaching away" or "long-felt need" theory.

6. Caveats and confidence

• High confidence on the § 103 analysis of claim 1 and dependent claims 2–11 and 14–19: the combination of Mitsubishi's flesh-tone detection/modification with Olympus 5,296,945's lookup-table conversion to a pre-stored target skin color maps cleanly onto the two claim-1 steps, and the EPO search report on the sibling application cites a single Mitsubishi reference (EP 0 552 016) as "X" against the corresponding claim set.
• Lower confidence on claims 12–13 (two parameters / light + dark skin tones in one scene) — identified above as the strongest candidate for surviving § 103.
• Two items I could not fully verify and flag rather than assert: (i) I did not retrieve the full text of US 5,528,339 / 5,447,811 in this pass, so their specific disclosure is described from their titles and the patent's own incorporation-by-reference rather than from a read of the claims; (ii) the US 5,710,954 vs. US 5,710,654 ("Inoue" vs. "Scanning lens") discrepancy in the Background/citation list is unresolved and should be verified against the original documents before either is relied upon.
• Per the operating rules, all patent numbers, the literally-drafted claim language (including "colormetric" and the claim-15 dependency on claim 1), and the OCR artifacts ("calorimetric") are reproduced as they appear rather than corrected.

Net assessment: Claim 1 and dependent claims 2–5, 7–11, and 14–19 would very likely be held obvious under § 103 over US 5,488,429 / US 5,638,136 in view of US 5,296,945 (further in view of US 5,300,974 and US 5,528,339), with claim 6 obvious over the same combination in further view of the Kodak/Fuji photofinishing and scanning art. Claims 12–13 present the only materially contestable § 103 question, and even they are more likely than not obvious given that a lookup table maps ranges of input values to distinct outputs as a matter of ordinary design.