I have a patent that describes an action that contain a use of digital photograph. There is a company is coping my patent except for the fact she uses live video instead of photos. I can easily prove that video is a sequence of photos because technically video is like many photos.. but the question is- from legal point of view- can I say that video is like many photos?

  • 1
    Please link to your patent. With out looking at your claims, I don’t think we can be of help.
    – Eric S
    Aug 3, 2019 at 16:32
  • 1
    That's the point where you ask an attorney .. (the answer is “it depends“)
    – user18033
    Aug 4, 2019 at 10:27
  • will it be ok if ill send it over the mail?
    – Nona
    Aug 8, 2019 at 19:29
  • The question is - Do they process images or video?
    – Moti
    Aug 23, 2019 at 5:41
  • Modern video is not stored as a sequence of independent photos and is not necessarily displayed that way.
    – James
    Sep 18, 2019 at 11:47

1 Answer 1


They are not legal terms per se. Even though law will accept the technical relationship between photograph and video, yet should concede that they are different because they are considered so in relevant technology field.

In patent prosecution, it may be considered whether claims based on video will be obvious to a person skilled in the art in the light of photograph based claims and description supporting the photograph based claims. This consideration may not have initiation at all when 'live video' based claims are taken into consideration. Because, very clearly, the same was not obvious to Nona (even possible application to video was also non-obvious to her) herself nor to anyone else (assuming absence of prior art).

For patent grant requirement is

35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. [1] (After considerations under 35 USC 102 and 103 also).

IMO, the point here is she is using "live video instead of photos" which, for patent purpose, can be considered as new and useful improvement if not out and out "novel" and hence a suitable candidate for grant of patent and infringement prosecution/suit may not stand.

That's where a good patent attorney is helpful who can not only dig into what you have invented but also take care of fall outs of your invention which should be plugged.

Disclaimer : It is just personal opinion and not legal opinion or advice.

  • 1
    the question wasn't about the video version getting a patent of its own but whether the video case would be considered as infringing the photo based claims.
    – George White
    Sep 9, 2019 at 4:45
  • Sir, I think, a video based claims against photo based claims may be argued for infringement but mention of 'live video' takes the claims to a different level and will be difficult to prove infringement by relating to photo based claims. Sep 9, 2019 at 13:34
  • 1
    @ADAdhikary I do not understand your comment. As George White says, this question relates to infringement rather than patentability. I do not follow why you are referring to video based claims and photo based claims. It seems this question relates to photo based claims, and what would infringe (or not) is some product with video (not video based claims). Perhaps a same/similar process for a video could be granted a patent, but that does not mean that a party reproducing the claimed process using a video instead of a photo does not infringe the patent. Sep 9, 2019 at 14:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .