JPEG is short for the "Joint Photographic Experts Group". It comprises experts nominated by national standards bodies and major companies to work to produce standards for continuous tone image coding.
The best-known standard from JPEG is IS 10918-1, which is the first of a multi-part set of standards for still image compression. A basic version of the many features of this standard is what most people think of as JPEG – and this is where Forgent is claiming a monopoly right.
The patent is owned by Compression Labs, which applied for it in 1986, but never pursued royalties. Forgent subsequently acquired Compression Labs and startled the computer industry in 2002 when it announced that it would be seeking royalties relating to digital image compression.
In particular, Forgent was interested in fields of use including any digital still image device used to compress, store, manipulate, print or transmit digital still images such as digital cameras.
But the patent also extended to cover many digital still image devices such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile telephones, printers, scanners and other devices used to compress, store, manipulate, print or transmit digital still images, said Forgent.
Accordingly, the company claimed to have the exclusive right to use, licence and enforce all the claims under the patent in all fields of use involving digital still image compression.
Over the last two years, Forgent has licensed the patent to 30 different companies in Asia, Europe and the US, generating around $90 million in fees, but has had no success with the companies named in last week's lawsuit, despite ongoing negotiations.
"Forgent is committed to developing all of its assets and technologies to maximise shareholder value. We believe we will prevail in this litigation as the '672 Patent is valid, enforceable and infringed," said Richard Snyder, chairman and CEO of Forgent.
He added: "It's unfortunate that despite the many opportunities these companies have had to license the patent, they have all declined to participate, leaving us no alternative but to litigate."
Company spokesman Michael Noonan told The Mac Observer, "The amount of the damages will depend on each of the defendants products and their associated revenue." He added: "It is fair to say that we could end up asking for damages in the millions of dollars".