On April 27th, RED and Nikon agreed to a dismissal of RED’s lawsuit against Nikon for violating RED’s claimed patent for raw video (raw video capability appeared in the 2.0 firmware of the Nikon Z9). The dismissal was done under Rule 41, which means that both parties agreed to it, though it was also done without prejudice, which means that the suit could be refiled at a later date. Because the agreement is not with prejudice, it does not appear that there was an out-of-court settlement of any kind, just a mutual decision to drop the lawsuit.
RED and Nikon currently have not responded with expanded comments on the dismissal, and it’s likely that we won’t see any public elaboration. The tricky part for RED is that if another company puts raw video into a camera in apparent violation of their claimed patent, they can’t just sue that new company while ignoring Nikon. Patents, like Copyright and Trademarks, have to be defended equally. Ultimately, you can’t look the other way for one “violator" while pursuing others in court.
Personally, I don’t believe RED’s overarching patent argument (any raw video recorded in camera with any compression) is actually patentable, because it’s over broad, obvious, and there’s pre-existing art. Their more specific portion of the patent—the actual compression used—might be, but even that seems to be broad, obvious, and has some pre-existing precedent.
I should also point out that RED’s patent claim and suit were US-based only. I believe RED would have a real issue trying to make the same assertions in the EU, for instance, where IntoPIX clearly has pre-existing art and their own patent (Nikon uses IntoPIX technology in their implementation).
Bottom line: it does not appear that Z9 users need worry that the N-Raw implementation that appeared in firmware 2.0 will be taken out.
