The parties and the patent

The case is SmallRig Limited v. Videndum Media Solutions S.p.A., No. 2:26-cv-03856 (W.D. Wash.). SmallRig is a Delaware company that sells camera accessories through its Amazon seller account. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Videndum is an Italian corporation based in Cassola, Italy, that owns the patent, and says the patent names it under its former name, Vitec Imaging Solutions S.p.A. U.S. Patent 12,650,199, Support Head for Video/Photographic Equipment, issued June 9, 2026.

What the patent covers

Claim 1 covers a support head for video/photographic equipment with a body forming a seat for the equipment's attachment plate, and a first and second region of the body separated by a distance perpendicular to the seat's longitudinal axis. It requires a retaining device that moves between a first position that holds the plate in the seat, with limited ability to slide lengthwise, and a second position that lets the plate enter or leave the seat perpendicular to that direction, a locking device with a control member on the first region, and a safety device that keeps the retaining device from accidentally moving to the second position, with a user-operated unlocking element of the safety device positioned on the second region of the body.

What the complaint alleges

SmallRig says the release button on its accused products, including the DH10 head and TRIBEX SE tripod, projects from the end face of the head at the end of the seat, not from either side region, so it is not positioned on the second region as claim 1 requires. It alleges that claim 1 and the only other independent claim, claim 11, are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 over U.S. Patent 8,827,219 (Kessler) in view of U.S. Patent 6,234,690 (Lemieux), and alleges on information and belief that dependent claims 2 to 10 and 12 to 20 add only features known in the prior art.

The complaint says Amazon's September 18 notice gave SmallRig three weeks to respond and stated that a seller who files a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and provides it to Amazon in that period may keep selling while the suit proceeds. It says Videndum agreed in the APEX agreement to "the jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts located in King County, Seattle, Washington," and pleads Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) in the alternative if Videndum contends its consent does not reach this action.

Relief requested

SmallRig asks for declarations under 28 U.S.C. 2201 that its accused products do not infringe claims 1 through 20, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and that the claims are invalid, plus taxable costs. It does not ask for attorney fees, and it demands a jury trial.

What it means

The complaint frames the dispute around one claim 1 limitation, where on the body the unlocking element sits, and it pleads that Videndum consented to jurisdiction and venue in the APEX agreement. It seeks a declaration on all 20 claims but offers no separate non-infringement analysis of independent claim 11, which requires that the unlocking element not be positioned in the first region. SmallRig filed on October 9, 2026, the last day of the three-week response period, and it is one of two declaratory judgment suits filed by Amazon sellers between October 9 and October 11, 2026.

What to watch next

Watch for Videndum's answer and any infringement counterclaim, and whether the dispute shifts to claim construction of the second region limitation.