VDPP LLC v. Bang & Olufsen America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Bang & Olufsen America, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00241, C.D. Cal., 01/10/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services related to motion pictures infringe a patent directed to electronically controlled spectacles that create a 3D visual effect from 2D content.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using spectacles with variable-tint lenses that are controlled independently for each eye to create a stereoscopic illusion known as the Pulfrich effect when viewing standard motion pictures.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent, U.S. 9,699,444, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination proceeding that concluded after the complaint was filed. The Reexamination Certificate canceled claims 26-27, which are among the claims asserted in this litigation. The complaint does not acknowledge this proceeding.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 - "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials," issued July 4, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of slow response times in electronically controlled variable tint materials, such as those used in "shutter glasses" for 3D viewing. When these materials cannot transition quickly enough between light and dark states, they cannot properly synchronize with fast-moving action in a motion picture, which diminishes or defeats the intended 3D illusion. A related problem is the limited operational "cycle life" of such materials before they degrade. (’444 Patent, col. 2:28-44, 60-68).
• The Patented Solution: To solve this, the invention proposes fabricating the spectacle lenses from multiple layers of optoelectronic materials. The specification explains that by using two or more layers, a target optical density (i.e., darkness level) can be achieved with a shorter application of voltage than would be required for a single, thicker layer. This architecture is disclosed to enable faster transition times and potentially increase the "cycle life" of the lenses. (’444 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-62).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to improve the performance and viability of creating a 3D effect from 2D content (the "3Deeps" or Pulfrich effect) by overcoming the physical limitations of the optoelectronic materials required to produce the illusion. (’444 Patent, col. 2:45-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-27 of the ’444 Patent (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent claim 1, the broadest asserted claim, recites the following elements:
  • An electrically controlled spectacle, comprising:
  • a spectacle frame;
  • optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame, the lenses comprising a left lens and a right lens,
  • each of the optoelectrical lenses having a plurality of states,
  • wherein the state of the left lens is independent of the state of the right lens; and
  • a control unit housed in the frame, the control unit being adapted to control the state of each of the lenses independently.
• The complaint reserves the right to pursue infringement of any of claims 1-27 (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures" that are maintained, operated, and administered by the Defendant (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any description of the technical functionality, operation, or market position of the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶8-9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement chart in an "Exhibit B" to support its allegations (Compl. ¶9). However, this exhibit is not attached to the publicly filed complaint. The body of the complaint itself provides only conclusory allegations of infringement without detailing a specific infringement theory that maps accused product features to claim limitations (Compl. ¶8). As a result, there is insufficient information to construct a claim chart or analyze specific points of technical contention.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "optoelectronic lenses"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the scope of the claims. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the optical components in Defendant's accused products, once identified, fall within the proper construction of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue for a broad definition, pointing to specification language that lists multiple types of "electronically controlled variable tint materials," including electrochromic devices, suspended particle devices, and polymer dispersed liquid crystal devices, as potential implementations (’444 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue for a narrower construction limited to the specific embodiments detailed in the patent, which focus heavily on multi-layered electrochromic materials that change transmissivity. This could be supported by the patent's title and abstract, which emphasize "variable tint materials." (’444 Patent, Abstract; col. 22:35-51).

• The Term: "control unit... adapted to control the state of each of the lenses independently"

  • Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation, and its construction will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely center on whether the accused product's controller is merely capable of independent control or if it must be specifically designed or configured for the purpose described in the patent (i.e., creating a 3D illusion).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may contend that any controller that can send distinct signals to the left and right optical components meets this limitation, regardless of its ultimate purpose.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term "adapted to" implies the control unit must be specifically configured to achieve the goals of the invention, such as synchronizing lens states with lateral motion in a video to generate the Pulfrich illusion as described throughout the specification (’444 Patent, col. 15:27-41, col. 2:6-15).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it alleges Defendant instructed customers on how to use its products to infringe, with knowledge of the patent established "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10). For contributory infringement, it makes the conclusory allegation that there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the accused products (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent from the date the lawsuit was filed, which would apply only to post-filing conduct (Compl. ¶10; p. 6, ¶e). Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend its inducement and willfulness claims if discovery reveals an earlier date of knowledge (Compl. p. 4, n.1).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue for the court will be one of pleading sufficiency. Does the complaint, which fails to identify a single accused product by name and provides no factual support for its infringement allegations, satisfy the plausibility pleading standard required under federal law?
• Claim Scope: A central question will be one of claim scope and validity. The assertion of claims 26 and 27, which were canceled during an ex parte reexamination that the complaint does not mention, raises immediate questions about the diligence of the pre-suit investigation and the viability of those specific counts.
• Technical Infringement: Assuming the case proceeds, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical overlap: once specific products are identified, does any Bang & Olufsen technology actually practice the claimed invention of using independently controlled, multi-state optoelectronic lenses to generate a 3D effect, or is this litigation based on a misunderstanding of the accused technology?