VDPP LLC v. American Honda Motor Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01501, C.D. Cal., 05/21/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain systems in Defendant’s Acura-branded vehicles infringe a now-expired patent related to electrically controlled spectacles for viewing 3D content.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using multi-layered, variable-tint lenses in electronic glasses to rapidly alter light transmission to each eye, thereby creating a 3D visual effect from standard 2D motion pictures based on the Pulfrich illusion.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent expired in January 2022, and Plaintiff seeks only pre-expiration damages. Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. Notably, an ex parte reexamination of the patent was requested in March 2024. A reexamination certificate, dated in the future, states that asserted dependent claims 2 and 4 are confirmed, while asserted independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3 were not reexamined.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452, "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials," issued August 23, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the technical problem of slow transition times and limited "cycle life" in electronically controlled variable tint materials, such as those used in active shutter glasses. These limitations could prevent the glasses from properly synchronizing with motion pictures to create a stable 3D effect (’452 Patent, col. 2:40-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using two or more layers of variable tint materials to construct the lenses of the spectacles. This multi-layer approach is described as enabling faster transitions between light and dark states because the optical density change can be distributed across the layers, and may also improve the durability or "cycle life" of the device (’452 Patent, col. 2:49-56). The patent's abstract describes the core invention as an electrically controlled spectacle with a frame, lenses, and a control unit housed within the frame to independently manage the state of each lens (’452 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described solution sought to improve the performance and viability of systems that generate a 3D illusion (the "Pulfrich illusion") from standard 2D content, making the effect more robust for commercial use with film and television (’452 Patent, col. 14:11-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-4, which includes independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶10).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint accuses "systems available in the United States in Acura-branded vehicles" (Compl. ¶10, fn 1). No specific product name, model, or component is identified.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that these Acura systems "perform infringing methods or processes" but does not describe the specific functionality of these systems or how they operate (Compl. ¶12). It provides no details regarding the products' market context beyond their inclusion in Acura vehicles. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in its Exhibit B to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶11). The complaint’s narrative theory is that unspecified systems in Acura vehicles directly infringe the claims of the ’452 Patent (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how any specific accused functionality maps to the claim elements.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A foundational issue is whether an in-vehicle system, as accused by the Plaintiff, can meet the definition of an "electrically controlled spectacle" as claimed in the patent. The patent's title, abstract, figures, and detailed description consistently frame the invention as a pair of glasses worn by a user. The complaint does not explain how an automotive system could be construed as such.
  • Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary question will be what proof, if any, the Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that a system within an Acura vehicle contains components that perform the functions of "optoelectronic lenses" and a "spectacle frame" that houses both the lenses and a "control unit," as strictly required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "electrically controlled spectacle"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the entire apparatus claimed in claim 1. The viability of the Plaintiff's case hinges on whether this term can be construed broadly enough to read on an automotive system. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's infringement theory appears to be directly at odds with the common understanding of a "spectacle."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint provides no specific arguments or evidence from the patent to support a broad, non-eyewear interpretation of "spectacle."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides extensive support for a narrow construction limited to eyewear. The abstract defines the invention as comprising a "spectacle frame" and "optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame" (’452 Patent, Abstract). Figure 1 provides a clear perspective view of a pair of glasses labeled "spectacles 100" and its components, including a "frame 101" (’452 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 20:15-17). The term is used consistently in this context throughout the specification.

• The Term: "optoelectronic lenses"

  • Context and Importance: This element is a core component of the claimed "spectacle." The infringement analysis requires identifying a corresponding feature in the accused automotive systems.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer a basis for a broad interpretation, such as any light-modulating electronic component.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the "lenses" as components of wearable spectacles through which a user views a motion picture (’452 Patent, col. 20:40-44). Figure 2b details the multi-layer structure of the lens material designed to control "the amount of light passing through the material" to a viewer's eye, reinforcing its meaning as an optical element in a pair of glasses (’452 Patent, col. 19:8-11).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint explicitly states that it "does not allege indirect infringement of any claim" (Compl. ¶10).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, in its prayer for relief, it asks the court to "declare this case to be 'exceptional' under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and award attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶16.d).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "electrically controlled spectacle," which the patent specification consistently and unambiguously describes as wearable eyewear, be construed to encompass an integrated system within an automobile? The complaint's failure to identify which components of the accused Acura vehicles allegedly form the "spectacle" makes this the central and most significant question in the case.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of elemental correspondence: should the case proceed past claim construction, what evidence can Plaintiff provide to show that an Acura-branded system contains discrete components that map to the claimed "spectacle frame," the "optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame," and the "control unit" also "housed in the frame," as required by the claim language and described in the specification?