VDPP LLC v. Funai Corp Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Funai Corporation, Inc. (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00435, C.D. Cal., 02/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the Central District of California and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture infringe three patents related to methods and systems for modifying video images.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit describe technologies for creating visual effects, including 3D illusions, by processing sequences of 2D image frames and by using electronically controlled spectacles with variable-tint lenses.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

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 Jul. 4, 2017)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the "slow transition time" of electronically controlled variable tint materials (such as electrochromics) used in 3D spectacles as a technical problem, noting that such materials may take several seconds to change state, which is insufficient for synchronizing with high-frame-rate video ('444 Patent, col. 2:27-44). A related problem is the limited "cycle life," or number of times the material can switch states before failing ('444 Patent, col. 2:59-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using "multiple layers of optoelectronic material" to fabricate the lenses, which can achieve faster state transitions and may increase the material's operational lifespan ('444 Patent, col. 2:54-58). While the patent title and abstract focus on spectacle hardware, the asserted claims describe a system for modifying video by processing image frames, such as by generating "bridge frames" to place between primary frames to create illusions of continuous motion ('444 Patent, col. 4:36-54).
• Technical Importance: This approach suggests a method to improve the performance and responsiveness of active shutter glasses, a key component for certain types of 3D viewing systems prevalent during the patent's priority period.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-27 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • An apparatus comprising a storage adapted to store one or more image frames, and a processor.
  • The processor is adapted to obtain a first image frame from a first video stream.
  • The processor is adapted to expand the first image frame to generate a modified image frame.
  • The processor is adapted to generate a bridge frame that is a non-solid color and different from the first and modified image frames.
  • The processor is adapted to blend the modified image frame with the bridge frame to generate a blended modified image frame.
  • The processor is adapted to display the blended modified image frame.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials (Issued Apr. 17, 2018)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’444 Patent, the specification describes the problem of slow state transitions in electronically controlled variable tint materials used for 3D spectacles, which can prevent proper synchronization with motion pictures ('922 Patent, col. 2:23-40).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses using multi-layered optoelectronic materials to enable faster transitions between optical density states ('922 Patent, col. 2:49-53). As with the ’444 Patent, the asserted claims are directed to methods of image processing rather than the spectacle hardware itself, focusing on techniques for generating modified video by manipulating source image frames ('922 Patent, col. 10:55-66).
• Technical Importance: The technology described aims to enhance 3D visual effects by enabling more rapid and nuanced adjustments in lens tinting to match on-screen action.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for generating modified video.
  • Acquiring a source video comprised of a sequence of 2D image frames.
  • Obtaining from the source video a first image frame associated with a first chronological position and a second image frame associated with a second chronological position.
  • Expanding the first image frame to generate a modified first image frame, wherein the modified first image frame is different from the first image frame and from the second image frame.
  • Displaying the modified first image frame.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380, "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials," issued July 10, 2018.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the creation of an illusion of continuous motion using a finite number of still images ('380 Patent, col. 8:31-39). The described solution involves repetitively presenting two or more similar image frames alternated with a "bridging picture" (e.g., a black frame), which the viewer's brain interprets as seamless directional movement ('380 Patent, col. 8:39-54).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-30 (Compl. ¶22), which includes independent claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 26.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture" infringe the patent by performing the claimed methods of image modification (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, system, or service by name. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture" (Compl. ¶¶8, 15, 22).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide any description of the relevant features or functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" these unspecified systems but offers no technical details regarding their operation or how they relate to the claimed image modification technology (Compl. ¶¶8, 15, 22). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of any specific product.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts attached as Exhibits B-D, F, and H but does not include these exhibits (Compl. ¶¶9, 16, 23). In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement theory must be drawn from the general allegations in the complaint's body.

The narrative infringement theory for all three patents-in-suit is that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture" that infringe the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶8, 15, 22). The complaint alleges that Defendant "put the inventions claimed by the [Patents-in-Suit] into service (i.e., used them)" (Compl. ¶¶8, 15, 22). No further detail is provided to connect the functionality of any specific instrumentality to the elements of the asserted claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Sufficiency: A primary point of contention may be whether the complaint's allegations meet federal pleading standards. The complaint does not identify a single accused product or offer any factual allegations explaining how an unspecified instrumentality in the "automotive manufacture" field performs the claimed steps of, for example, "expanding" an image frame or generating a "bridge frame."
  • Technical Nexus: The infringement theory raises the question of the technical nexus between the accused field ("automotive manufacture") and the claimed technology ("modifying an image"). The complaint provides no facts to bridge this conceptual gap, such as by explaining whether the accused systems relate to in-vehicle infotainment, manufacturing process control, or another application.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "bridge frame" (’444 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is a central component of the claimed image processing method. Its construction will determine what types of intermediate frames between primary images constitute infringement, which may be critical to the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a "bridge-picture" can be "a solid black or other solid-colored picture" or even "a timed unlit-screen pause," which could support a construction that does not require the frame to contain any image content derived from other frames (’444 Patent, col. 4:45-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes creating blended frames, such as a blend of image "A" and bridge picture "C" to produce "(C/A)," suggesting the "bridge frame" is used to create a composite image with content from a primary frame, potentially supporting a narrower construction requiring more than a simple blank frame (’444 Patent, col. 5:10-21).

• The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The meaning of "expanding" is foundational to the infringement analysis for this claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether it refers to scaling, cropping, or another modification—will dictate whether an accused process meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the specification, which may support giving it a broad, plain, and ordinary meaning that could encompass any method of making an image frame larger.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims of the related ’444 patent recite "expanding," "shrinking," "removing a portion," "stitching," "inserting," and "reshaping" as distinct types of image modification (’444 Patent, cls. 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 22). A defendant may argue that this demonstrates a clear intent for "expanding" to have a specific meaning separate from other forms of image manipulation, though the specification provides little guidance on what that specific meaning is.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for all three patents-in-suit. The factual basis alleged is that Defendant "has actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶10, 11, 17, 18, 24, 25). No specific user manuals, marketing materials, or other instructions are identified.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶10, 17, 24). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing willfulness. The complaint includes footnotes reserving the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. p. 4 n.1; p. 5 n.2; p. 7 n.4).

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

• A central threshold issue will be one of factual sufficiency: Does the complaint provide plausible, non-conclusory factual allegations sufficient to state a claim for patent infringement, given its failure to identify any accused product or explain how an instrumentality in the "automotive manufacture" field practices the asserted claims?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical nexus: Can Plaintiff establish a connection between the defendant's business in automotive manufacturing and the claimed methods of modifying video frames by generating "bridge frames" and "expanding" images, a link that is not established in the complaint?
• A likely dispute in claim construction will concern definitional scope: How should key terms like "bridge frame" and "expanding," which are central to the claimed image processing methods but are given varied or minimal description in the specification, be construed?