DCT
5:21-cv-04649
VDPP LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VDPP LLC (Oregon)
- Defendant: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Taiwan) and ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL (California) (collectively "ASUS")
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: ATKINS & DAVIDSON, APC; WAWRZYN LLC
- Case Identification: 5:21-cv-04649, N.D. Cal., 04/19/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because ASUS conducts continuous and systematic business in the district and has a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain ASUS monitors and other display-equipped products infringe four patents related to advanced video processing techniques, including local dimming, picture-by-picture display, and black frame insertion for motion blur reduction.
- Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to methods of manipulating and combining video frames to enhance image quality and create visual effects on electronic displays, a key area of competition in the high-performance consumer electronics market.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents originate from a large, interrelated family of applications. Notably, after the filing of this amended complaint, asserted claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 was canceled in an ex parte reexamination proceeding, rendering that specific infringement allegation moot going forward.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-01-23 | Earliest Priority Date (’123, ’444, ’922, ’380 Patents) |
| 2017-07-04 | U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 Issues |
| 2018-04-17 | U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issues |
| 2018-07-10 | U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380 Issues |
| 2021-06-15 | U.S. Patent No. 11,039,123 Issues |
| 2022-04-19 | Amended Complaint Filed |
| 2023-12-11 | Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 Issues, Canceling Claim 27 |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,039,123 - Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials
- Issued: June 15, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes methods for creating the illusion of three-dimensional video or other advanced visual effects from standard two-dimensional motion pictures without requiring specialized filming techniques or hardware for viewers ('123 Patent, col. 2:20-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention processes video frames to generate new visual sequences. As described in an embodiment, the system can obtain images from two different video streams, "stitch" them together, create multiple "modified" frames by removing portions of the stitched image, and then blend those modified frames with a separate "bridge frame" (such as a transparent overlay) before displaying the result ('123 Patent, col. 15:24-43). This allows for composite displays like picture-in-picture with graphical overlays.
- Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for creating complex, layered video displays in real-time, enabling features that enhance user interaction and information density on a single screen.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶9).
- Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus adapted to:
- Obtain a first image from a first video stream and a second image from a second video stream.
- Stitch the two images together to generate a stitched image frame.
- Generate first, second, and third "modified image frames" by removing first, second, and third different portions of the stitched image frame.
- Identify a "bridge frame that is a non-solid color."
- Blend each of the three modified image frames with the bridge frame to generate three blended frames.
- Display the three blended frames.
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 background describes technical challenges in display technology, including the slow response time of materials used to create 3D effects, which can prevent proper synchronization with high-framerate video and degrade the user experience ('444 Patent, col. 2:25-42).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims methods of generating and displaying modified video. Claim 1 describes an apparatus that "expands" an image frame to create a "modified image frame" and generates a "non-solid color" "bridge frame." The two frames are then blended and displayed ('444 Patent, col. 47:40-54). The complaint maps this process to modern "local dimming" technology, where a display's backlight is dynamically modulated to improve contrast. Claim 27, now canceled, recited a similar process but for a "solid color" bridge frame, which the complaint maps to "black frame insertion."
- Technical Importance: The claimed techniques relate to foundational methods for improving perceived image quality on LCD screens, addressing key performance metrics like contrast ratio and motion blur that are central to the display industry.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and independent Claim 27 (Compl. ¶¶22, 27). As noted, Claim 27 was canceled ex parte reexamination and is no longer enforceable.
- Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus with storage and a processor adapted to:
- Obtain a first image frame.
- "Expand" the first image frame to generate a modified image frame.
- Generate a "bridge frame" that is a "non-solid color."
- "Blend" the modified image frame with the bridge frame.
- Display the resulting blended frame.
U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials
- Issued: April 17, 2018
Technology Synopsis
This patent, part of the same family as the '444 patent, also addresses motion blur reduction. The asserted claims cover an apparatus that performs "black frame insertion," a technique where the system generates and displays a solid black "bridge frame" in between the display of two consecutive, modified video frames to create the perception of sharper motion (Compl. ¶¶38-40).
Asserted Claims
- Claim 2 (dependent on Claim 1) (Compl. ¶36).
Accused Features
- The complaint accuses the ASUS VG248QE monitor's "black frame insertion" feature of infringing by displaying a modified image frame, then a solid black bridge frame, and then a second modified image frame (Compl. ¶¶35, 40).
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 also discloses methods for processing video to reduce motion blur. The asserted claim describes an apparatus that obtains two image frames from chronological positions in a video sequence, expands each to create two modified frames, and then combines them into a single "modified combined image frame" for display (Compl. ¶44).
Asserted Claims
- Claim 6 (Compl. ¶44).
Accused Features
- The ASUS VG248QE monitor is accused of infringing by "expanding image frames and combining modified image frames" to reduce perceived motion blur (Compl. ¶¶43, 45).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names specific ASUS monitors: the PA32UCG-K, ProArt PA32UCX, PA329C, ROG Swift PG27UQ, PG35UQ, PG65UQ, CG32UQ, and VG248QE. It also includes broader categories of "Accused Models" such as laptops, tablets, all-in-one computers, notebooks, and smartphones (Compl. ¶¶7, 22, 35, 43).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are alleged to incorporate advanced display features. The complaint specifically identifies the "Picture-by-Picture" (PbP) function, which allows for the simultaneous display of content from multiple video inputs (Compl. ¶10).
- It also identifies "local dimming," a technique used in high-end displays where a direct-LED backlight (BLU) is dynamically controlled in zones to match the image content on the liquid crystal module (LCM), thereby increasing the contrast ratio (Compl. ¶¶25-26).
- Finally, the complaint identifies a "black frame insertion" capability, designed to reduce motion blur by inserting black frames between content frames (Compl. ¶¶27, 35). These features are characteristic of high-performance monitors marketed to professionals and gamers.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'123 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| obtain a first image...; obtain a second image... | The Monitor's Picture-by-Picture (PbP) function obtains two different images from two different video input ports. | ¶¶10-11 | col. 112:54-57 |
| stitch together the first image and the second image to generate a stitched image frame | The Monitor's PbP function stitches the two images together for display. | ¶11 | col. 112:57-59 |
| generate a first modified image frame by removing a first portion of the stitched image frame | The Monitor removes the Green and Blue color components from the stitched image, leaving only the Red component. | ¶12 | col. 112:59-61 |
| generate a second modified image frame by removing a second portion... | The Monitor removes the Red and Blue color components from the stitched image, leaving only the Green component. | ¶13 | col. 112:61-63 |
| generate a third modified image frame by removing a third portion... | The Monitor removes the Red and Green color components from the stitched image, leaving only the Blue component. | ¶14 | col. 112:63-65 |
| identify a bridge frame that is a non-solid color | The Monitor has a transparent on-screen menu which is a non-solid color. | ¶15 | col. 113:1-2 |
| blend the first modified image frame with the bridge frame... | The Monitor blends the first modified (Red) frame with the transparent menu. | ¶16 | col. 113:2-4 |
| blend the second modified image frame with the bridge frame... | The Monitor blends the second modified (Green) frame with the transparent menu. | ¶17 | col. 113:2-4 |
| blend the third modified image frame with the bridge frame... | The Monitor blends the third modified (Blue) frame with the transparent menu. | ¶18 | col. 113:2-4 |
| display the first blended frame, the second blended frame, and the third blended frame | The Monitor displays the blended frames, with the transparent menu blended over each of the underlying subpixel frames. | ¶19 | col. 113:4-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether "removing a ... portion" of an image frame can be interpreted to mean removing a color channel from a pixel's data (e.g., leaving only the red value), as Plaintiff alleges. A defendant may argue that "portion" implies a spatial region of the image. Similarly, it raises the question of whether a user-initiated on-screen display (OSD) menu constitutes a "bridge frame" as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's theory requires the Monitor to sequentially generate three separate modified frames (one for each R, G, B channel), blend each one individually with the OSD, and then display the three results. This raises the technical question of whether the accused device's graphics hardware actually performs this specific multi-step process, or if it uses a more integrated method of overlaying a transparent menu onto a final composite image.
'444 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a storage adapted to: store one or more image frames | The Accused Models contain storage to store a sequence of image frames. | ¶23 | col. 47:40-42 |
| obtain a first image frame from a first video stream | The processor is adapted to obtain an image frame from a video stream. | ¶24 | col. 47:43-44 |
| expand the first image frame to generate a modified image frame... | The processor is adapted to upscale lower resolution images to the monitor's native resolution. | ¶24 | col. 47:45-47 |
| generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a non-solid color... | The locally dimmed backlight unit (BLU) creates an image where parts are black, white, or a gradient, which is alleged to be the non-solid bridge frame. | ¶25 | col. 47:48-51 |
| blend the modified image frame with the bridge frame... | The Accused Models blend the upscaled RGB image from the LCM layer with the locally dimmed image from the BLU layer. | ¶26 | col. 47:52-54 |
| display the blended modified image frame | The Accused Models display the final blended image. | ¶26 | col. 47:54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused monitors "blend" the image from the backlight unit with the image from the liquid crystal module. This raises a fundamental question of technical operation, as an LCD panel functions as a light filter or modulator for the backlight, rather than a system that "blends" two distinct digital frames. The court will need to determine if this physical reality maps onto the claim language.
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory posits that a modulated backlight pattern constitutes a "bridge frame." This raises a question of claim scope, as the patent's specification often describes "bridge frames" as distinct images inserted into a sequence to create a temporal illusion, not as a hardware component (the backlight) that co-exists with another (the LCD panel). The interpretation of whether upscaling resolution constitutes "expanding" an image frame may also be contested.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "removing a ... portion of the stitched image frame" ('123 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement theory for the '123 patent depends on this term encompassing the removal of color channel data from a pixel (e.g., removing G and B to leave R). The viability of Count 1 may hinge on whether this non-spatial interpretation is adopted over a more conventional, spatial interpretation (e.g., cropping).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term broadly. The specification describes generating modified image frames from a selected frame without strictly limiting the modification to spatial removal, potentially allowing for modifications to pixel data itself (e.g., '123 Patent, col. 11:15-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently uses terms associated with spatial manipulation, such as "stitching," "collage," and "reshaping a portion of an image frame," which could suggest that "removing a portion" should also be interpreted spatially ('123 Patent, col. 13:58-62; col. 14:15-18).
The Term: "blend the modified image frame with the bridge frame" ('444 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for local dimming technology in the '444 patent relies on characterizing the physical interaction between an LCD panel and its backlight as a "blending" of two "frames." Practitioners may focus on this term because if "blend" is construed to require a computational combination of two distinct digital data sets, the infringement theory may fail.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes blending in various ways, including through "photographic means" or an "optical printer," suggesting the term is not limited to software-based digital combination ('444 Patent, col. 9:59-62). This could support a functional interpretation where any combination of two sources to produce a final visual output is a "blend."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed descriptions of creating image sequences (e.g., "A, A/B, B, B/C, C") strongly imply a process of creating new, discrete digital frames from the data of prior frames ('444 Patent, col. 9:20-22). This context may support a narrower construction limited to the computational combination of digital image data, which is distinct from the physical process of light modulation.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on mapping the functional language of the patents-in-suit onto the physical and architectural realities of modern display technologies. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of technical translation: can claim terms like "blend" and "removing a portion," which are rooted in the context of creating sequences of discrete digital image frames, be construed to read on the physical operations of modern display hardware, such as the light-filtering interaction between an LCD panel and its modulated backlight or the manipulation of individual color channel data within a pixel?
- A second key issue will be one of evidentiary support: for the highly specific infringement theories presented—particularly the allegation that the accused PbP feature creates and individually blends three separate color-channel frames—what technical evidence can be presented to show that the accused devices perform these exact, discrete steps as claimed, rather than achieving a similar result through a different process?
- Finally, a threshold issue for the '444 patent will be the procedural effect of claim cancellation: given that asserted Claim 27 was invalidated during reexamination after the complaint was filed, the court must address the disposition of that infringement count and its impact on the scope of discovery and trial.