VDPP LLC v. VIVO Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: VIVO, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 5:23-cv-04241, N.D. Cal., 08/18/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services in the automotive and motion picture industries infringe patents related to methods and systems for modifying video images to create visual effects.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to creating 3D-like visual illusions from standard 2D video content, primarily by using electronically controlled spectacles that dynamically adjust their lens tint to manipulate how the viewer’s brain perceives motion and depth.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380 - "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials"

• 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 (the "’380 Patent"). (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve problems with creating 3D visual effects from 2D motion pictures. Specifically, it notes that variable tint spectacles used to create these effects (e.g., via the Pulfrich illusion) often have slow transition times between light and dark states, which prevents them from optimally synchronizing with fast-moving content. (’380 Patent, col. 4:25-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method of modifying a video by acquiring a sequence of image frames, modifying them (e.g., by expanding them), and inserting a "bridge frame" between them to create a continuous illusion of movement. (’380 Patent, col. 8:46-9:16). This image processing is intended for use with electronically controlled spectacles that can rapidly adjust lens tint, with the patent particularly highlighting the use of multi-layer electrochromic materials to achieve faster state transitions than single-layer systems. (’380 Patent, col. 4:48-56).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to enable a high-quality 3D experience from conventional 2D video sources without requiring special 3D cameras or production techniques, thereby broadening the potential for 3D viewing. (’380 Patent, col. 2:20-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-30, with claim 1 being an independent method claim. (Compl. ¶9).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’380 Patent recites the essential elements of a method for generating modified video, including:
  • acquiring a source video comprising a sequence of image frames having a first chronological position... wherein a first image frame is associated with a first chronological position... and a second image frame is associated with a second chronological position;
  • expanding the first image frame to generate a modified first image frame...;
  • expanding the second image frame to generate a modified second image frame...;
  • combining the modified first image frame and the modified second image frame to generate a modified combined image frame;
  • generating a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame has first and second opposing sides defining a first dimension and third and fourth opposing sides defining a second dimension; and
  • displaying the modified combined image frame.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶9).

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials"

• Patent Identification: 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 (the "’922 Patent"). (Compl. ¶14).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’922 Patent addresses the same technical problem as its related ’380 Patent: the limitations of existing methods for creating 3D effects from 2D video, particularly the slow response time of variable tint lenses. (’922 Patent, col. 4:25-34).
• The Patented Solution: While sharing a common specification with the ’380 Patent, the ’922 Patent claims an apparatus rather than a method. The claimed apparatus comprises storage and a processor adapted to perform video modification. The processor is configured to obtain image frames, generate modified frames by expanding or shrinking them, generate a "bridge frame" that is different from the image frames, and then display the sequence of modified and bridge frames. (’922 Patent, col. 114:26-115:7).
• Technical Importance: As with the ’380 patent, this apparatus was intended to provide a system for converting standard 2D motion pictures into a more immersive 3D-like experience. (’922 Patent, col. 2:20-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-12, with claims 1, 5, 8, 9, and 11 being independent apparatus claims. (Compl. ¶16).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’922 Patent recites the essential elements of an apparatus, including:
  • a storage adapted to store one or more image frames; and a processor adapted to:
  • obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream;
  • generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame...;
  • generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame...;
  • generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color... and different from the first and second image frames;
  • display the first modified image frame; display the bridge frame; and display the second modified image frame.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims within the asserted range. (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It generally accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture" of infringing the ’380 Patent and "systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures" of infringing the ’922 Patent. (Compl. ¶9, ¶16).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint provides no technical description of how the accused instrumentalities operate. It alleges in a conclusory manner that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that perform the infringing methods and embody the infringing apparatuses related to "modifying an image." (Compl. ¶9, ¶11, ¶16, ¶18). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the specific functionality or market positioning of any accused product.
• Visual Evidence: No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include preliminary claim charts (Exhibits B and D) that would detail its infringement theories. (Compl. ¶10, ¶17). The narrative allegations are summarized below.

• ’380 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes, induces infringement, and contributes to the infringement of one or more of claims 1-30 of the ’380 Patent. (Compl. ¶9, ¶11, ¶12). The infringement theory is that Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture" perform the patented method of modifying an image. (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide specific facts linking any product feature to the claim elements, stating that support for the allegations can be found in the non-included Exhibit B. (Compl. ¶10).
• ’922 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint similarly alleges direct, induced, and contributory infringement of one or more of claims 1-12 of the ’922 Patent. (Compl. ¶16, ¶18, ¶19). The infringement theory is that Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures" are the apparatuses claimed in the ’922 Patent. (Compl. ¶16). Again, the complaint does not map any product components to the claimed apparatus but refers to the non-included Exhibit D for evidentiary support. (Compl. ¶17).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The most significant issue raised by the complaint is the complete lack of factual detail supporting the infringement allegations. A central question for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that Defendant's vaguely identified products in the "automotive" and "motion picture" fields actually perform the specific steps of "expanding" frames and generating "bridge frames" as required by the claims.
  • Scope Questions: The patents are directed to technology for creating a 3D-like visual effect. A potential point of contention is whether the accused systems, once identified, modify images for the purpose and in the manner described by the patents, or for entirely different reasons (e.g., standard video processing, scaling, or compression) that fall outside the scope of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "bridge frame"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both asserted patents and is a central component of the claimed invention. The definition of what constitutes a "bridge frame"—whether it must be a simple blank interval, a solid color, or a more complex, dissimilar image—will be critical to determining whether the accused systems meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a bridge frame can be simple, describing it as potentially being a "solid black picture, a solid colored picture, or a timed unscreened portion." (’380 Patent, col. 16:53-55). This language may support a construction that does not require complex content.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the bridge frame as "visually dissimilar to the image frame," suggesting it must be distinct in a specific way. (’380 Patent, col. 32:20-22). Dependent claims that add limitations, such as claim 4 of the ’380 Patent requiring a "non-solid color" bridge frame, may be used to argue that the independent claim's term should be interpreted more broadly but that specific embodiments require more.
• The Term: "expanding the first image frame"
  • Context and Importance: This active step is recited in independent claim 1 of both patents and defines the core manipulation of the source video. The construction of "expanding" will determine what kind of image processing (e.g., digital zoom, aspect ratio change, stereoscopic deformation) falls within the claim scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "expanding," which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning of making the image larger. The specification also uses the term in conjunction with "shrinking," implying general resizing operations. (’380 Patent, col. 9:51-52).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument could be made that "expanding" must be understood in the context of the patent's overall purpose: creating a 3D illusion. The detailed description focuses on modifying frames to create depth effects, which could support a narrower construction limited to transformations that produce such an effect, rather than any generic resizing. (’380 Patent, col. 51:40-52:2).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. It asserts that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others" (e.g., customers) on how to use its products in an infringing manner, but provides no specific facts, such as references to user manuals, marketing materials, or technical support documents. (Compl. ¶11, ¶12, ¶18, ¶19).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶11, fn. 1; ¶12, fn. 2). The Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered. (Compl. ¶11, fn. 1). The prayer for relief requests a finding of willful infringement and treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. (Compl. p. 8, ¶e).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, uncover facts to support its highly generalized allegations? The case may depend on whether Defendant's systems in the "automotive" and "motion picture" fields can be shown to perform the specific image modification techniques (e.g., "expanding" frames and generating "bridge frames") that are central to the patent claims.
• A key legal question will be one of technical applicability: Assuming Plaintiff can identify accused functionalities, the court will need to determine if the claims, which are rooted in the context of creating 3D illusions with special eyewear, can be construed to cover image processing in modern automotive or motion picture systems that may be performed for unrelated technical purposes.
• A third question concerns pleading standards: The complaint's lack of specificity in identifying accused products and linking them to claim elements raises the question of whether it meets the plausibility standards for patent infringement pleading established by the Supreme Court in Iqbal and Twombly, an issue that may be tested in early-stage dispositive motions.