DCT

5:24-cv-01118

VDPP, LLC v. Optoma Technology, Inc.

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-01118, N.D. Cal., 02/23/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Fremont, California, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe three patents related to methods for modifying video images and to electrically controlled spectacles designed to create three-dimensional visual effects.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves using variable-tint eyewear, often synchronized with a video source, to manipulate how 2D images are perceived by each eye, thereby creating an illusion of depth based on psycho-visual phenomena.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies the Plaintiff as a non-practicing entity. No other significant procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges to the patents-in-suit, is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 ’444 Patent Priority Date
2005-03-15 ’380 Patent Priority Date
2005-03-15 ’881 Patent Priority Date
2017-07-04 ’444 Patent Issue Date
2018-07-10 ’380 Patent Issue Date
2021-03-16 ’881 Patent Issue Date
2024-02-23 Complaint Filing Date

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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of "slow transition time" in electronically controlled variable tint materials used in spectacles intended to create 3D visual effects from 2D motion pictures. This slow response can prevent the spectacles from properly synchronizing with on-screen motion, thereby diminishing the intended 3D illusion (’380 Patent, col. 3:25-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method for modifying a source video by acquiring a sequence of image frames, creating "modified" first and second image frames that are different from the originals (e.g., through expansion), and blending them with a "bridge frame" to generate a new sequence of blended frames for display. This process of generating and displaying new, blended frames from an original source video is asserted to create an illusion of continuous movement (’380 Patent, Abstract; col. 112:50-113:21).
  • Technical Importance: This technological approach seeks to enable the creation of a 3D-like viewing experience from conventional 2D video content, bypassing the need for specialized 3D cameras and filming processes by leveraging psycho-visual effects (’380 Patent, col. 2:19-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-30 of the '380 Patent (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Acquiring a source video with a sequence of image frames.
    • Identifying first and second image frames from the sequence.
    • Expanding the first image frame to generate a first modified image frame.
    • Expanding the second image frame to generate a second modified image frame.
    • Combining the modified frames to define a modified combined image frame.
    • Generating a "bridge frame" different from the modified combined image frame.
    • Blending the modified combined image frame with the bridge frame.
    • Displaying the resulting blended modified combined image frame.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating a robust 3D illusion from 2D movies using active spectacles. The background notes that electronically controlled variable tint materials can have slow transition times, making it difficult to synchronize the optical state of the lenses with the speed and direction of motion in a video, which is critical for inducing the desired psycho-visual effect (’444 Patent, col. 2:27-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an "electrically controlled spectacle" comprising a frame, optoelectronic lenses (left and right), and a control unit. The core of the solution is that each lens has multiple states (e.g., different levels of tint or opacity), and the control unit can control the state of the left lens independently of the right lens, as illustrated in the system diagram of Figure 3 (’444 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3). This independent control allows for precise, differential filtering for each eye to optimize the 3D illusion.
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables dynamic and independent adjustment of each lens in a pair of viewing glasses, which could allow a system to create an optimized 3D effect from standard 2D content by adapting to the specific motion and luminance characteristics of the video in real-time (’444 Patent, col. 2:19-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-27 of the ’444 Patent (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An electrically controlled spectacle comprising:
    • a spectacle frame;
    • optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame, comprising a left lens and a right lens;
    • each of the 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 adapted to control the state of each lens independently.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 10,951,881 - "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials"

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’881 Patent, similar to the ’444 Patent, is directed to an electrically controlled spectacle with independently controllable left and right lenses (’881 Patent, Abstract). It aims to solve the problem of slow optical state transitions in variable tint materials by enabling precise, independent control of each lens to better synchronize with on-screen motion and thereby enhance the 3D visual effect created from 2D content (’881 Patent, col. 3:25-41).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-2 are asserted, with claim 1 being the sole independent claim (Compl. ¶22).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s "system related to an electrically controlled spectacle frame and optoelectronmic lenses housed in the frame" of infringement (Compl. ¶¶21, 24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶8, 15, 22). It refers generally to "systems, products, and services" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges infringement in broad fields of use, including "automotive manufacture" and "motion pictures" (Compl. ¶¶8, 15). The specific functionality accused of infringing the ’380 Patent is "modifying an image" (Compl. ¶7). For the ’444 and ’881 Patents, the accused functionality is an "electrically controlled spectacle" (Compl. ¶¶14, 21). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to analyze the technical functionality or market context of any specific accused instrumentality.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts attached as Exhibits B, D, and F but does not include these exhibits in the filing (Compl. ¶¶9, 16, 23). In the absence of these charts and any specific product identification, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

  • ’380 Patent Narrative Infringement Theory: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s unidentified systems and services perform a method of "modifying an image" that infringes one or more claims of the ’380 Patent (Compl. ¶¶7-8). The complaint does not explain how these systems perform the claimed steps of acquiring, expanding, generating, and blending image frames.

  • ’444 Patent Narrative Infringement Theory: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s systems and services "in the field of motion pictures" infringe one or more claims of the ’444 Patent (Compl. ¶¶14-15). The complaint does not identify what product constitutes the claimed "electrically controlled spectacle" or how it meets the claim limitations of having a frame, independently controllable optoelectronic lenses, and a control unit.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Product Identification: The primary point of contention will be the identification of the accused instrumentality. The complaint’s references to disparate fields like "automotive manufacture" and "motion pictures" raise a threshold question of what specific product or service is at issue, particularly given that Defendant is primarily known as a manufacturer of projectors.
    • Scope Questions: For the ’444 and ’881 Patents, a central dispute may arise over whether the term "electrically controlled spectacle" can be construed to cover a distributed system (e.g., a projector that sends signals to third-party glasses) or if it is limited to the self-contained physical apparatus depicted in the patents. For the ’380 Patent, a key question will be whether any image processing performed by Defendant's products constitutes the specific "expanding" and "blending" method steps required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (’380 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of "expanding" is critical to the scope of the method claim. The infringement analysis will depend on whether this term is construed broadly to mean any modification that makes a frame "different" or narrowly to require a specific type of image manipulation described in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the outcome broadly, stating the expansion generates a "modified first image frame, wherein the first modified image frame is different from the first image frame" (’380 Patent, col. 112:56-59). This language may support an interpretation where any process that results in a different frame qualifies as "expanding."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes creating illusions of continuous movement through techniques it calls "Eternalism" (’380 Patent, col. 46:15-21). A defendant may argue that "expanding" should be limited to the specific contexts of creating these psycho-visual effects, rather than covering general-purpose video processing like digital zoom or scaling.
  • The Term: "electrically controlled spectacle" (’444 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the entire apparatus. Its construction is dispositive for the ’444 and ’881 patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendant is a projector manufacturer, raising the question of whether it makes or sells a "spectacle" at all, or if Plaintiff's theory relies on combining Defendant's projector with third-party eyewear to meet the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that the "spectacle" should be interpreted as a system, where the "control unit" could be housed in a projector that transmits signals to the lenses, thereby bringing the projector within the claim's scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites the "spectacle frame," "lenses housed in the frame," and "control unit housed in the frame" as an integrated physical object (’444 Patent, col. 28:50-57). The patent figures consistently depict a self-contained pair of glasses (e.g., ’444 Patent, Fig. 1). This evidence strongly supports a narrower construction limited to the physical eyewear device itself.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. The allegations are based on generic assertions that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers and/or the customers of its related companies)" to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶10, 11, 17, 18, 24, 25). For the ’444 Patent, the complaint makes the conclusory assertion that "there are no substantial noninfringing uses" for Defendant's products (Compl. ¶18).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents-in-suit "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶10, 17, 24). This establishes a basis for potential post-filing willful infringement. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. p. 4, fn. 1).

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

  • A central threshold issue will be one of product identification: the case will likely struggle to advance until the Plaintiff clarifies which of the Defendant’s specific products or services are accused of infringement, particularly given the apparent disconnect between the patent’s subject matter (active eyewear, video modification methods) and the Defendant’s primary business in projection systems.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: for the apparatus patents (’444 and ’881), the case may turn on whether the term "electrically controlled spectacle," depicted in the patent as a self-contained unit, can be construed to encompass a broader system where a projector (made by Defendant) operates in concert with viewing glasses (potentially made by a third party).
  • A key evidentiary question for the method patent (’380) will be one of infringement locus: assuming an accused product is identified, the dispute will focus on what evidence demonstrates that the product actually performs the specific, multi-step claimed method of "expanding," "generating," and "blending" image frames as required by the claim.