VDPP LLC v. VIVITEK Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Vivitek Corporation (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 5:24-cv-01781, N.D. Cal., 03/22/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services related to automotive manufacturing and motion pictures infringe patents concerning electrically controlled spectacles and methods for generating a 3D visual effect from 2D video content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using electronically adjustable tinted lenses, often in spectacle form, to manipulate a viewer's perception of 2D video to create a 3D illusion based on the Pulfrich effect.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity with no products to mark.

Case Timeline

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,951,881, "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials," issued March 16, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that existing electronically controlled spectacles for creating 3D effects from 2D motion (the "Pulfrich illusion") suffer from slow transition times between tint levels, limited life cycles, and a sub-optimal "clear" state that is not fully transparent, which can compromise the viewing experience (’881 Patent, col. 4:18-32, 60-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using spectacles with lenses fabricated from multi-layered variable tint materials. This multi-layer construction is intended to enable faster and more efficient transitions between different optical densities compared to a single, thicker layer of electrochromic material, thereby improving the quality and responsiveness of the 3D effect (’881 Patent, Abstract; col. 37:1-17).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to make the 3D-from-2D viewing experience more seamless and effective by more precisely controlling the light that reaches each eye in synchronization with motion on the screen (’881 Patent, col. 4:33-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶8).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An apparatus with storage and a processor.
  • The processor is adapted to obtain first and second different image frames from a video stream.
  • The processor is adapted to "stitch together" the frames to generate a first modified image frame.
  • The processor then generates multiple different modified image frames by removing different portions of the stitched frame.
  • The processor then blends each modified image frame with a "bridge frame" to generate multiple blended frames.
  • The processor is adapted to display the resulting blended frames.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to amend its infringement contentions to include other 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 Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need to create a 3D viewing experience from ordinary 2D motion pictures without requiring special filming equipment or significant alteration to the source material, which were barriers to widespread adoption (’922 Patent, col. 2:44-53; col. 7:22-31).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a video processing apparatus that generates a 3D effect by manipulating 2D image frames. It obtains frames from a video stream, generates modified frames by "expanding" the original frames, creates a "bridge frame" of a solid color, and then displays the modified frames, creating an illusion of continuous motion and depth (’922 Patent, Abstract; col. 114:27-46).
• Technical Importance: The described solution enables the conversion of vast libraries of existing 2D film and video content for viewing with a 3D effect, potentially lowering costs and increasing the availability of such content for consumers (’922 Patent, col. 2:27-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶15). Independent claims include 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An apparatus with storage and a processor.
  • The processor is adapted to obtain first and second image frames from a video stream.
  • The processor generates first and second "modified image frames" by "expanding" the respective original frames.
  • The processor generates a "bridge frame" which is a "solid color" and different from the image frames.
  • The processor is adapted to display the first and second modified image frames.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" in two distinct fields: "automotive manufacture" for the '881 Patent and "motion pictures" for the '922 Patent (Compl. ¶¶8, 15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentalities' specific functionality or market context. It alleges in conclusory terms that Defendant's products perform the functions claimed in the patents, such as using an "electrically controlled spectacle frame" ('881 Patent allegations) or a processor that obtains and stores image frames ('922 Patent allegations) (Compl. ¶¶10, 16). No facts are alleged regarding the commercial importance of any specific product.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table" as Exhibit B to support its infringement allegations for the '881 patent, but this exhibit was not included with the filing (Compl. ¶9). No similar exhibit is referenced for the '922 patent. As such, the infringement theory must be summarized from the narrative allegations in the complaint.

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes by putting the patented inventions into service and indirectly infringes by encouraging and instructing customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶8, 10, 15, 16). The allegations largely track the language of the asserted claims without providing specific facts about how any particular product operates.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Pleading Sufficiency: A foundational issue may be whether the complaint's allegations, which lack identification of any specific accused product and instead point to broad fields of use ("automotive manufacture," "motion pictures"), meet the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement (Compl. ¶¶8, 15).
• Technical Correlation: A central technical question for the '922 Patent is whether Defendant’s accused products in the "field of motion pictures" perform the specific video processing sequence of claim 1, including "expanding" image frames and generating a "bridge frame" of a "solid color" to create a 3D effect.
• Scope and Applicability: For the '881 Patent, the complaint raises a significant question of scope by alleging that a patented method for generating 3D visual effects via image stitching and blending is being infringed in the "field of automotive manufacture" (Compl. ¶8). The connection between the claimed video display technology and automotive manufacturing is not explained.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from '881 Patent, Claim 1: "stitch together"

• Context and Importance: This term defines a core step of the claimed image manipulation process. Its construction will be critical for determining whether an accused system performs the claimed method, as the manner of combining image frames is central to the invention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes combining images in general terms, such as "stitching together one or more portions of one or more images, or one or more portions of one or more frames... to create a transitional image," which may support an interpretation not limited to a specific algorithm (’881 Patent, col. 13:38-42).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides concrete examples, such as creating a "repeating series" of images, which could be argued to limit the scope of "stitch together" to the specific image-combining techniques that enable the disclosed 3D effect (’881 Patent, Fig. 18C; col. 48:15-26).

Term from '922 Patent, Claim 1: "bridge frame"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be unique to the patent and is a key component of the claimed method. The claim requires that it be a "solid color." The definition of what constitutes a "bridge frame" and its role in the process will be central to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides a definition: "a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color, wherein the bridge frame is different from the first image frame and different from the second image frame" (’922 Patent, col. 114:40-43). A party may argue that any frame meeting this explicit definition qualifies.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes a "bridging picture" as part of an arrangement used to create "continuous, seamless and sustained directional movement," suggesting a functional requirement beyond simply being a solid color (’922 Patent, col. 8:19-26). This may support a narrower construction where the frame must be used in a way that contributes to this seamless motion effect.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

Plaintiff alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents-in-suit. The allegations state that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others" to use its products in an infringing manner but do not provide specific factual support, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials (Compl. ¶¶10, 11, 16, 17).

Willful Infringement

Plaintiff pleads willful infringement, but bases its allegation of knowledge solely on the filing of the lawsuit itself, stating Defendant "has known of the... patent and the technology underlying it from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶10, 16, 17). This framing appears to support a claim for post-filing willfulness only, and Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. p. 4, n.1; p. 7, n.3-4).

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

• A primary threshold question is one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s failure to identify any specific accused products, instead referring broadly to "systems... in the field of automotive manufacture" and "motion pictures," provide the factual specificity required to state a plausible claim for relief?
• A central evidentiary issue will be one of technical correlation: can Plaintiff demonstrate that any of Defendant’s products, which likely include projectors or other display systems, perform the highly specific, multi-step image manipulation processes recited in the asserted claims, such as "stitching" frames or generating a "solid color bridge frame"?
• Finally, a key question of applicability will be whether the technology of the '881 Patent, which is focused on creating 3D visual effects for viewers, has a plausible connection to Defendant’s alleged activities in the "field of automotive manufacture," an assertion for which the complaint provides no factual context.