VDPP LLC v. Clarius Mobile Health Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Clarius Mobile Health Corp. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00570, D. Del., 05/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper as Defendant is a Delaware corporation domiciled in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business, and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services for image capture, modification, and display infringe two patents related to methods for generating 3D-like visual effects from 2D video content.
• Technical Context: The patents address the field of digital video processing, specifically techniques for creating a perception of depth or stereoscopic effects from conventional 2D video streams by algorithmically modifying and combining image frames.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses concerning its patent portfolio with other entities.

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 July 4, 2017)

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the technical problem of slow transition times in electronically controlled variable tint materials used for viewing spectacles, which can be incapable of the "fast" transitions required for certain 3D viewing effects, such as between scene changes in a movie (’444 Patent, col. 2:27-49).
  • The Patented Solution: While the patent title and background focus on the hardware of viewing spectacles, the asserted claims describe a software-based method for creating a 3D visual effect from 2D video. The method involves repetitively presenting two similar image pictures (Frames A, B) alternating with a "bridging picture" (Frame C, preferably a solid color) (’444 Patent, col. 4:31-51). This sequence, which the patent calls "Eternalizing," creates the illusion of continuous movement and depth by blending the frames in various combinations (e.g., C, C/A, A, A/B, B, B/C) and repeating the sequence (’444 Patent, col. 5:6-12).
  • Technical Importance: The described technique aims to allow standard 2D motion pictures to be viewed with a 3D effect without requiring specialized filming equipment, thereby expanding the library of content available for 3D viewing experiences (’444 Patent, col. 1:49-52).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 26, among others (Compl. ¶9). Claim 26, an apparatus claim, recites the following essential elements:
    • A storage adapted to store one or more image frames.
    • A processor adapted to obtain a first image frame from a video stream.
    • The processor is further adapted to generate a modified image frame by performing at least one of several enumerated modification steps (e.g., expanding, shrinking, removing a portion, stitching).
    • The processor is further adapted to generate a bridge frame that is a solid color and different from the modified image frame.
    • The processor is further adapted to display the modified image frame and the bridge frame.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert all claims from 1-27 (Compl. ¶9).

U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874 - "Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles for Optimized 3Deeps Stereoscopic Viewing, Control Method and Means therefore, and System and Method of Generating and Displaying a Modified Video" (Issued July 25, 2017)

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background discusses various methods of creating 3D effects from 2D images, including the "Pulfrich effect," which relates to creating a perception of depth by introducing a time lag in the visual information reaching one eye versus the other (’874 Patent, col. 1:52-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention described in the abstract and claims is a method for generating a modified video by analyzing motion vectors within a 2D image frame to calculate parameters such as lateral speed and direction of motion. An algorithm uses these parameters to generate a "deformation value," which is applied to the image frame to create a modified version. This modified frame is then blended with a dissimilar "bridge frame" to produce the final displayed video with a 3D effect (’874 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This system provides a method for algorithmically generating stereoscopic effects from existing 2D video content by leveraging the motion data already embedded within the video stream, rather than requiring separate left-eye and right-eye recordings (’874 Patent, Abstract).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶14). Claim 1, a method claim, recites the following essential elements:
    • Acquiring a source video of 2D image frames.
    • Obtaining a first image frame from the video.
    • Generating a modified image frame by performing one of three enumerated actions: expanding the frame, removing a portion of the frame, or stitching the frame with a portion of a second frame.
    • Generating a "first altered image frame" that includes "first and second non-overlapping portions," derived from the modified image frame and the original first image frame.
    • Generating a "second altered image frame" that includes "third and fourth non-overlapping portions," also derived from the modified and original image frames.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, systems, or services by name. It refers generally to Defendant’s "systems, products, and services" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities operate "in the field of image capture, streaming, modification and displaying" (’444 Patent, Compl. ¶9) and "image capture and modification" (’874 Patent, Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide further technical details regarding the functionality of the accused instrumentalities or any information regarding their market positioning or commercial importance.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes by maintaining, operating, and administering systems that perform image capture, streaming, and modification (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The complaint states that support for these allegations is found in preliminary claim chart exhibits (Exhibits B and D); however, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). The narrative infringement theory suggests that Defendant's image modification functionalities inherently perform the patented methods of generating modified and blended frames to create 3D-like effects.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "modified image frame," as recited in the claims, can be construed to cover general-purpose image processing performed by Defendant’s products, or if it is limited to frames generated for the specific purpose of creating the "Eternalism" or stereoscopic effects described in the patents.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how Defendant's systems perform the highly detailed claim steps, such as generating a "bridge frame" (’444 Patent) or creating "first and second non-overlapping portions" in an "altered image frame" (’874 Patent). A key factual question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused systems actually execute these specific, multi-step video effect algorithms.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the ’444 Patent (Claim 26):

  • The Term: "bridge frame"
  • Context and Importance: The generation and display of a "bridge frame" is a required step of the claimed apparatus. The definition of this term is critical, as it may distinguish the patented method from conventional video transitions (e.g., a fade-to-black). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a common video element could satisfy this limitation or if a more specialized frame is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 26 itself defines the term broadly as a frame that "is a solid color" and is "different from the modified image frame" (’444 Patent, col. 50:23-26).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "bridge frame" in a more functional context as a "bridging interval" that is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" or even "a timed unlit-screen pause," which creates a perceptual "flicker" effect when alternated with image frames (’444 Patent, col. 4:44-51, col. 40:11-16). This may support a narrower construction tied to its role in the "Eternalism" illusion.

• For the ’874 Patent (Claim 1):

  • The Term: "non-overlapping portions"
  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires generating altered image frames that include distinct "non-overlapping portions" derived from both the original and modified frames. Infringement will depend on whether Defendant's video processing creates image frames with this specific structural characteristic.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is geometric and could be read on any process that combines pieces of different frames side-by-side or in a way that they do not spatially overlap.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language describing how the first altered frame "includes" the first non-overlapping portion (from the modified frame) and the second non-overlapping portion (from the first image frame) suggests a composite frame structure created through a specific process (’874 Patent, col. 72:11-17). The detailed descriptions of creating visual effects may provide context suggesting these "portions" are generated for a specific artistic or stereoscopic purpose, not as a byproduct of standard video compression or transition.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support any claim of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge or other specific facts to support willfulness in the body of the complaint, but it does request a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages in the prayer for relief (Compl. p. 7, ¶e).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary issue will be evidentiary. Given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations against named products, a key question is whether discovery will yield evidence that Defendant’s general "image modification" systems perform the highly specific, niche video-effect algorithms for creating "Eternalisms" or stereoscopic illusions as recited in the asserted claims.
2. Claim Scope vs. Technical Reality: The case may turn on a question of functional scope: are the claim terms, such as "bridge frame" and the generation of "non-overlapping portions," limited to the unique visual-effect-generation context described in the specifications, or can they be construed broadly enough to read on more conventional video processing techniques (like fades, transitions, or picture-in-picture overlays) that may be present in Defendant's products?