VDPP LLC v. Medtronic Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Medtronic, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Victoria E. Brieant, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-20206, S.D. Fla., 01/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and conducts substantial business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services related to image capture, modification, and display infringe patents directed to methods for generating modified video content and to specialized viewing spectacles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for processing 2D video streams to create stereoscopic (3D) effects and the electronically controlled spectacles used for viewing them.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and addresses the patent marking statute, asserting that its claims are limited to methods and that prior settlement licenses did not involve the production of patented articles that would require marking.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	Earliest Priority Date for ’874 and ’444 Patents
2017-07-04	U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 Issues
2017-07-25	U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874 Issues
2025-01-14	Complaint Filed

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

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"

• Patent Identification: 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: Conventional 2D video lacks the depth information required for a stereoscopic viewing experience, limiting visual immersion (Compl. ¶8; ’444 Patent, col. 1:46-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method to create a modified video display by capturing image frames from a video stream, identifying motion vectors within the frame, applying an algorithm to create a "modified image frame," and then blending that modified frame with an identified "bridge frame" to generate a final combined frame for display (Compl. ¶8; ’874 Patent, Abstract). This process is designed to generate a stereoscopic effect from a standard 2D source.
• Technical Importance: This technological approach enables the generation of 3D-like visual effects from standard 2D motion pictures without requiring specialized stereoscopic filming equipment during production (’444 Patent, col. 1:46-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶9).
• Claim 1 of the ’874 patent includes the following essential elements:
  • acquiring a source video comprised of a sequence of 2D image frames;
  • obtaining an image frame from the source video that includes two or more motion vectors that describe motion in the image frame;
  • calculating a single parameter for a lateral speed of the image frame and a direction of motion of the image frame;
  • generating a deformation value by applying an algorithm that uses the inter-ocular distance and both of the parameters;
  • applying the deformation value to the image frame to identify a modified image frame;
  • blending the modified image frame with a bridge frame that is a non-solid color and different from the modified image frame, to generate a blended frame; and
  • displaying the blended frame to the viewer.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶9).

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

• Patent Identification: 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: Electronically controlled variable tint materials used in viewing spectacles, such as those for creating 3D effects, often have slow transition times between light and dark states, which can prevent them from properly synchronizing with rapid scene changes in a movie (’444 Patent, col. 2:27-44).
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes fabricating the lenses of the spectacles from multiple layers of electronically controlled variable tint materials. This multi-layer construction allows the lens to achieve a target optical density more quickly than a single-layer design, enabling faster state transitions to match on-screen action (’444 Patent, col. 2:51-60; Fig. 6b).
• Technical Importance: This approach improves the performance of active viewing spectacles, making them more suitable for dynamic video content where rapid lens adjustments are critical to maintaining the intended visual effect (’444 Patent, col. 2:45-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-27 (Compl. ¶14). Claim 1 is the only independent method claim asserted.
• Claim 1 of the ’444 patent includes the following essential elements:
  • A method for originating visual illusions, comprising:
  • obtaining a first image frame from a first video stream;
  • obtaining a second image frame from a second video stream, wherein the first image frame is different from the second image frame;
  • stitching together the first image frame and the second image frame to generate a stitched image frame;
  • generating a first, second, and third modified image frame by removing different portions of the stitched image frame;
  • identifying a bridge frame;
  • blending the first modified image frame with the bridge frame to generate a first blended frame;
  • overlaying the first, second, and third blended frames to generate a combined frame; and
  • displaying the combined frame.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, systems, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" and "image capture, streaming, modification and displaying" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities perform the steps of the asserted method claims, such as capturing, modifying, blending, and displaying image frames (Compl. ¶¶8, 13). No specific technical details about the operation of any Medtronic product are provided. The complaint also makes no allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D but does not include them in the filing (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). Accordingly, the infringement theory is summarized below based on the narrative allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• ’874 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes method claims 1-4 of the ’874 patent by maintaining, operating, and administering systems that perform a method of image capture and modification (Compl. ¶9). The alleged infringing method involves capturing and storing image frames, modifying them, blending them with a bridge frame, and generating a combined frame for display, which mirrors the language of the patent itself (Compl. ¶8).
• ’444 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes claims 1-27 of the ’444 patent through its systems and services related to image capture, streaming, modification, and display (Compl. ¶14). The infringement allegations are conclusory and assert that Defendant's unspecified activities fall within the scope of the patent's claims (Compl. ¶14).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Specificity Question: A central issue may be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual detail to support a plausible claim for infringement. The allegations appear to track the language of the patents without identifying a specific accused instrumentality or describing how it operates in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).
  • Scope Question: The ’444 patent is titled and primarily described in the context of "filter spectacles" (’444 Patent, Title; Abstract). A potential point of contention may be how the asserted method claims, which are directed to "originating visual illusions," are practiced by Defendant's systems, which are broadly characterized as relating to "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶14).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. p. 7, ¶e). However, the body of the complaint does not contain factual allegations to support a finding of willfulness, such as Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.

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

The initial phase of this case will likely focus on fundamental pleading and scope issues. The key open questions for the court appear to be:

• A core issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Do the complaint's infringement allegations, which recite claim elements without identifying any specific accused products or their operational details, satisfy the plausibility standard required to state a claim for patent infringement?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical application: What proof will be offered to show that Defendant’s unspecified "image capture and modification" systems perform the specific, multi-step methods of generating blended and combined video frames as claimed in the patents, particularly given the patents' focus on creating stereoscopic effects for specialized viewing?