DCT
1:25-cv-22536
VDPP LLC v. Garmin USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
- Defendant: Garmin USA, Inc. (Kansas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Victoria E. Brieant, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-22536, S.D. Fla., 08/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant having committed acts of infringement in the district and maintaining a regular and established place of business at a retail store in Miami Beach, Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Garmin Dash Cam products infringe two expired patents related to methods and systems for image and video processing.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for processing video streams to create modified or composite images, relevant to features like picture-in-picture displays, digital zoom, and other visual effects in consumer electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and discloses prior settlement licenses with other parties, asserting that those licenses did not create a marking requirement. The complaint also notes that both patents-in-suit expired in 2022, limiting any potential damages to the period before their expiration.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-01-23 | ’452 and ’380 Patents Priority Date |
| 2014-01-01 | Accused Product Launch (Garmin Dash Cam 10/20) |
| 2016-08-23 | ’452 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-07-10 | ’380 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-01-22 | ’452 Patent Expiration Date |
| 2022-08-15 | ’380 Patent Expiration Date |
| 2025-08-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 - Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452, "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials," Issued August 23, 2016 (’452 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical challenge of creating a 3D visual effect from 2D movies using spectacles with variable tint lenses, noting that the materials used often have a “slow transition time” that cannot keep pace with rapid on-screen motion (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-41).
- The Patented Solution: As a solution to slow transition times in variable tint materials, the patent proposes using multiple layers of such materials to fabricate the spectacle lenses, which enables faster changes in optical density (’452 Patent, col. 2:48-56). While the specification’s context is spectacles, the patent also describes general methods of creating visual illusions by presenting a viewer with sequences of original, modified, and blended image frames (’452 Patent, col. 4:26-51).
- Technical Importance: The underlying image processing concepts described, such as stitching, blending, and overlaying frames, are foundational techniques in digital video for creating composite images, on-screen displays, and other visual effects (’452 Patent, col. 4:26-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint presents an infringement chart for what it identifies as Claim 2 of the ’452 patent, which is an independent apparatus claim (Compl. ¶10). The elements listed in the complaint are:
- a storage adapted to: store one or more image frames; and
- a processor adapted to: obtain first and second different images from first and second video streams; stitch the images to generate a stitched frame; generate first, second, and third different modified image frames by removing respective portions of the stitched frame; identify a bridge frame; blend each modified frame with the bridge frame to generate first, second, and third blended frames; overlay the blended frames to generate a combined frame; and display the combined frame.
- The complaint alleges infringement of claims 1-4, thereby reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶9).
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 (’380 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the creation of visual illusions, such as continuous motion, from a finite number of still images (’380 Patent, col. 4:26-32). It also discusses the same slow transition time problem for variable tint spectacles as the ’452 Patent (’380 Patent, col. 2:25-41).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for generating modified video by acquiring a sequence of image frames, identifying first and second frames, "expanding" each of those frames to create modified frames, and then "combining" the modified frames to generate and display a modified combined image frame (’380 Patent, Abstract; col. 112:50-113:10). This process can be used to create effects like digital zoom.
- Technical Importance: The claimed method relates to fundamental video processing techniques for creating new video content from an existing source, such as frame interpolation or digital magnification, which are common in video editing and real-time display applications (’380 Patent, col. 4:46-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method Claim 1 (Compl. ¶15). Its essential steps are:
- acquiring a source video comprising a sequence of chronologically positioned image frames;
- identifying a first image frame and a second image frame from the sequence;
- 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 and second image frames to generate a modified combined image frame;
- the modified combined image frame having opposing sides defining first and second dimensions; and
- displaying the modified combined image frame.
- The complaint alleges infringement of claims 1-30, thereby reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶14).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Product Identification: The complaint accuses Garmin Dash Cam™ products, specifically identifying the Garmin Dash Cam™ 10/20 (Compl. ¶10, ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused product is a vehicle-mounted camera that records video. The complaint alleges the device includes a "Picture-by-Picture (PbP)" display mode and an "On-Screen Display (OSD)" (Compl. ¶10, Row 2.1). The complaint includes a screenshot that appears to show two different video views displayed simultaneously in separate portions of the screen (Compl. p. 9, Row 2.4). The complaint further alleges that the device implements a "Digital Zoom" function by reading, expanding, and combining consecutive image frames (Compl. ¶15, Rows 1.3-1.5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’452 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2, per Compl. ¶10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a processor adapted to: ... stitch together the first image and the second image to generate a stitched image frame | The Garmin Dash Cam allegedly stitches different input frames together, as shown in a screenshot depicting a Picture-by-Picture display. | ¶10, Row 2.4 | col. 10:65-67 |
| generate a first modified image frame by removing a first portion of the stitched image frame | The complaint alleges that because the device has a color TFT LCD display, it "removes the Green and Blue color from the stitched image frame (leaving just the Red)" to generate the modified frame. | ¶10, Row 2.5 | col. 6:53-57 |
| identify a bridge frame | The complaint asserts that the device’s "On-Screen Display (OSD)" is the bridge frame. | ¶10, Row 2.9 | col. 4:34-39 |
| blend the first modified image frame with the bridge frame to generate a first blended frame | The complaint alleges the device blends the first modified image frame (the "Red" color data) with the OSD to generate a blended frame. A screenshot shows the OSD overlaid on the video display. | ¶10, Row 2.10 | col. 5:1-3 |
| overlay the first blended frame, the second blended frame, and the third blended frame to generate a combined frame | The device allegedly overlays the three "blended" frames (representing red, green, and blue color data blended with the OSD) to generate the final combined frame for display. | ¶10, Row 2.13 | col. 7:4-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A threshold issue for the court may be a significant inconsistency between the claim language for an image processing apparatus presented in the complaint's chart and the actual language of the asserted claims in the ’452 patent, which appear to be directed to spectacles with variable tint lenses.
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the device’s On-Screen Display (OSD) is the claimed “bridge frame” (Compl. p. 13, Row 2.10). A central dispute may be whether a functional user interface overlay like an OSD can be construed to meet the patent’s definition of a “bridge frame,” which is described in the specification as a visual interval, often a solid color, used in a sequence to create an illusion of motion.
- Technical Questions: The complaint’s theory for "removing a ... portion" of an image frame is based on an allegation that the color display separates and "removes" color channels (e.g., green and blue) to create a modified frame (e.g., red only) (Compl. ¶10, Row 2.5). This presents a question of technical fact regarding whether this describes the actual operation of a TFT LCD display and, if so, whether such an operation constitutes "removing a portion" of a frame as claimed.
’380 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| acquiring a source video comprising a sequence of image frames | The device reads consecutive image frames from storage for acquisition, which is alleged to be necessary for its Digital Zoom feature. | ¶15, Row 1.1 | col. 112:52-55 |
| expanding the first image frame to generate a modified first image frame | The device allegedly expands or scales the first image frame to generate a modified first image frame as part of its Digital Zoom function. | ¶15, Row 1.3 | col. 112:62-64 |
| combining the modified first image frame and the modified second image frame to generate a modified combined image frame | The device is alleged to combine the modified (scaled) first and second image frames to generate a modified combined image frame, which the complaint identifies as the "Digital Zoom frame." | ¶15, Row 1.5 | col. 113:1-4 |
| displaying the modified combined image frame | The device displays the "Digital Zoom video frame." This is supported by a screenshot showing a picture-in-picture view that the complaint labels as the result of this process. | ¶15, Row 1.7 | col. 113:9-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused "Digital Zoom" feature meets the claim limitations of expanding and combining consecutive frames (Compl. ¶15, Row 1.5). An evidentiary question will be whether the feature shown in the complaint’s visual evidence (Compl. p. 22, Row 1.5) operates by processing consecutive frames from a single video source, as the claim requires, or if it is a picture-in-picture feature that simply displays two separate, un-expanded video streams simultaneously.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: “bridge frame” (from the complaint's version of the ’452 patent claim)
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’452 patent depends entirely on equating the accused product's On-Screen Display (OSD) with a "bridge frame." The construction of this term is therefore potentially dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a bridge picture "may also be a strongly contrasting image-picture readily distinguished from the two or more pictures that are substantially similar" (’380 Patent, col. 4:36-39). Plaintiff may argue this broad language covers a graphical OSD.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification primarily describes a "bridge frame" in the context of creating an illusion of continuous motion, where it serves as "a third visual interval... which is preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" presented in a sequence (’380 Patent, col. 4:30-35). Defendant may argue that a functional OSD containing icons and data does not meet this narrower, contextual definition.
Term: “expanding the first image frame” (’380 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff alleges the accused "Digital Zoom" feature satisfies this limitation. The technical scope of "expanding" will be critical to determining infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition of "expanding," which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any form of image scaling, resizing, or magnification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses various image modifications, including creating an appearance of movement by moving a windowed portion of an image or superimposing images (’380 Patent, col. 10:15-25). Defendant may argue that in this context, "expanding" requires more than the simple crop-and-scale operation of a typical digital zoom and instead refers to a specific manipulation for creating the patent's described visual effects.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include separate counts for indirect infringement. However, the direct infringement counts contain language suggesting an inducement theory, alleging that Defendant puts the inventions into service and that "but for Defendant's actions, the claimed-inventions embodiments... would never have been put into service" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The repeated citation to the product's "Owner's Manual" may be intended to serve as evidence of instructions that encourage infringing use by customers (Compl. ¶10, Row 2.1).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. p. 29, ¶e). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts alleging that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents or its alleged infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: can the infringement claim for the ’452 patent proceed when the claim language recited in the complaint’s chart does not appear in the asserted patent, which is directed to a different technology (spectacles) than the accused product (a dash cam)?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical accuracy: does the accused product’s picture-in-picture feature operate by "stitching" frames, and does its "Digital Zoom" feature operate by "expanding" and "combining" consecutive frames from a single source as required by the ’380 patent’s method, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the complaint's characterization and the product's actual technical operation?
- The infringement analyses will likely turn on questions of definitional scope: can a functional On-Screen Display (OSD) be construed as a "bridge frame," a term rooted in the patent's disclosure of creating visual illusions with sequential image intervals? And does the common function of digital zoom meet the specific claim requirement of "expanding" a frame in the context of the patent's disclosure?