VDPP LLC v. Subway IP LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Subway IP LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Victoria E. Brieant, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-24399, S.D. Fla., 09/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s image processing systems and services infringe two expired patents related to methods for creating an illusion of continuous motion from a finite number of images.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital image processing techniques for creating visual effects, particularly the appearance of sustained or three-dimensional motion, using a limited set of repeating image frames.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that both patents-in-suit are expired. It also discloses that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities, which it contends did not create any patent marking obligations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Priority Date
2001-01-23	U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Priority Date
2006-04-18	U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Issued
2018-04-17	U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issued
2022-01-22	U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Expired
2023-09-09	U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Expired
2025-09-24	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 - "Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, "Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures," issued April 18, 2006 (the "'’902 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of creating the appearance of continuous motion without the large number of unique, sequential picture frames required by conventional film and video (’902 Patent, col. 1:19-24). Prior artistic methods to achieve this effect were limited to transient live performances that could not be easily recorded or commercialized (’902 Patent, col. 2:6-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that uses a finite number of pictures—typically at least two "visually similar" image pictures and one "dissimilar" bridging picture (such as a solid black frame)—arranged in a repeating sequence (’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-51). Repetitively displaying this short sequence (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...) is claimed to create a perceptual illusion of sustained, seamless motion without the need for a continuous stream of new images (’902 Patent, col. 2:50-56). The effect can be enhanced by blending adjacent frames in the sequence (’902 Patent, col. 2:56-67).
• Technical Importance: The method provided a way to generate compelling motion graphics from a very small data set, enabling such effects to be stored and displayed on digital media efficiently (’902 Patent, col. 2:18-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and second).
  • Selecting a bridging picture that is dissimilar to the image pictures.
  • Arranging the pictures in a sequential order comprising the first, second, and bridging pictures.
  • Placing this series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames.
  • Repeating the series a plurality of times to create a continuous set of frames that, when viewed, produces the appearance of continuous movement. (’902 Patent, col. 14:50-col. 15:2).

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 "'’922 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background discusses issues related to 3D viewing spectacles, particularly that the variable tint materials used in active shutter glasses can have slow transition times between light and dark states, which may compromise the 3D effect (’922 Patent, col. 3:42-53).
• The Patented Solution: The complaint provides a high-level summary, stating the patent is directed to an apparatus that captures, stores, modifies, and blends image frames using a "bridge frame" to generate a combined frame for display (Compl. ¶13). The patent itself describes modifying image frames from a video stream (e.g., by expanding, shrinking, or removing portions) and displaying them in a sequence that may include a solid-color bridge frame to create a visual effect (’922 Patent, col. 11:1-25; col. 113:25-45).
• Technical Importance: The technology purports to offer an improved method for generating 3D-like visual effects from standard 2D video sources, potentially enhancing the viewer experience when using active filter spectacles (’922 Patent, col. 2:32-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A storage for image frames.
  • A processor adapted to:
    • Obtain a first and second image frame from a video stream.
    • Generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame.
    • Generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame.
    • Generate a solid color bridge frame.
    • Display the first modified image frame and the second modified image frame. (’922 Patent, col. 113:25-45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, service, advertisement, or other instrumentality. It refers generally to Defendant's "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references infringement claim charts in Exhibits B and D, which were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). The infringement theory is therefore based on the general allegations in the body of the complaint.

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that directly infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). For the ’902 Patent, the narrative theory is that Defendant's systems perform the claimed method of arranging and repeating similar image pictures with a dissimilar bridging picture to create an illusion of motion. For the ’922 Patent, the theory is that Defendant's systems constitute an apparatus with a processor that obtains video frames, modifies them by "expanding" them, generates a bridge frame, and displays the results.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • A primary point of contention will be evidentiary. The complaint's lack of specificity raises the question of which of Defendant's activities are accused and what evidence Plaintiff possesses to allege that these activities meet every limitation of the asserted claims.
  • For the ’902 Patent, a key technical question will be whether the accused systems use a finite, repeating sequence of discrete images interspersed with a "dissimilar bridging picture," or if they employ conventional video streaming, which does not rely on such a structure.
  • For the ’922 Patent, a central issue may be whether any image processing performed by Defendant constitutes "generating a... modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" as required by the claim. The complaint provides no factual basis to suggest how this specific technical operation is performed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'902 Patent

• The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image picture" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The definition of "dissimilar" is critical to the scope of the claim. A narrow construction could limit the claim to specific types of bridging frames (e.g., only solid colors), while a broader construction could encompass any visually contrasting frame. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification's repeated preference for a "solid black or other solid-colored picture" creates tension with the broader claim language.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit "dissimilar" to a solid color. The specification also contemplates that the bridge could be a "strongly contrasting image-picture" (’902 Patent, col. 2:31-32).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the bridging picture is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" and later refers to it as a "neutral or black frame" (’902 Patent, col. 2:28-31, col. 2:53-54). The abstract describes the dissimilar picture as "usually a solid color," which may be cited to argue that the core of the invention requires a non-image bridge.

'922 Patent

• The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines a central processing step of the claimed apparatus. The meaning of "expanding" will determine whether various forms of image scaling, cropping, or resizing fall within the claim. As the complaint provides no factual detail on the accused functionality, the construction of this term will be fundamental to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • 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, potentially covering a wide range of digital image manipulation techniques that increase a frame's dimensions or coverage area.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's summary and detailed description do not appear to illustrate a specific embodiment of the "expanding" process. A party could argue that this lack of specific disclosure should limit the term to known digital zoom or scaling techniques at the time of the invention, or that the term is indefinite for failing to describe the claimed function with sufficient particularity.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. Instead, it requests a finding of willfulness and treble damages contingent upon what discovery may reveal about Defendant's knowledge prior to the lawsuit (Compl. p. 7, ¶e).

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

This case appears to present three central questions for the court's determination:

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The complaint is devoid of factual allegations identifying the specific accused instrumentalities. A threshold issue will be whether the complaint's generalized allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief, and subsequently, whether Plaintiff can produce evidence linking specific activities of the Defendant to the limitations of the asserted claims.
2. Definitional Scope: The case may turn on claim construction. For the ’902 Patent, a core question is whether the term "dissimilar...bridging picture" can be limited to the preferred solid-color embodiment, or if it covers any contrasting image.
3. Technical Equivalence: For the ’922 Patent, a key technical question is whether any image processing performed by the Defendant can be properly characterized as "expanding" an image frame as required by the claim, or if there is a fundamental mismatch between the accused functionality and the specific operation recited in the patent.