DCT

1:24-cv-02447

VDPP LLC v. Digital Projection Intl

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02447, N.D. Ga., 06/04/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Kennesaw, Georgia, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital video projectors infringe three patents related to methods and systems for generating a three-dimensional visual effect from two-dimensional motion pictures.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns processing 2D video frames and using specialized eyewear with electronically controlled variable-tint lenses to create a 3D illusion, primarily by leveraging the Pulfrich effect.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses with other defendants concerning its patents, though none of those licenses were for producing a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Earliest Priority Date for ’922, ’380, and ’881 Patents
2018-04-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issues
2018-07-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380 Issues
2021-03-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,951,881 Issues
2024-06-04 Complaint Filed

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

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's background describes the slow transition times of electronically controlled variable tint materials, such as those used in spectacles for creating 3D effects from 2D movies. This slowness can prevent the spectacles from optimally synchronizing with fast-moving on-screen action, degrading the visual illusion. A related problem is the limited operational cycle life of these materials. (’922 Patent, col. 4:24-44, col. 4:56-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multi-layered optoelectronic lenses in the spectacles. By employing two or more layers of variable tint material, the spectacles can achieve faster transitions between different optical density states than a single layer would allow. This enables the eyewear to better synchronize with on-screen motion to create a more consistent and compelling 3D effect. (’922 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:48-55).
  • Technical Importance: This multi-layer approach aims to improve the perceived quality of 2D-to-3D video conversion by overcoming the physical response-time limitations of then-current single-layer variable tint materials. (’922 Patent, col. 4:39-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-12, with the provided claim chart focusing on independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶8; Compl. Ex. B).
  • Claim 1 recites an apparatus with a storage and a processor adapted to:
    • obtain first and second image frames from a video stream;
    • generate first and second modified image frames by "expanding" the respective original image frames;
    • generate a "bridge frame" of a "solid color" that is different from the image frames; and
    • display the first modified frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified frame.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims. (Compl. ¶8).

U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380 - "Faster state transitioning for continous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380, "Faster state transitioning for continous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials," issued July 10, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’922 Patent: the slow transition speed of variable tint materials in 3D spectacles, which can cause a suboptimal 3D illusion when viewing motion pictures. (’380 Patent, col. 4:24-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an apparatus that processes a sequence of image frames to generate modified frames. It involves obtaining consecutive frames, expanding them, and then combining the expanded frames to generate a new "modified combined image frame" for display, which contributes to the 3D visual effect. (’380 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:48-55).
  • Technical Importance: The technology seeks to enhance the 2D-to-3D viewing experience by actively processing the video signal to create intermediate frames, rather than relying solely on the filtering effect of the spectacles. (’380 Patent, col. 8:46-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-30, with the provided claim chart focusing on independent claim 6. (Compl. ¶15; Compl. Ex. D).
  • Claim 6 recites an apparatus with a storage and a processor adapted to:
    • obtain first and second image frames from a stored sequence;
    • "expand" the first and second image frames to generate modified first and second image frames;
    • "combine" the modified first and second image frames to generate a "modified combined image frame"; and
    • display the modified combined image frame.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims. (Compl. ¶15).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,951,881 - "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filer spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,951,881, "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filer spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials," issued March 16, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses similar problems of creating 3D effects from 2D images. The claims focus on an apparatus that obtains images from two different video streams, stitches them together to create a stitched image frame, generates modified frames by removing portions of the stitched frame, and then blends these modified frames with a non-solid color bridge frame for display. (’881 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts claims 1-2, with the claim chart focused on independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶22; Compl. Ex. F).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused projectors' "Picture-By-Picture" (PBP) feature, which can display two independent video signals side-by-side, infringes by "stitching" images from different streams. The projector's On-Screen Display (OSD) is identified as the "non-solid color" bridge frame. (Compl. Ex. F, pp. 380-381).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses Digital Projection's "systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures," with the claim charts identifying the E-Vision Laser 10K, E-Vision Laser 4K-UHD, and E-Vision Laser 8500 projectors as representative accused instrumentalities. (Compl. ¶8, ¶15, ¶22; Compl. Exs. B, D, F).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused projectors are high-performance digital light processing (DLP) devices designed for displaying video content. The complaint alleges these projectors infringe by performing specific video processing functions. These functions include image "Scaling for fixed aspect ratio screens," inserting a "Dark Time" (a black frame) in 3D mode to reduce image crosstalk, and using "Pulldown" processing to convert film frame rates to video frame rates. The complaint also accuses the "Picture-By-Picture" feature, which displays content from two video sources simultaneously. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 135; Compl. Ex. D, p. 259; Compl. Ex. F, p. 380).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’922 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An apparatus comprising: a storage adapted to... store one or more image frames; a processor adapted to... obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream The accused E-Vision Laser 10K projector is an apparatus containing a processor and storage as part of its Digital Light Processing (DLP) technology, and it obtains image frames from a video stream. ¶8; Ex. B, p. 134 col. 13:8-14
generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame... The projector’s "Scaling for fixed aspect ratio screens" feature expands the projected image. This screenshot from the product specification shows the scaling feature. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 135). ¶8; Ex. B, p. 135 col. 13:15-18
generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame... The projector’s "Scaling for fixed aspect ratio screens" feature expands the subsequent projected image. ¶8; Ex. B, p. 135 col. 13:19-22
generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color... In 3D mode, the projector uses a "Dark Time" setting, which inserts a "short BLACK FRAME" between image frames. This screenshot from the user manual describes the "Dark Time" feature. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 135). ¶8; Ex. B, p. 135 col. 13:23-27
display the first modified image frame; display the bridge frame; and display the second modified image frame. The projector displays the sequence of scaled image frames and the inserted black "Dark Time" frames. ¶8; Ex. B, p. 135 col. 13:28-32
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the term "expanding the first image frame" can be construed to cover standard aspect ratio scaling. A court will need to determine if this claim language requires a specific type of expansion intended to create a visual illusion, as taught in the patent, or if it covers any generic image enlargement function.
    • Technical Questions: What is the technical purpose of the accused projector's "Dark Time" feature versus the claimed "bridge frame"? The complaint's evidence states the "Dark Time" feature is for reducing "overlapping right- and left-mage frames" in 3D display, whereas the patent describes a "bridge frame" as an interval used to create an illusion of continuous motion from discrete images. This raises the question of whether the accused feature performs the same function as the claimed element.

’380 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An apparatus comprising: a storage... a processor communicably coupled to the storage and adapted to: obtain... a first image frame... and a second image frame... The accused E-Vision Laser 4K-UHD projector is an apparatus with a DLP engine that includes a processor and storage, and it obtains consecutive image frames from storage. ¶15; Ex. D, p. 258 col. 14:48-59
expand the first image frame to generate a modified first image frame... The projector's "Image scaling and aspect ratio" feature is alleged to expand the first image frame. ¶15; Ex. D, p. 259 col. 14:60-62
expand the second image frame to generate a modified second image frame... The projector's "Image scaling and aspect ratio" feature is alleged to expand the second image frame. ¶15; Ex. D, p. 259 col. 14:63-65
combine the modified first image frame and the modified second image frame to generate a modified combined image frame... The projector’s "Pulldown" feature, used for frame rate conversion, creates interpolated frames that combine information from preceding and succeeding frames. This user manual screenshot describes the pulldown process. (Compl. Ex. D, p. 259). ¶15; Ex. D, p. 259 col. 14:66-72
display the modified combined image frame. The projector displays the resulting video, which includes the combined frames generated by the pulldown algorithm. ¶15; Ex. D, p. 259 col. 15:1-2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Will a standard "Pulldown" algorithm, used for converting 24 fps film to video frame rates, be found to meet the claim limitation of "combin[ing] the modified first image frame and the modified second image frame"? A key question for the court will be whether this combination must be for the purpose of creating the patent's disclosed visual effect, or if any technical combination of frame data suffices.
    • Technical Questions: The claim requires the combination of modified (i.e., expanded) frames. Does the accused projector's pulldown feature operate on frames that have already been expanded by the scaling feature, or are these independent processes? The complaint does not provide evidence detailing the internal processing pipeline of the accused projector.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "expanding the... image frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1; ’380 Patent, Claim 6)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement theory relies on equating it with the accused projectors' standard "scaling" functionality. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a common, conventional feature of digital projectors falls within the scope of the claims.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses modifying frames in various ways, including "reshaping" and creating collages, suggesting the inventors may have contemplated a broad of image manipulations beyond a single, specific technique. (’922 Patent, col. 13:29-32).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and summary are focused on creating a "visual illusion" of 3D depth and continuous motion. A court may find that "expanding" must be construed in this context, requiring an expansion that contributes to this specific illusion, not merely a generic function like fitting an image to a screen's aspect ratio. (’922 Patent, col. 8:46-53).

  • The Term: "bridge frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for this element relies on the projector's "Dark Time" feature, which is a black frame inserted for a different technical purpose (reducing 3D crosstalk). The definition of this term will likely be a central point of dispute.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the bridge frame to be a "solid color," and the specification states it is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture." The accused "Dark Time" is a black frame, which appears to literally meet this description. (’922 Patent, col. 8:58-62).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the bridge frame as an "interval placed between recurrences of" image frames to "create the appearance of continuous, seamless and sustained directional movement." The accused "Dark Time" frame's stated purpose is technical artifact reduction in 3D display. A defendant may argue this functional difference is dispositive, suggesting the accused feature is not a "bridge frame" as understood and disclosed by the patent. (’922 Patent, col. 8:48-53).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant actively encourages infringement by providing products and user manuals that instruct customers on how to use the allegedly infringing features. Contributory infringement is based on the conclusory allegation that there are "no substantial noninfringing uses for Defendant's products and services." (Compl. ¶¶10-11, 17-18, 24-25).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the patents "from at least the issuance date of the '922 patent" (April 17, 2018) and seeks treble damages. This allegation appears to be based on post-issuance, constructive knowledge rather than specific pre-suit notice. (Compl. ¶10; Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can common, multi-purpose video processing functions, such as aspect ratio scaling and frame-blanking for 3D crosstalk reduction, be construed to meet claim terms like "expanding" an image frame and generating a "bridge frame," which the patents describe as part of a specific method for creating an optical illusion?
  • A central claim construction question will be one of functional purpose: does a claim term like "bridge frame" cover any structure that meets its literal description (e.g., a solid color frame), or is its meaning limited by the specific function and purpose attributed to it in the patent's specification (e.g., creating an illusion of continuous motion)?
  • An key evidentiary question will concern technical operation: does the complaint provide sufficient evidence to show that the accused projectors perform the claimed steps in the required sequence, such as combining frames that have already been modified by expansion, or is the infringement theory based on an unsupported assumption about the projectors' internal processing pipeline?