DCT
1:22-cv-03280
VDPP LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VDPP LLC (Oregon)
- Defendant: Motorola Mobility LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: WAWRZYN LLC
- Case Identification: VDPP LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 1:22-cv-03280, N.D. Ill., 06/23/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Motorola’s regular and established place of business in Chicago, Illinois, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s display products, including the BLISS54-2 monitor and various computers and smartphones, infringe two patents related to methods of processing and displaying video images.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves digital video processing, specifically techniques for combining multiple video sources, modifying image frames, and blending them with other elements for display.
- Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit descend from a long chain of applications. No other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-01-23 | Earliest Priority Date for ’123 and ’452 Patents |
| 2016-08-23 | U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 Issues |
| 2021-06-15 | U.S. Patent No. 11,039,123 Issues |
| 2022-06-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,039,123 - "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials," Issued June 15, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes challenges in creating 3D visual effects using special spectacles, particularly the slow transition times of electronically controlled variable tint materials used in the spectacle lenses (’123 Patent, col. 3:20-26).
- The Patented Solution: While the specification is overwhelmingly focused on optimizing 3D viewing spectacles, the asserted claims describe a more general image processing method. This method involves the repetitive presentation of at least two similar image pictures alternated with a "bridging picture" that is substantially dissimilar, a process the patent refers to as "Eternalizing" (’123 Patent, col. 4:1-19). This technique is described as creating an illusion of continuous, seamless directional movement from a finite number of images (’123 Patent, col. 8:58-63).
- Technical Importance: The patent suggests that creating illusions of continuous motion from a small number of still frames could have applications in film and electronic media, reducing the need for traditional frame-by-frame animation or capture (’123 Patent, col. 4:20-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶9).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- An apparatus adapted to: obtain a first image from a first video stream;
- obtain a second image from a second video stream, wherein the first image is different from the second image;
- stitch together the first image and the second image to generate a stitched image frame;
- generate a first modified image frame by removing a first portion of the stitched image frame;
- generate a second modified image frame by removing a second portion of the stitched image frame;
- generate a third modified image frame by removing a third portion of the stitched image frame;
- wherein the three modified image frames are different from each other;
- identify a bridge frame that is a non-solid color;
- blend the first, second, and third modified image frames with the bridge frame to generate first, second, and third blended frames, respectively;
- display the first, second, and third blended frames.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
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
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’452 Patent shares a nearly identical specification with the ’123 Patent and thus addresses the same problem of optimizing the performance of spectacles used to create 3D visual effects from 2D motion pictures (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-40).
- The Patented Solution: The asserted claims of the ’452 Patent, like those of the ’123 Patent, are directed to a general image processing apparatus. The solution involves a processor that obtains and stitches images, generates modified frames by removing portions, blends them with a bridge frame, and overlays them to create and display a combined frame (’452 Patent, col. 46:48-47:4). This process is meant to create visual illusions of movement and depth from a limited set of source images (’452 Patent, col. 3:28-34).
- Technical Importance: The technology purports to offer a novel method for generating dynamic visual content, such as motion illusions, from a small set of static or near-static images, which could be relevant for digital media and animation (’452 Patent, col. 4:20-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts Claim 4, which depends on independent Claim 2. (Compl. ¶¶24-26).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 2 are:
- An apparatus comprising: a storage and a processor adapted to:
- obtain a first image from a first video stream;
- obtain a second image from a second video stream, wherein the first image is different from the second image;
- stitch together the first image and the second image to generate a stitched image frame;
- generate first, second, and third modified image frames by removing respective first, second, and third portions of the stitched image frame;
- wherein the three modified image frames are different from each other;
- identify a bridge frame;
- blend the first, second, and third modified image frames with the bridge frame to generate first, second, and third blended frames;
- overlay the first, second, and third blended frames to generate a combined frame;
- display the combined frame.
- Claim 4 adds the limitation that "the bridge frame comprises a non-solid color." (Compl. ¶26).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "BLISS54-2" as an exemplary infringing product, and broadly includes "laptops; tablets; all-in-one computers; notebooks, and smartphones" as the "Accused Models." (Compl. ¶9).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products, exemplified by the BLISS54-2, include a "Picture-by-Picture ('PbP')" feature. This PbP functionality is alleged to allow the device to obtain two different images from two video streams via input ports and "stitch together the first image and the second image." (Compl. ¶¶11-12, 27-28).
- The complaint further alleges that the accused products can "remove" different color components from the stitched image frame (e.g., removing Green and Blue to leave Red) to generate the claimed "modified image frames." (Compl. ¶¶13-15, 29-31).
- Finally, the complaint alleges that the accused products have a "transparent menu that is a non-solid color," which functions as the claimed "bridge frame" and is blended with the modified frames for display. (Compl. ¶¶16-20, 32-36).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement allegations for both asserted patents are substantively identical, relying on the same underlying theory of operation for the accused products. The following chart summarizes the allegations for the lead patent.
'123 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| obtain a first image from a first video stream; obtain a second image from a second video stream... | The accused BLISS54-2's Picture-by-Picture (PbP) feature obtains images from two different video streams via input ports. | ¶11, ¶12 | col. 13:35-42 |
| stitch together the first image and the second image to generate a stitched image frame | The BLISS54-2's PbP feature can stitch the two images together to generate a stitched image. | ¶12 | col. 13:40-41 |
| generate a first modified image frame by removing a first portion of the stitched image frame | The BLISS54-2 removes the Green and Blue color components from the stitched image frame, leaving just Red. | ¶13 | col. 10:51-53 |
| generate a second modified image frame by removing a second portion of the stitched image frame | The BLISS54-2 removes the Red and Blue color components from the stitched image frame, leaving just Green. | ¶14 | col. 10:51-53 |
| identify a bridge frame that is a non-solid color | The BLISS54-2 has a transparent menu that is a non-solid color, which functions as the bridge frame. | ¶16 | col. 9:3-6 |
| blend the first modified image frame with the bridge frame to generate a first blended frame | The BLISS54-2 blends the first modified frame (Red) with the transparent menu. | ¶17 | col. 9:36-46 |
| display the first blended frame, the second blended frame, and the third blended frame | The BLISS54-2 displays the blended frames, with the transparent menu blended with each underlying subpixel frame. | ¶20 | col. 113:3-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The asserted patents overwhelmingly describe inventions related to 3D spectacles and the "Pulfrich illusion." A primary question for the court will be whether the claims, despite their general image-processing language, should be limited in scope to the specific context of the disclosed 3D viewing systems.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether an on-screen display (OSD) menu, which is typically a spatial overlay on top of video content, performs the function of the claimed "bridge frame." The patent describes the bridge frame as an element in a temporal sequence of images (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...) designed to create a motion illusion (’123 Patent, col. 4:55-58). This suggests a potential mismatch between the alleged functionality and the claimed invention.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "removing a ... portion of the stitched image frame"
Context and Importance: This term is central to infringement, as the complaint alleges it is met by filtering color channels (e.g., removing blue and green data to leave red). The validity of this interpretation will determine whether the accused products meet a key step of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification provides little direct support for interpreting "removing a portion" as "filtering a color."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "portion" without specifying that it must be spatial. One might argue that color information constitutes a "portion" of the total image data.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses using "only portions of image pictures" and moving a windowed portion of an image while the background remains, which suggests spatial removal (’452 Patent, col. 6:15-24). The patent does not appear to explicitly describe removing or filtering color data as a way of creating a "modified image frame."
The Term: "bridge frame"
Context and Importance: The complaint equates this term with a "transparent menu." The definition of "bridge frame" will be critical to deciding whether a standard user interface element like an OSD menu can satisfy this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, which may allow for an argument that any element blended with the primary images could qualify. Dependent claim 4 of the '452 Patent requires a "non-solid color" bridge frame, which is consistent with a transparent menu.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "bridging picture" or "bridging interval" as a distinct, third visual unit in a temporal sequence (e.g., "A, B, C") used to create an illusion of continuous motion (’123 Patent, col. 4:50-58). This temporal function appears distinct from the spatial overlay function of a typical menu. The specification also states the bridge frame is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" (’123 Patent, col. 9:3-5), which may suggest it is not intended to be a transparent overlay.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on a significant disconnect between the detailed description in the patents and the language of the asserted claims. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A central issue will be one of contextual scope: To what extent should the claims, written in general image-processing terms, be interpreted and limited by a specification that is almost exclusively dedicated to the niche field of creating 3D illusions with specialized electronic spectacles?
- A key infringement question will be one of functional and definitional mapping: Can the claim term "removing a ... portion" of an image frame be construed to cover the filtering of color data, and can a "transparent menu" that spatially overlays video be considered a "bridge frame," which the patent describes as a distinct element in a temporal sequence? The resolution of these construction issues will likely be dispositive of infringement.