VDPP LLC v. Fca US LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: FCA US LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey, LLP; Carden & Tracy, LLC; Choken Welling LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13535, N.D. Ill., 11/04/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement in Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s image processing and image capture systems infringed two expired patents related to methods for processing 2D video to create stereoscopic 3D visual effects.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves analyzing and modifying sequences of 2D image frames to generate a 3D visual illusion, often intended for viewing with specialized filter spectacles.
• Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit expired before the complaint was filed, limiting potential remedies to past damages. The complaint states Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and discloses a history of prior settlement licenses, arguing that these licenses do not trigger patent marking requirements because they were not for the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	Priority Date for ’452 and ’874 Patents
2016-08-23	’452 Patent Issued
2017-07-25	’874 Patent Issued
2021-07-25	’874 Patent Expired
2022-01-22	’452 Patent Expired
2025-11-04	Complaint Filed

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,” Issued August 23, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with electronically controlled variable tint materials used in spectacles for 3D viewing, noting that they can be slow to transition between different optical densities (e.g., from clear to dark). This slow transition can fail to keep pace with rapid on-screen action or scene changes. A related problem is the limited 'cycle life' of these materials. (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes fabricating the spectacle lenses from multiple layers of the variable tint material. This multi-layer construction is claimed to achieve faster transition times than a single layer. The specification suggests that using multiple layers allows a target optical density to be reached with a shorter application of electric potential, which can also improve the material's cycle life. (’452 Patent, col. 2:48-62; Fig. 6b).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to enhance the performance and longevity of active filter spectacles used to create 3D effects from 2D motion pictures, making the viewing experience more responsive and the hardware more durable. (’452 Patent, col. 2:40-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶9). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim asserted.
• Claim 1 requires:
  • An apparatus comprising:
  • a storage adapted to store one or more image frames; and
  • a processor adapted to:
    • reshape a portion of at least one of the one or more image frames; and
    • cause the one or more image frames to be displayed.

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: The patent addresses the challenge of creating a convincing 3D stereoscopic illusion (specifically, the Pulfrich effect) from a standard 2D motion picture. This requires precisely controlling the optical properties of viewing spectacles to synchronize with the lateral motion occurring on screen. (’874 Patent, col. 1:55-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method and system for automatically processing a 2D video to optimize it for 3D viewing. The process involves obtaining motion vectors from video frames, calculating the speed and direction of motion, generating a "deformation value" based on these parameters, applying that value to create a "modified image frame," and blending this modified frame with a "bridge frame" to generate a final, combined frame for display. (’874 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 42A).
• Technical Importance: This method provided a framework for converting standard 2D video content into a format suitable for stereoscopic 3D viewing by computationally analyzing the motion within the video itself. (’874 Patent, col. 1:12-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶14). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim asserted.
• Claim 1 requires:
  • A method for generating modified video, comprising:
  • 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 describing motion;
  • calculating parameters for lateral speed and direction of motion using the motion vectors;
  • generating a deformation value by applying an algorithm using those parameters;
  • applying the deformation value to the image frame to identify a modified image frame;
  • blending the modified image frame with a non-solid color bridge frame to generate a blended frame;
  • wherein the motion parameters are calculated only from the motion vectors.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers." (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides no specific details on the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that they perform general functions such as image processing, capture, storage, modification, and display. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 13-14). The complaint alleges Defendant sells and offers to sell these products and services in Illinois. (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary infringement charts in Exhibits B and D but does not include them as attachments to the filing (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 15). Accordingly, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

• ’452 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s systems directly infringe the ’452 Patent because they are apparatuses for image processing. The theory suggests these systems contain storage for image frames and a processor that performs an operation constituting "reshaping a portion" of an image frame before causing it to be displayed, thereby meeting the elements of claim 1. (Compl. ¶9).
• ’874 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s systems for image capture and modification directly infringe the ’874 Patent. The infringement theory tracks the language of the patent, asserting that the accused systems practice a method of capturing image frames from video streams, modifying those frames, and generating combined frames for display based on an identified "bridge frame." (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • A primary technical question for the ’452 Patent will be whether the alleged "image processing" in Defendant's systems performs the specific function of "reshaping a portion" of an image frame as that term is understood within the patent's context of creating stereoscopic visual effects.
  • For the ’874 Patent, a central issue will be evidentiary. The complaint does not specify how Defendant’s systems allegedly perform the detailed, multi-step method of claim 1, raising the question of what evidence Plaintiff will offer to show the calculation of a "deformation value" from motion vectors and subsequent blending with a "bridge frame."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’452 Patent: "reshape a portion of... an image frame" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core processing step of the apparatus claim. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether it is limited to manipulations for creating 3D effects, as taught throughout the specification, or whether it can read on more general video processing functions like scaling or format conversion.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to a 3D context. The specification discloses combining image pictures where a "portion of the image picture is offset from the first image picture," which could be argued to cover a range of image manipulations. (’452 Patent, col. 6:17-19).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s title, abstract, and detailed description consistently frame the invention in the context of "3Deeps Filter Spectacles" and the Pulfrich illusion. The specification states the invention "relates to the field of motion pictures and to a system called 3Deeps that will allow almost any motion picture... to be viewed with the visual effect of 3-dimensions." (’452 Patent, col. 1:45-49). This pervasive context may support an interpretation limiting "reshape" to manipulations performed for that purpose.

’874 Patent: "bridge frame" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is a specific and unconventional element of the claimed method. The infringement analysis for the ’874 patent may turn on whether any feature in Defendant’s accused process can be characterized as a "bridge frame."
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The ’874 patent is part of a family that defines a bridging interval as a "bridging picture" which is "substantially dissimilar to the other substantially similar pictures." It is also described as potentially being a "timed unlit-screen pause." (’452 Patent, col. 4:28-38, incorporated by reference into the ’874 patent family). This could support a broad definition covering various types of intermediate or transitional frames.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as a "solid black or other solid-colored picture" or a "strongly contrasting image-picture," used to create a specific "loop" or visual rhythm. (’452 Patent, col. 4:34-55). This may support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, intentionally inserted frame that serves this specific structural purpose, rather than any incidental transitional frame.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conditional allegation of willful infringement. The prayer for relief requests a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages, but predicates this request on the condition that "discovery reveals that Defendant (1) knew of the patents-in-suit prior to the filing date." (Compl. p. 6, ¶ e). The complaint does not allege any specific pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant.

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

1. Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of context and claim scope: can claim terms such as "reshape a portion of... an image frame," which are rooted in the patents' specific teachings on creating 3D stereoscopic effects for viewing with specialized eyewear, be construed broadly enough to read on the general "image processing" and "image capture" functions allegedly performed by Defendant’s automotive systems?
2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key question will be evidentiary: what specific facts and technical evidence will Plaintiff be able to produce in discovery to demonstrate that Defendant's systems practice the detailed, multi-step image modification and blending method recited in claim 1 of the ’874 Patent, which the complaint alleges in only conclusory terms?
3. Damages for Expired Patents: A central practical issue will relate to damages: as both patents expired before the suit was filed, the dispute is confined to past infringement. This will focus the case on questions of historical valuation, including the construction of a hypothetical negotiation and the determination of a reasonable royalty for technology that is now in the public domain.