DCT

1:25-cv-13535

VDPP LLC v. Fca US LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13535, N.D. Ill., 12/05/2025
  • 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 there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s image processing systems, products, and services infringe a patent related to multi-layered, variable-tint spectacles designed to create 3D visual effects.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using electronically controlled eyewear with variable tint lenses to create a 3D stereoscopic effect (the Pulfrich illusion) from standard 2D motion pictures.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patent-in-suit expired on January 22, 2022, indicating the action is for past damages only. Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and presents arguments that patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 should not apply, referencing prior settlement licenses with other entities that did not involve producing a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 – Earliest Priority Date
2016-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 – Issue Date
2022-01-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 – Expiration Date
2025-12-05 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 describes a problem with electronically controlled variable tint materials used in spectacles for 3D viewing, namely their “slow transition time” (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-26). This slowness can make them “incapable of the ‘fast’ transition times that are sometimes required as for instance between scene changes” (’452 Patent, col. 2:41-44). A related problem is the limited “cycle life” of certain optoelectronic materials, referring to the number of clear-to-dark cycles before failure (’452 Patent, col. 2:56-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes to achieve faster transition times by using “multiple layers of electronically controlled variable tint materials” to fabricate the lenses of the viewing spectacles (’452 Patent, col. 2:49-54; Fig. 6a). By using multiple layers, the required change in optical density can be achieved more rapidly than with a single layer, albeit with a "minimal and barely perceptible" tradeoff of a slightly darker clear state (’452 Patent, col. 2:52-55). The patent also discloses an electrically controlled spectacle with a frame, left and right optoelectronic lenses, and a control unit adapted to control the state of each lens independently (’452 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This multi-layer approach was intended to improve the performance and durability of active filter spectacles used for creating 3D effects from 2D content, making the viewing experience more seamless and the hardware more robust.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶9).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • An electrically controlled spectacle, comprising:
    • a spectacle frame;
    • optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame, the lenses comprising a left lens and a right lens,
    • each of the optoelectrical lenses having a plurality of states,
    • wherein the state of the left lens is independent of the state of the right lens; and
    • a control unit housed in the frame,
    • the control unit being adapted to control the state of each of the lenses independently.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities broadly as Defendant’s “systems, products, and services in the field of image processing” (Compl. ¶9). No specific product names or models are provided.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that they are in the "field of image processing" and were "put into service" by the Defendant (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is found in an attached chart (Exhibit B) (Compl. ¶10). This exhibit was not provided. The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement alleges that Defendant’s “systems, products, and services in the field of image processing” directly infringed claims 1-4 of the ’452 Patent prior to its expiration (Compl. ¶9). Without the referenced exhibit, a detailed analysis of the specific infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be one of definitional scope. The patent’s claims and specification appear directed to wearable eyewear, expressly claiming an “electrically controlled spectacle” comprising a “spectacle frame.” It raises the question of whether this claim language can be construed to cover the Defendant's accused “systems, products, and services in the field of image processing,” which, given the Defendant’s business as an automobile manufacturer, are not described as wearable devices.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's reliance on an unprovided exhibit and of specific product identification prevents the identification of specific technical points of contention regarding how the accused instrumentalities are alleged to meet the claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "electrically controlled spectacle" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the preamble and central subject of the independent claim. Its construction will be critical to the dispute, as the applicability of the patent to Defendant’s non-wearable "image processing apparatus" appears to depend entirely on whether this term can be interpreted more broadly than its plain meaning of "eyeglasses." Practitioners may focus on this term because of the apparent mismatch between the claimed invention and the nature of the accused products.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer a basis for a broader interpretation. A party seeking one might argue that the term "spectacle" should not be limiting and that the inventive concept lies in the independent control of two optoelectronic filters. However, Claim 1 explicitly recites "a spectacle frame," which anchors the claim to a specific physical structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification consistently describes the invention as a form of eyewear. The abstract describes "a spectacle frame and optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame" (’452 Patent, Abstract). The detailed description explains that such frames "are a well-known means by which lenses can be fixed before a person's eyes for viewing" (’452 Patent, col. 20:17-20). Figures 1, 5, 11, and 14 all depict conventional eyeglasses. This evidence may support a construction that limits the claim to wearable eyewear.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conditional allegation of willfulness. It requests a declaration of willful infringement only if discovery reveals that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit and continued to infringe after acquiring that knowledge (Compl. ¶VI.e). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge.

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

The litigation appears to center on two fundamental, open questions for the court:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "electrically controlled spectacle," which the patent repeatedly describes and illustrates as wearable eyeglasses containing a "spectacle frame," be construed to cover Defendant’s accused, non-wearable "image processing apparatus"?
  • A key threshold question will be one of evidentiary basis: given that the complaint provides no technical details about the accused products and relies on an unprovided infringement chart, the initial stages of the case may focus on whether the Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to support a plausible claim of infringement under federal pleading standards.