DCT

1:25-cv-13539

VDPP LLC v. Dukane Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13539, N.D. Ill., 01/20/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services related to image capture and modification infringe two expired patents directed to methods for generating stereoscopic video effects from 2D sources.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to digital video processing, specifically creating a 3D-like visual effect from standard 2D video by analyzing motion and blending image frames for viewing with specialized eyewear.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses concerning its patent portfolio. Notably, both patents-in-suit expired on January 22, 2022, approximately four years before this complaint was filed; the suit seeks damages for infringement that allegedly occurred before the patents' expiration.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Earliest Priority Date ('874 and '881 Patents)
2017-07-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874 Issued
2021-03-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,951,881 Issued
2022-01-22 '874 and '881 Patents Expired
2026-01-20 Complaint Filed

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

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 significant cost and technical constraints of producing native 3D motion pictures, which historically require special cameras, dual-image projection systems, and create barriers to wide distribution ('874 Patent, col. 6:35-40). The invention aims to allow "almost any motion picture to be viewed with the visual effect of 3-dimensions" using specialized filter spectacles ('874 Patent, col. 1:53-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that processes a standard 2D video source. It identifies motion vectors within an image frame, calculates parameters such as lateral speed and direction, and applies a "deformation value" to create a modified image ('874 Patent, Abstract). This modified frame is then blended with a "bridge frame" to produce a final sequence for display, which, when viewed through special spectacles, creates a 3D illusion based on the Pulfrich effect ('874 Patent, col. 2:15-25; col. 8:54-67).
  • Technical Importance: This approach suggests a method to retroactively apply 3D effects to the vast library of existing 2D video content without the need for reshooting or creating separate 2D and 3D versions of a film ('874 Patent, col. 6:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶9).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the '874 Patent recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • 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 a single parameter for both a lateral speed and a direction of motion of the image frame, using the motion vectors;
    • generating a deformation value by applying an algorithm that uses the calculated parameters;
    • applying the deformation value to the image frame to identify a modified image frame;
    • blending the modified image frame with a bridge frame that is a non-solid color and different from the modified image frame to generate a blended frame; and
    • displaying the blended frame to the viewer.

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)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The background of the '881 Patent focuses on improving "3Deeps Filter Spectacles" used to view 2D movies as 3D ('881 Patent, col. 2:47-50). A specific problem identified is the slow transition time of electrochromic materials used in the variable-tint lenses, which can detract from the 3D illusion ('881 Patent, col. 3:36-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent specification describes using multi-layered variable tint materials to achieve faster and more optimized transitions between light and dark states in the spectacle lenses ('881 Patent, col. 3:55-61). However, the asserted independent claim is directed not to the spectacles themselves but to an apparatus for image processing. This apparatus obtains first and second images from a video stream, "stitches" them together, generates modified frames by removing portions, and blends them with a bridge frame for display ('881 Patent, col. 112:12-113:4). The complaint's description of the invention also focuses on this image processing aspect (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed apparatus provides a specific method for combining and modifying image frames to create a blended output, which is a key step in generating synthesized stereoscopic video content from a 2D source.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the '881 Patent recites an apparatus with a storage and processor adapted to perform the following:
    • obtain a first image from a first video stream and a second image from a second video stream, where the first and second images are different;
    • stitch together the first and second images 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;
    • identify a bridge frame that is a non-solid color and different from the modified image frames;
    • blend the first modified image frame with the bridge frame to generate a first blended frame;
    • blend the second modified image frame with the bridge frame to generate a second blended frame;
    • blend the third modified image frame with the bridge frame to generate a third blended frame; and
    • display the first, second, and third blended frames.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The accused instrumentalities are alleged to perform methods of capturing, modifying, blending, and displaying image frames as recited in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶8, 13). No specific details regarding the technical operation or market context of Defendant's products are provided in the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts attached as Exhibit B (for the '874 Patent) and Exhibit D (for the '881 Patent), but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below based on the narrative allegations.

  • '874 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant's systems and services infringe claims 1-4 by performing the patented method (Compl. ¶9). The narrative theory suggests that Defendant's instrumentalities practice the claimed steps of capturing image frames from video, modifying those frames, blending them with a bridge frame, and generating a combined frame for display (Compl. ¶8). Without the claim chart, it is not possible to identify which specific features of Defendant's products are alleged to meet each claim limitation.
  • '881 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant's systems and services infringe claims 1-2 by providing an apparatus that performs the claimed functions (Compl. ¶14). The narrative theory is identical to that for the '874 Patent, alleging that Defendant's systems are adapted to capture, store, modify, blend, and generate image frames (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how Defendant's products allegedly perform the specific "stitching" and multi-step "removing" and "blending" limitations of claim 1.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: A primary question for both patents will be evidentiary. Given the high-level allegations, discovery will be required to determine what specific functionalities within Defendant's products are alleged to perform the claimed steps. The complaint's lack of specificity may be challenged under federal pleading standards.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the '881 Patent will be whether the accused systems perform the specific sequence of "stitching" a first and second image together and then generating three distinct modified frames by "removing" different portions, as required by claim 1 ('881 Patent, col. 112:15-28). The complaint does not provide evidence that Defendant's systems perform this multi-step process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "bridge frame that is a non-solid color" (asserted in claim 1 of both the '874 and '881 Patents).
    • Context and Importance: This term is a critical limitation in the independent claim of both asserted patents. Its definition will determine what kinds of intermediate or blending frames fall within the scope of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification contains potentially conflicting descriptions, creating ambiguity.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the bridge frame's purpose is to create a visual interval between other frames, stating it acts as an "interval" ('881 Patent, col. 46:65-66). This functional description could support a broader reading that includes any frame serving this purpose, regardless of its specific visual characteristics.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states that the "bridge-picture" is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" ('881 Patent, col. 9:4-6). While this is described as a preference, it could be used to argue that the "non-solid color" claimed is a narrow exception to the general teaching of a solid-color frame, and therefore must have distinct, non-solid characteristics.
  • The Term: "stitch together" (asserted in claim 1 of the '881 Patent).
    • Context and Importance: This is the initial action performed on the source images in claim 1 of the '881 Patent. The construction of "stitch together" will be central to determining whether an accused process infringes, as it defines the nature of the combination of the first and second images.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition of "stitch together." A party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the context of image processing, which could broadly cover various methods of combining or compositing image data.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where "portions of one or more images are stitched together" ('881 Patent, col. 13:38-39). A defendant might argue that "stitch together" requires a specific type of digital combination akin to creating a panorama or collage from distinct image portions, rather than simply overlaying or blending entire frames.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain factual allegations to support a claim of willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents. However, the prayer for relief requests an award of "additional damage for any such acts of infringement" under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which are remedies often associated with findings of willful or egregious infringement (Compl. ¶¶VII.c, d).

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

  1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: Will the plaintiff be able to substantiate its bare-bones infringement allegations with specific evidence mapping features of Defendant’s products to the elements of the asserted claims, particularly the detailed, multi-step process of "stitching," "removing," and "blending" recited in the '881 Patent?
  2. Definitional Scope: A central legal question will be the construction of "bridge frame that is a non-solid color." Can this term be construed broadly to cover a wide range of blending techniques, or will intrinsic evidence suggesting a preference for solid-color bridge frames lead to a narrower definition that may be more difficult to prove is met by the accused systems?
  3. Impact of Delay: Given that the lawsuit was filed four years after both patents expired, a key issue may be one of damages and equitable defenses. The dispute will be confined to past damages, and Defendant may raise defenses such as laches, questioning whether Plaintiff's delay in filing suit was unreasonable and resulted in prejudice.