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
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-12211, E.D. Mich., 08/22/2024
• 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 automotive systems and services infringe a patent related to methods for generating and displaying modified video.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue generally relates to processing 2D video to create enhanced or 3D-like visual effects based on an analysis of the video content.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities. Plaintiff argues these licenses do not trigger patent marking requirements, noting it may limit its infringement claims to method claims to remove any such requirement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	’874 Patent Priority Date
2017-07-25	’874 Patent Issue Date
2024-08-22	Complaint Filing Date

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 Therefor, And System And Method Of Generating And Displaying A Modified Video"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874, "Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles For Optimized 3Deeps Stereoscopic Viewing, Control Method And Means Therefor, And System And Method Of Generating And Displaying A Modified Video," issued July 25, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of prior art methods for creating 3D visual effects from 2D images, such as the need for special cameras, the viewer discomfort associated with shutter glasses, and the restrictive requirement of consistent, unidirectional motion for the "Pulfrich effect" to work (’874 Patent, col. 4:38-49; col. 6:35-51).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses systems that analyze 2D video to create a 3D effect. One described method involves obtaining an image frame with motion vectors, calculating parameters like lateral speed and direction, generating a "deformation value," and applying it to the frame to create a modified, blended video for display (’874 Patent, Abstract). Another described technique, termed "Eternalism," involves creating continuous, looping visual effects by combining and repeating a small number of image frames, some of which may be visually blended or slightly offset from one another (’874 Patent, col. 59:1-60:4).
• Technical Importance: The described technology purports to enable 3D-like viewing of conventional 2D video content without the high production costs or specialized projection hardware associated with other 3D systems, such as dual-camera filming (’874 Patent, col. 11:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential elements:
  • acquiring a source video with a sequence of image frames
  • obtaining a first image frame
  • generating a modified image frame by performing one of three specific actions: (i) expanding the frame, (ii) removing a portion of the frame, or (iii) stitching the frame with a portion of a second frame
  • generating a first "altered image frame" that includes first and second non-overlapping portions derived from the modified image frame
  • generating a second "altered image frame" that includes third and fourth non-overlapping portions derived from the modified image frame (’874 Patent, col. 71:37-72:24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture" (Compl. ¶8) and "systems and methods related to modifying an image" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide specific details about the technical operation of the accused instrumentalities. The allegations are limited to general statements that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" infringing systems and procures "monetary and commercial benefit from it" (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit (Compl. ¶9). Therefore, the infringement theory is based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s automotive systems and services infringe one or more of claims 1-4 of the ’874 patent (Compl. ¶8). However, it does not explain how any specific feature of an FCA product meets the limitations of the asserted claims. The infringement theory appears to be that Defendant's systems perform some form of image modification (Compl. ¶10), which Plaintiff alleges infringes the patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A primary issue for the court will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that FCA's unnamed automotive products perform the highly specific, multi-step method of generating "altered image frames" with "non-overlapping portions" as required by Claim 1. The complaint's lack of specificity raises the question of the factual basis for the infringement allegation.
  • Technical Question: A key technical question is whether the functionality of FCA’s accused systems, which likely involves conventional video display technology, aligns with the specific and unconventional frame manipulation process (expanding, removing portions, or stitching) recited in Claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific disputed claim terms. However, based on the patent, the construction of the following terms will likely be central to the dispute.

• The Term: "generating a modified image frame by performing one of: (i) expanding the first image frame; (ii) removing a first portion of the first image frame; and (iii) stitching together the first image frame with a second portion of a second image frame" (’874 Patent, col. 72:3-9).
• Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the core manipulative step of the claimed method. The infringement analysis will depend on whether any function in FCA's products can be characterized as one of these three specific actions. Practitioners may focus on this term because the asserted claim appears to describe a very particular artistic video effect ("Eternalism") rather than a general-purpose 3D conversion technology.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that the specification discloses a wide array of video modification techniques and that the terms "expanding," "removing," and "stitching" should be interpreted conceptually to cover various digital manipulations that achieve a similar visual result.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant would likely argue that the claim language is tied to the specific "Eternalism" embodiments shown in figures such as FIGS. 23-34 and described as creating "seamless movement, sustained fluid entirely on-going movement" (’874 Patent, col. 60:2-4). This could support a narrower construction limited to the creation of such artistic, looping video effects, rather than general image processing in an automotive display.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant instructs customers on how to use its products in a way that causes infringement (Compl. ¶10). It also makes a parallel allegation of contributory infringement (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’874 patent from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶10-11). This asserts post-filing willfulness and reserves the right to prove pre-suit knowledge later.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused products and their functionality, a key question is what factual basis exists for the allegation that FCA's automotive systems practice the specific and unconventional method of generating "altered image frames" as recited in Claim 1.
• The case will also turn on a question of claim scope: Can the method of Claim 1, which appears rooted in the "Eternalism" artistic effect described in the specification, be construed to cover the functionality of a commercial in-vehicle display system, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the narrowly claimed invention and the accused technology?