VDPP LLC v. Brandmotion LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Brandmotion, LLC (Michigan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-11155, E.D. Mich., 04/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Michigan, resides in the district, and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services for image capture and modification infringe two patents related to generating modified video for stereoscopic viewing effects.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital video processing techniques for creating three-dimensional visual effects from standard two-dimensional video content, a technology relevant to consumer electronics and entertainment systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities. Plaintiff asserts that these licenses do not trigger patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) because they were not for the production of a patented article and did not include admissions of infringement.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874, titled “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 on July 25, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the limitations of prior art 3D viewing systems, such as the Pulfrich effect, which often impose an "enormous constraint" by requiring all screen action to move in a consistent direction to sustain the 3D illusion, limiting creative freedom for filmmakers and producers (’874 Patent, col. 4:45-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method for processing a standard 2D video to create a modified video for stereoscopic viewing. The process involves acquiring a video frame, identifying motion vectors within it, and calculating parameters like lateral speed and direction of motion (’874 Patent, col. 44:21-27; Fig. 42A). Based on these parameters, a "deformation value" is generated and applied to create a "modified image frame," which is then blended with a "bridge frame" of a "non-solid color" to produce a final blended frame for display (’874 Patent, Abstract; col. 45:1-7).
• Technical Importance: This technology purports to enable the conversion of the vast existing library of 2D video content into a 3D-viewable format without requiring specialized 3D cameras or production techniques, a commercially significant goal in the consumer electronics market.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶9).
• Independent Claim 1 requires the following essential method steps:
  • 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 the lateral speed and the direction of motion of the image frame, using the motion vectors.
  • Generating a deformation value by applying an algorithm that uses both of 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.

U.S. Patent No. 10,951,881 - Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filer Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,951,881, titled “Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filer Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials,” issued on March 16, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background acknowledges that prior methods for creating 3D effects can be suboptimal, particularly when using viewing spectacles with variable tint materials that may have slow transition times, which can degrade the viewing experience (’881 Patent, col. 4:27-31). The challenge is to create a more fluid and seamless illusion of continuous motion.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an apparatus with a storage and processor adapted to execute a multi-step image modification process. It involves obtaining two different images from separate video streams, "stitching" them together, and then generating multiple "modified" image frames by removing different portions of the stitched frame (’881 Patent, col. 112:12-28). These modified frames are then blended with a "bridge frame" of a "non-solid color" to create a sequence of blended frames for display, a process the patent refers to as "Eternalism" (’881 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:45-46).
• Technical Importance: This technique of generating a series of blended, intermediate frames from original source frames is intended to create a smoother and more continuous illusion of motion, potentially reducing visual artifacts like flicker that can detract from the 3D effect.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Independent Claim 1 requires 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.
  • Stitch the first and second images together to generate a stitched image frame.
  • Generate a first, second, and third modified image frame by removing a first, second, and third portion of the stitched image frame, respectively.
  • Identify a bridge frame that is a non-solid color.
  • Blend each of the three modified image frames with the bridge frame to generate a first, second, and third blended frame.
  • Display the three blended frames.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, system, or service by name (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" that Defendant allegedly "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It makes only conclusory allegations that Defendant's unspecified products perform the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D but does not include these exhibits in the filing (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). The narrative infringement allegations are limited to general statements that Defendant’s products and services practice the methods and apparatuses claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶8-9, 13-14). The complaint does not describe how any specific feature of a product operates or maps to any element of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The primary point of contention raised by the complaint is evidentiary. A threshold question for the court will be whether the complaint provides a sufficient factual basis to support its infringement claims, given the absence of an identified accused product or any description of its specific functionality.
  • Technical Questions: Once an accused product is identified, analysis will likely focus on its video processing architecture. Key technical questions may include whether the product calculates a "deformation value" based on motion vectors as required by the ’874 Patent, and whether it performs the specific "stitching," "removing," and "blending" operations recited in the apparatus claims of the ’881 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term ("’874 Patent, Claim 1"): "bridge frame that is a non-solid color"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the final step of generating the visual effect. The definition of what constitutes a "bridge frame" and the scope of "non-solid color" will be critical for determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of this blending element is a key technical differentiator of the claimed method.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "non-solid color" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any frame that is not monochrome (i.e., contains more than one color), without limitation to gradients or patterns.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract states the purpose of blending is to "generate a blended frame," suggesting a functional purpose of creating a smooth visual transition. A party might argue this context requires "non-solid color" to mean a frame with specific characteristics, such as a gradient or pattern, that facilitates this blending, rather than any frame with multiple colors.
• Term ("’881 Patent, Claim 1"): "stitch together the first image and the second image"
  • Context and Importance: This is the foundational step of creating the composite frame that is subsequently modified. The technical meaning of "stitch together" will likely be a central issue. Its construction will determine whether the claim covers simple image concatenation or requires a more sophisticated digital blending process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes generating a modified image frame by "stitching together the first image and the second image to generate a stitched image frame" (’881 Patent, col. 15:23-27). This language could support an interpretation covering any digital process that combines two distinct images into a single data file or frame.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "stitch" in the context of digital imaging often implies a process that creates a seamless or visually coherent single image from multiple sources, such as in panoramic photography. A party could argue that to "generate a stitched image frame" that is then subject to further modification, the "stitching" must result in a single, coherent image, not merely two images placed side-by-side.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement of the ’881 Patent (Compl. ¶¶16-17). It alleges inducement based on Defendant encouraging or instructing customers on how to use its products (Compl. ¶16). For contributory infringement, it alleges Defendant provides a "system related to an electrically controlled spectacle frame and optoelectronmic lenses" (Compl. ¶17). For both counts, knowledge is alleged to exist "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. ¶VII.e). The factual basis for willfulness appears to be the same post-suit knowledge alleged for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶16-17, fn. 1-2).

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

• A central threshold question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s failure to identify a specific accused product by name, describe its operation, or provide the referenced claim chart exhibits meet the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement under federal rules?
• A core technical question will concern operational scope: once an instrumentality is identified, does its video processing method perform the specific, multi-step sequence of calculating a "deformation value" and "blending" with a "non-solid color bridge frame" as claimed in the ’874 patent, or the "stitching" and "removing" steps of the ’881 patent?
• A key issue for damages and enhanced remedies will be timing of knowledge: can the Plaintiff produce evidence of pre-suit knowledge of the patents by the Defendant, or will its claims for indirect and willful infringement be limited to conduct occurring only after the complaint was filed?