DCT

1:25-cv-05404

VDPP LLC v. Innovative Video Technology Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05404, E.D.N.Y., 09/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has 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 and image capture systems and services infringe two patents related to creating stereoscopic 3D effects from 2D video.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue pertains to methods for processing video signals and controlling viewing spectacles to generate a 3D visual experience, a field relevant to consumer electronics, media, and entertainment.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint indicates that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. Plaintiff also notes that it and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities regarding its patents. The complaint preemptively addresses potential patent marking defenses under 35 U.S.C. § 287 by arguing that marking requirements do not apply and, if necessary, it will limit its claims to method claims. One of the patents-in-suit expired prior to the filing of the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Earliest Priority Date for ’452 Patent
2001-01-23 Earliest Priority Date for ’874 Patent
2016-08-23 ’452 Patent Issued
2017-07-25 ’874 Patent Issued
2022-01-22 ’452 Patent Expired
2025-09-26 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's background section identifies the problem of "slow transition time" in electronically controlled variable tint materials, such as those used in spectacles for creating 3D effects. This slowness can be problematic during rapid scene changes in a movie. A related problem is the limited "cycle life" (number of clear-dark cycles before failure) of such materials. (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multiple layers of optoelectronic materials to fabricate the spectacle lenses. This multi-layer construction is intended to achieve faster transition times between different levels of tint than a single layer could. While this approach results in a "slightly darker clear state," the patent presents this as a worthwhile tradeoff for improved transition speed. (’452 Patent, col. 2:50-55, Fig. 6b).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the performance and durability of active filter spectacles used to convert 2D video into a 3D experience, aiming for a smoother visual effect and potentially longer product lifespan. (’452 Patent, col. 2:40-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is a system claim directed to an apparatus for presenting a video.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An apparatus with a storage and a processor adapted to "reshape a portion" of an image frame and display it.
    • An "electrically controlled spectacle" with a frame, optoelectronic left and right lenses, and a control unit.
    • The state of the left lens is independent of the right lens.
    • Each lens has a "dark state and a light state."
    • The control unit, when viewing the video, "places both the left lens and the right lens to a dark state."

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 background describes creating 3D effects from 2D images via the Pulfrich effect, wherein a filter over one eye causes a delay in visual processing that the brain interprets as depth when viewing lateral motion. The problem is that static filters are not optimized for varying speeds of motion and changing luminance within a video. (’874 Patent, col. 1:11-col. 2:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method that acquires a 2D video, obtains an image frame, and generates a "modified image frame" by performing an operation such as expanding, removing a portion, or stitching. The system then generates "altered image frames" with specific "non-overlapping portions" for display. This dynamic modification of video frames is intended to optimize the stereoscopic viewing experience. (’874 Patent, Abstract, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology represents a shift from static filters to a dynamic, content-aware system that actively processes a 2D video stream to generate a modified video specifically optimized for creating a 3D effect. (’874 Patent, col. 3:50-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is a method claim for generating and displaying a modified video.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Acquiring a source video and obtaining a first image frame.
    • Generating a "modified image frame" by performing one of three specified actions (expanding, removing a portion, or stitching).
    • Generating a "first altered image frame" that includes "first and second non-overlapping portions," with specific rules about which portions are included or excluded from the original and modified frames.
    • Generating a "second altered image frame" that includes "third and fourth non-overlapping portions" based on similar structural rules.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to Defendant’s "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused instrumentality. It alleges that Defendant "put the inventions claimed by the... Patent[s] into service (i.e., used them)" but does not describe how any specific feature of a product or service operates (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the products' commercial importance beyond general assertions of sales within New York (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary infringement charts (Exhibits B and D) that were not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). Consequently, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose based on the narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes claims 1-4 of both the ’452 and ’874 Patents (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The theory of infringement appears to be based on Defendant's use of infringing systems and services under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). For the ’452 Patent, which expired in January 2022, the allegations are limited to acts of infringement that occurred prior to the patent's expiration (Compl. ¶¶8-9, 11). For the ’874 Patent, the allegations are for ongoing infringement (Compl. ¶¶14, 16). The complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping the features of any accused instrumentality to the limitations of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The primary question raised by the complaint is evidentiary: what facts, to be developed during discovery, support the allegation that Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services" practice the specific claim elements? For the ’452 Patent, this includes whether Defendant’s apparatus "reshape[s] a portion" of an image frame and is used with spectacles that place "both the left lens and the right lens to a dark state." For the ’874 Patent, this includes whether Defendant's method involves generating "altered image frames" with the specific "non-overlapping portions" structure required by claim 1.
    • Scope Questions: Should the case proceed, a potential point of contention regarding claim 1 of the ’452 Patent may be whether the term "reshape a portion of... an image frame" can be construed to cover the functionality of Defendant’s systems. Similarly, for claim 1 of the ’874 Patent, a dispute may arise over whether Defendant’s method of video modification generates frames that meet the claim's precise structural definition of "first and second non-overlapping portions."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not offer a basis for identifying terms already in dispute. However, based on the claim language, the following terms may become central to the case.

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

    • Context and Importance: This term defines a functional capability of the processor in the claimed apparatus. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the parties may dispute whether "reshape" is limited to geometric transformations or if it can encompass broader modifications like color or pixel value adjustments.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent family relates to creating visual illusions and stereoscopic effects through various frame modifications and blending techniques, which could support interpreting "reshape" broadly to include any processing that alters the visual information in a portion of the frame to achieve a 3D effect (’452 Patent, col. 9:60-63).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is used in an apparatus claim describing what a processor is "adapted to" do. A defendant may argue that in the absence of an explicit definition, the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which suggests a structural or geometric alteration rather than a more general data manipulation.

  • The Term: "generating a first altered image frame that includes first and second non-overlapping portions" (’874 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation recites a specific, complex structure for the output of the claimed method. Infringement will likely depend on a strict, element-by-element comparison of this structure to the frames generated by the accused method. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to define a very particular, non-obvious way of constructing a video frame.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that this language, read in light of the specification's goal of creating "visual illusions," should not be applied so rigidly as to exclude technically equivalent methods of frame construction that achieve the same stereoscopic result (’452 Patent, col. 3:45-56).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly detailed, specifying the exact origin and "non-overlapping" nature of the portions. A defendant will likely argue that this specificity was intended to distinguish the invention from prior art and must be strictly met, and that their system’s frame generation process (e.g., simple overlays or blending) does not create this structure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a forward-looking allegation of willful infringement, contingent upon discovery revealing that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and knew or should have known its conduct amounted to infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e). No specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged in the complaint itself.

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

  1. Factual Sufficiency: A threshold issue for the case will be one of evidentiary support: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence demonstrating that Defendant’s broadly-categorized "image processing" products and services actually perform the highly specific functions and methods recited in the asserted independent claims?
  2. Technical Correspondence: The central infringement question will be one of operational equivalence: Does Defendant’s technology for video processing create output that maps onto the unique structural frame requirements of the ’874 Patent (e.g., "altered image frames with... non-overlapping portions"), and does its system meet the specific apparatus limitations of the ’452 Patent (e.g., a processor that "reshape[s]" a frame portion and is used with spectacles that can enter an all-dark state)?
  3. Retrospective Damages: With respect to the expired ’452 Patent, a key issue will be the quantification of past harm: As injunctive relief is unavailable, the dispute will center on establishing the appropriate timeframe of alleged past infringement and calculating a reasonable royalty for that period.