VDPP LLC v. Speco Technologies

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Speco Technologies (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-06294, E.D.N.Y., 11/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for image capture and modification infringe two patents related to methods for modifying video images.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to the field of image processing, specifically techniques for modifying sequences of 2D image frames to generate visual effects, such as creating a stereoscopic 3D illusion.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that one of the patents-in-suit, the ’380 patent, expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit, which suggests that any potential damages for infringement of that patent would be limited to the period before its expiration. The complaint also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, but asserts these do not trigger patent marking requirements because they were not licenses to produce a patented article. Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	’874 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2005-03-15	’380 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2017-07-25	’874 Patent Issued
2018-07-10	’380 Patent Issued
2022-08-15	’380 Patent Expired
2025-11-12	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380 - “Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials”

• Issued: July 10, 2018 (the "’380 Patent")

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the problem that electrochromic materials used in adjustable 3D spectacles can have slow transition times between light and dark states, which can disrupt the stereoscopic illusion for the viewer (Compl. ¶7; ’380 Patent, col. 3:25-39). The patent also notes that repeated cycles of darkening and clearing can lead to a limited cycle life for these materials (’380 Patent, col. 3:56-62).
• The Patented Solution: While the patent's title and background focus on the physical spectacles, the claimed invention is a method of processing video. The patent describes generating a continuous illusion of movement by creating a sequence of pictures from a limited number of initial images, which are then blended with "bridging" pictures (’380 Patent, col. 8:52-60). The claims themselves focus on methods of modifying video by expanding, removing portions of, or inserting images into existing video frames to create a combined, modified video for display (’380 Patent, col. 112:50-113:10).
• Technical Importance: This technical approach was aimed at creating new visual effects, including 3D illusions, from standard 2D video sources through algorithmic manipulation of image frames, rather than requiring specialized cameras or filming techniques (’380 Patent, col. 2:19-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-30, which includes six independent claims (1, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 26) (Compl. ¶9).
• The essential elements of representative independent method Claim 1 include:
  • acquiring a source video with a sequence of image frames;
  • identifying a first and a second image frame from the sequence;
  • expanding the first image frame to generate a first modified image frame;
  • expanding the second image frame to generate a second modified image frame;
  • combining the two modified image frames to generate a modified combined image frame; and
  • displaying the modified combined image frame.
• The complaint's assertion of claims 1-30 implies the right to assert dependent claims as well.

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 "’874 Patent")

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section discusses the limitations of conventional methods for creating 3D effects, such as those based on the Pulfrich illusion, which often require fixed-filter glasses and screen action moving in a consistent direction, thereby constraining filmmakers (Compl. ¶12; ’874 Patent, col. 4:40-52).
• The Patented Solution: The patent abstract describes a system for generating a 3D effect from a 2D source video by analyzing motion vectors within an image frame, calculating parameters like lateral speed and direction, generating a "deformation value," and applying it to the image frame, which is then blended with a "bridge frame" for display (’874 Patent, Abstract). However, the patent's independent claim recites a method of modifying video by expanding, removing a portion of, or stitching image frames together to create altered frames for display (’874 Patent, col. 72:1-41).
• Technical Importance: The technology sought to provide a method for converting standard 2D motion pictures into content that could be viewed with a 3D effect, thereby broadening the availability of 3D content beyond specially filmed movies (’874 Patent, col. 3:50-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶14).
• Independent Claim 1 is the only independent claim. Its essential elements include:
  • acquiring a source video comprising a sequence of image frames;
  • obtaining a first image frame from the sequence;
  • generating a modified image frame by performing one of three 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 with non-overlapping portions derived from the modified frame; and
  • generating a second altered image frame with different non-overlapping portions derived from the modified frame.
• The complaint asserts claims 1-4, which includes dependent claims 2, 3, and 4.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products, instead accusing Defendant's "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture devices" and "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities perform functions such as capturing, storing, modifying, and blending image frames to generate a combined frame for display (Compl. ¶13). It asserts that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" these systems but provides no specific details on their technical operation or market position (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit D" to support its infringement allegations for both the ’380 and ’874 patents (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). As this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory for the ’380 Patent alleges that Defendant's image capture devices perform the claimed methods for modifying images (Compl. ¶8-9). The infringement is alleged to have occurred before the patent's expiration on August 15, 2022 (Compl. ¶8).

For the ’874 Patent, the complaint alleges that Defendant's systems infringe by performing a method that includes capturing, modifying, and blending image frames based on a "bridge frame" to generate a combined frame (Compl. ¶13). This narrative closely tracks descriptions in the patent's specification.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Specificity Questions: The complaint's failure to identify specific accused products or provide the referenced Exhibit D raises the question of whether the infringement allegations meet the pleading standards required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  • Technical Questions: A potential point of contention for both patents is whether Defendant's "image capture devices" actually perform the specific video processing steps—such as "expanding," "removing a portion," or "stitching" frames—as required by the asserted independent claims. The complaint’s narrative for the ’874 Patent describes blending with a "bridge frame," a term from the specification that does not appear in the asserted independent claim, suggesting a possible disconnect between the infringement theory and the claim language itself (Compl. ¶13; ’874 Patent, col. 72:1-41).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the asserted claims, practitioners may focus on the following terms from the representative independent claims of the asserted patents.

• The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (’380 Patent, Claim 1; ’874 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines one of the core manipulative acts in the claimed methods. Its construction will be critical for determining whether the accused image modification processes fall within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention's purpose as creating an "appearance of continuous, sustained and direct movement" and a "continuous illusion of movement," which might support an argument that "expanding" should be construed broadly to cover various digital effects that create a sense of motion or scaling (’380 Patent, col. 8:55-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "expanding" suggests a geometric enlargement or scaling of the image. A defendant may argue that this term is limited to a literal scaling operation and does not cover other manipulation techniques like warping, perspective shifts, or blending.

• The Term: "modified combined image frame" (’380 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term describes the output of the claimed combination step. The structure and generation process of this "frame" will be a central point of comparison against the output of any accused system.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification discusses numerous ways of combining and blending images, including superimposing them, which could support a broad definition of what constitutes a "combined" frame (’380 Patent, col. 10:55-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires combining a "modified first image frame" and a "modified second image frame." A defendant could argue this requires a specific two-part combination and does not read on processes that blend three or more source frames or use a different compositional logic.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges only direct infringement and does not include separate counts for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a request for a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages (Compl. ¶VI.f). The stated basis is the possibility that discovery will reveal Defendant knew of the patents prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶VI.e). This is pleaded as a forward-looking contingency rather than being based on specific factual allegations of pre-suit knowledge.

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

• Evidentiary Specificity: A primary threshold issue will be whether the Plaintiff can substantiate its broad allegations with specific evidence. The case will depend on whether discovery uncovers accused products that can be plausibly mapped to the asserted claims, particularly given the absence of an exemplary claim chart with the complaint.
• Definitional Scope: The dispute may center on claim construction, specifically whether terms like "expanding the first image frame" are limited to literal geometric operations or can be interpreted more broadly to encompass other digital video effects that create an illusion of motion, as described in the patent specifications.
• Functional Mismatch: A key technical question will be one of operational correspondence: do Defendant's accused "image capture devices" actually perform the multi-step process of creating and displaying a "modified combined image frame" as recited in the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the functionality of the accused systems and the specific methods protected by the patents?