VDPP LLC v. Ubiquiti Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Ubiquiti, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03406, S.D.N.Y., 04/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York 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 systems, products, and services related to image capture and modification infringe two patents concerning methods for processing 2D video to create stereoscopic 3D effects.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves algorithmic manipulation of video frames and the use of variable-tint spectacles to induce a 3D visual illusion (the Pulfrich effect) from standard 2D content.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities, but states that these licenses did not grant rights to produce a patented article and were settled without any admission of infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	Earliest Priority Date for ’444 and ’874 Patents
2017-07-04	U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 Issues
2017-07-25	U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874 Issues
2025-04-24	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 - "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444, "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials," issued July 4, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical challenge of slow transition times in electronically controlled variable tint materials used for creating 3D viewing effects. While these materials can transition quickly between "near" optical density states, they are often too slow when switching between states that are "far apart," such as from fully clear to dark, which is necessary to synchronize with fast-moving scenes in a movie (’444 Patent, col. 2:36-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multiple layers of optoelectronic material to construct the spectacle lenses. By using two or more layers, the patent claims it is possible to achieve faster overall state transition times than a single layer could accomplish on its own, albeit with a minor tradeoff of a slightly darker "clear" state (’444 Patent, col. 2:54-60). This multi-layer structure is depicted in Figure 6b, showing a lens (506) with multiple active layers (601, 611).
• Technical Importance: This approach was intended to improve the performance and viability of spectacles that create 3D effects from 2D video by overcoming the physical limitations of the variable tint materials available at the time (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 13, and 22, along with their dependents (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements for an apparatus:
  • A storage adapted to store one or more image frames.
  • A processor adapted to:
    • obtain a first image frame from a first video stream;
    • expand the first image frame to generate a modified image frame;
    • generate a bridge frame of a non-solid color that is different from the first and modified image frames;
    • blend the modified image frame with the bridge frame to generate a blended modified image frame; and
    • display the blended modified image frame.
• The complaint asserts claims 1-27, which suggests an intent to pursue dependent claims as well (Compl. ¶8).

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, "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 need to optimize the Pulfrich 3D illusion, where filtering light to one eye causes a perceptual delay that the brain interprets as depth for moving objects. The optimal filtering (i.e., the optical density of the spectacle lens) is not static; it depends on variables such as the speed of on-screen motion and the ambient light in the viewing environment (’874 Patent, col. 3:1-4:52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method for processing video to enhance this 3D effect. The system acquires a 2D video, analyzes motion vectors within an image frame to calculate parameters like lateral speed and direction, and uses this data to generate a "deformation value." This value is applied to modify the image frame, which is then blended with a "bridge frame" for display to the viewer (’874 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This technology provides an automated method for processing and modifying standard 2D video content to create an optimized 3D viewing experience when used with active filter spectacles (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and its dependents (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements for a method:
  • acquiring a source video comprising a sequence of image frames;
  • obtaining a first image frame from the source video;
  • generating a modified image frame by performing one of several enumerated actions (expanding the frame, removing a portion, or stitching it with another frame portion);
  • generating a first "altered image frame" containing first and second non-overlapping portions derived from the modified and first image frames; and
  • generating a second "altered image frame" containing third and fourth non-overlapping portions derived from the modified and first image frames.
• The complaint asserts "one or more of claims 1-4," suggesting an intent to pursue dependent claims (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, system, or service by name. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image image capture, streaming, modification and displaying" (’444 Patent allegations) and "image capture and modification" (’874 Patent allegations) (Compl. ¶¶8, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities are alleged to perform functions of capturing, storing, modifying, blending, and generating combined image frames for display (Compl. ¶¶7, 12). The complaint does not provide specific details on the operation of any accused Ubiquiti product or its market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D but does not attach them (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The narrative infringement allegations are summarized below.

The infringement theory for both the ’444 and ’874 patents is based on conclusory allegations that Defendant’s unspecified products and services perform the claimed methods. For the ’444 Patent, the complaint alleges that Defendant's systems infringe by performing "image capture, streaming, modification and displaying" (Compl. ¶8). For the ’874 Patent, the complaint alleges infringement through systems performing "image capture and modification," including steps to "capture and store image frames from different video streams, modify captured image frames, blend modified image frames..., and generate a combined frame for display" (Compl. ¶¶12-13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Pleading Sufficiency: A primary legal question is whether the complaint’s failure to identify a single accused product or provide specific facts mapping product features to claim elements satisfies the plausibility pleading standards established by Federal Circuit precedent.
• Scope Questions: The asserted patents are described in the context of generating stereoscopic 3D effects for viewing with specialized spectacles. A central dispute may be whether the claims can be read to cover general-purpose video processing in Defendant’s products (e.g., networking or security camera systems), which may not be designed for or used to create 3D visual illusions.
• Technical Questions: The complaint lacks any technical evidence. A key factual question will be whether any accused Ubiquiti product actually performs the specific and complex image manipulation steps required by the claims, such as generating and blending with a "bridge frame" (’444 Patent) or creating "altered image frames" with "non-overlapping portions" (’874 Patent).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "bridge frame" (’444 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is a core component of the claimed image processing method. Infringement will likely depend on whether any process in the accused systems generates a frame that meets the definition of a "bridge frame." A narrow definition tied to the patent's specific purpose could limit the claim's reach.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the bridge frame to have a "non-solid color" and be "different from the first image frame and...the modified image frame" (’444 Patent, col. 48:13-17). The specification notes it may be a "solid black or other solid-colored picture, but may also be a strongly contrasting image-picture," suggesting it is not limited to a simple blank frame (’444 Patent, col. 4:45-48).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the "bridge frame" (or "bridging picture") in the functional context of creating a specific visual illusion of continuous movement by alternating it with two similar image pictures in a sequence (’444 Patent, col. 4:36-44, 4:58-62). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to a frame that serves this specific illusion-creating purpose.

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

• Context and Importance: This highly specific step defines the mechanism of image modification. The infringement analysis for the ’874 Patent will turn on whether an accused product performs this exact method of frame composition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that this language should cover any form of video compositing where different parts of a displayed frame originate from different source or modified frames, even if not explicitly generated as distinct "non-overlapping portions."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains generating modified frames by removing portions of a selected image frame to create derivative frames (’874 Patent, col. 7:1-6). A defendant would likely argue that the term must be construed narrowly to mean the specific process of partitioning and compositing disclosed in the specification for creating stereoscopic effects, not general video processing techniques like picture-in-picture.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead any specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. p. 6, ¶e). However, the body of the complaint does not allege any facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit or other conduct that would support a plausible claim for willful infringement.

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

• A primary procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s failure to identify any specific accused product and its reliance on generalized allegations of infringement against a broad category of technology satisfy the plausibility standard required to proceed to discovery?
• A key technical question will be one of functional applicability: can the claims, which originate from the technological context of creating 3D stereoscopic illusions for human viewing with specialized eyewear, be construed to cover general-purpose video capture, streaming, or modification functions within Defendant's products that may serve entirely different technical purposes?
• A central legal question will be one of claim scope: will claim terms such as "bridge frame" and "altered image frame" be interpreted broadly to cover common video processing functions, or will they be narrowly construed and limited to the specific illusion-creating methods detailed in the patents' specifications?