VDPP LLC v. Olympus America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Olympus America Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09243, S.D.N.Y., 11/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s image processing and image capture systems, products, and services infringed two now-expired patents related to methods for creating 3D visual effects and modifying video images.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to technologies for generating 3D-like visual illusions from standard 2D video content, primarily through the use of electronically controlled variable-tint spectacles and specific image processing techniques.
• Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit expired prior to the filing of the complaint, meaning the lawsuit is exclusively for past damages. The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities, which may become relevant to damages calculations and arguments concerning patent marking obligations under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

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 Aug. 23, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the technical challenge of slow transition times in electronically controlled variable tint lenses used to create 3D visual effects from 2D video. This slowness can prevent the lenses from optimally synchronizing with on-screen motion. The patent also identifies the limited "cycle life" (i.e., durability) of some optoelectronic materials as a related problem. (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multiple layers of optoelectronic material to construct the spectacle lenses. According to the specification, this multi-layer approach can achieve faster transitions between different tint levels and may increase the lenses' operational lifespan compared to single-layer designs. (’452 Patent, col. 2:48-62). The structure is depicted in figures such as FIG. 6b, which illustrates a multi-layered lens (506) composed of distinct active layers (601, 611).
• Technical Importance: The described solution sought to improve the performance and durability of active shutter glasses, making them more practical for creating dynamic 3D effects from conventional 2D video sources in real-time. (’452 Patent, col. 14:45-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶9). Independent Claim 1 recites an apparatus with a processor adapted to perform a method comprising the elements of:
  • obtaining first and second images from different video streams;
  • stitching the images together to generate a stitched image frame;
  • generating first, second, and third modified image frames by removing respective portions of the stitched image frame;
  • identifying a bridge frame;
  • blending each of the three modified image frames with the bridge frame to generate three corresponding blended frames;
  • overlaying the three blended frames to generate a combined frame; and
  • displaying the combined frame.

U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380 - Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials (Issued Jul. 10, 2018)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating an illusion of "continuous, seamless and sustained directional movement" using a finite, and often small, number of source images, thereby avoiding the perceptible looping effect common in simple animations. (’380 Patent, col. 4:56-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method, termed "Eternalizing," which involves the repetitive presentation of at least two similar images alternated with a dissimilar "bridging picture" (e.g., a solid black frame). This technique is claimed to create a fluid illusion of continuous motion. The specification further describes methods of modifying, blending, and combining image frames to generate these visual effects. (’380 Patent, col. 4:26-45). A high-level flowchart in FIG. 32 illustrates a process of decompressing an image, generating dissimilar bridge frames, blending them, and displaying the result.
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a method for generating novel visual effects and the appearance of sustained motion from a limited set of image assets, which could be useful in digital media, animation, and video processing where data efficiency is a concern. (’380 Patent, col. 4:20-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-30 (Compl. ¶14). Independent Claim 1 recites a method for generating modified video with the essential elements of:
  • acquiring a source video with a sequence of image frames;
  • identifying first and second image frames from the sequence;
  • expanding the first image frame to generate a modified first image frame;
  • expanding the second image frame to generate a modified second image frame;
  • expanding the second image frame to generate another modified frame and a modified combined image frame having specific dimensional properties; and
  • displaying the modified combined image frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" of infringing the ’452 Patent and "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture devices" of infringing the ’380 Patent (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). No specific products are named.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentalities' functionality or market context. It alleges in general terms that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" infringing systems and "put the inventions claimed by the [patents] into service" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary infringement charts in Exhibits B and D, but these exhibits were not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). The narrative allegations state that Defendant's image processing and image capture products and services directly infringed the asserted claims prior to the patents' expirations (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the lack of specific factual allegations, the initial dispute may center on the sufficiency of the pleadings. Substantively, several points of contention may arise:

• Evidentiary Question: A primary issue for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can identify specific accused instrumentalities and produce evidence demonstrating that they perform the complex, multi-step image modification methods recited in the asserted claims.
• Technical Question ('452 Patent): What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused "image processing" systems perform the specific recited sequence of stitching, generating modified frames by removing portions, blending with a bridge frame, and overlaying, as required by claim 1 of the ’452 Patent?
• Scope Question ('380 Patent): A central question may be whether standard functions in Defendant's "image capture devices," such as digital zoom or image stabilization, meet the claim limitation of "expanding the first image frame to generate a modified first image frame" as that term is used in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’452 Patent - Claim 1: "stitch together the first image and the second image"

Context and Importance

This term appears early in the claim and defines the initial act of combining images from two distinct video streams. The construction of this term is critical, as a narrow definition could place many standard video editing functions outside the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its plain meaning could be very broad, while the patent's context suggests a more specific purpose.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide a special definition for "stitch together," which may support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning to encompass various methods of combining or sequencing image frames.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be limited by the patent's overall context of creating "Eternalism" visual effects, suggesting a more specialized combination than simple concatenation. The patent describes generating a "stitched image frame," which could be construed to require the creation of a single, new composite frame rather than just a sequence of frames (’452 Patent, col. 11:43-50).

’380 Patent - Claim 1: "expanding the first image frame to generate a modified first image frame"

Context and Importance

The term "expanding" is not a standard term of art in this field and is foundational to the claimed method. Its definition will likely be a central point of dispute, determining whether common image processing functions like resizing or cropping fall within the claim scope.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires only that the modified frame generated by "expanding" be "different from the first image frame," suggesting that any process that alters the frame's content or dimensions could qualify. (’380 Patent, col. 113:1-3).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim later recites generating a "modified combined image frame having first and second opposing sides defining a first dimension and third and fourth opposing sides defining a second dimension" (’380 Patent, col. 113:6-10). A party could argue this language implies that "expanding" refers to a specific structural modification or recombination of frame components, rather than a generic scaling or zoom operation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement by use, stating that Defendant "put the inventions claimed... into service" and "caused those claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The prayer for relief requests a declaration that Defendant's infringement was willful and seeks treble damages (Compl. p. 6, ¶e). However, the body of the complaint does not allege a factual basis for willfulness, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit.

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

1. An Evidentiary Question: The case's initial and likely central hurdle is evidentiary. Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, connect its broad allegations to specific accused products and demonstrate that they perform the highly detailed, multi-step image processing and modification sequences required by the asserted claims?
2. A Question of Claim Scope: The dispute may turn on claim construction. A core issue will be whether unconventional claim terms such as "expanding the... image frame" and "stitch together" can be construed broadly enough to cover functions within Defendant’s commercial systems, or if they will be interpreted more narrowly as being limited to the specific visual illusion techniques detailed in the patent specifications.
3. A Question of Damages: As both patents expired pre-suit, the case is solely about past damages. A key question for the court will be how to calculate a reasonable royalty, considering the Plaintiff's asserted status as a non-practicing entity and its history of prior settlement licenses with other parties.