DCT

1:25-cv-09243

VDPP LLC v. Olympus America Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • 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 within the Southern District of New York.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s image processing and image capture systems infringe two expired patents related to methods of modifying video frames to create visual effects.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to digital video processing techniques for generating illusions of continuous motion or three-dimensional effects from a series of two-dimensional images.
  • Key Procedural History: Both asserted patents expired prior to the filing of the complaint; damages are sought for infringement that allegedly occurred before expiration. The complaint identifies the Plaintiff as a non-practicing entity and includes arguments intended to pre-emptively counter a defense based on the patent marking statute, citing prior settlement licenses with unrelated entities.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Priority Date for ’452 and ’380 Patents
2016-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 Issues
2018-07-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380 Issues
2022-01-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 Expires
2022-08-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380 Expires
2025-11-05 Complaint Filing Date

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”

  • Patent Identification: 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 describes the technical challenge of creating the appearance of smooth, continuous motion from a finite number of still images, particularly in the context of creating 3D visual effects using electronically controlled eyewear where the slow transition time of tint materials can be a limiting factor (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-40).
  • The Patented Solution: While the patent title and specification extensively discuss electronically controlled spectacles, the asserted claims are directed to an image processing apparatus. The claimed solution involves a processor that modifies a video stream by identifying source frames, removing portions of them to create “modified” frames, identifying a separate “bridge frame,” and then blending the modified frames with the bridge frame to create a new, combined video sequence for display (’452 Patent, col. 4:26-50; Claim 1). This process is intended to create a visual illusion of continuous motion.
  • Technical Importance: The described image processing techniques were relevant for generating specialized visual effects, including perceived 3D imagery, from standard 2D video content without the need for specialized multi-camera recording hardware (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶9).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires, in pertinent part, an apparatus comprising:
    • A storage adapted to store one or more image frames; and
    • A processor adapted to perform a sequence of steps, including:
      • obtaining first and second images from video stream(s);
      • stitching the images 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; and
      • blending each of the three modified image frames with the bridge frame to generate three blended frames.

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

  • Patent Identification: 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 Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of originating “visual illusions of figures and spaces in continuous movement” using only a finite number of pictures, such as creating a seamless motion loop from two or three still images (’380 Patent, col. 7:51-col. 8:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method for modifying video by acquiring a source video, identifying first and second image frames, and then “expanding” each of those frames to generate modified frames. The resulting modified frames are then combined and displayed to the viewer (’380 Patent, col. 112:51-113:3; Claim 1). This method provides an alternative technical pathway to the video manipulation techniques described in the ’452 Patent.
  • Technical Importance: The patented method relates to creating specialized visual effects and illusions by algorithmically manipulating and combining existing video frames, which is central to digital video post-production and effects generation (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-30 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires, in pertinent part, a method comprising the steps of:
    • acquiring a source video comprising a sequence of image frames;
    • identifying a first image frame 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 modified second image frame;
    • expanding the modified frames to generate a modified combined image frame having defined dimensions; and
    • displaying the modified combined image frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant “maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services in the field of image processing” and “image capture devices” that infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits B and D) that allegedly provide support for the infringement allegations; however, these exhibits were not included with the complaint filing provided for analysis (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). Consequently, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative allegations state that Defendant’s products and services directly infringed the patents prior to their expiration by performing the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Factual Questions: Given the absence of an identified accused product or a detailed infringement theory, the primary point of contention is factual: What evidence does the complaint provide that any of Defendant's products practice the highly specific, multi-step video manipulation processes recited in the asserted claims?
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold legal question is whether the complaint's generalized allegations, which lack specific facts tying an accused product to the claim elements, meet the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: “bridge frame” (’452 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the core inventive step of Claim 1 of the ’452 Patent, which requires blending modified image frames with this “bridge frame.” The definition of what constitutes a “bridge frame” will be critical to determining the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a “bridge frame” can be a “solid black or other solid-colored picture, but may also be a strongly contrasting image-picture” (’452 Patent, col. 4:35-38), potentially broadening the term to include various types of intervening frames.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the bridge-picture in electronic media as potentially being a “timed unlit-screen pause” (’452 Patent, col. 4:38-40). A defendant may argue this points to a more specific and limited meaning, such as a frame with no visual information.
  • The Term: “expanding a first image frame” (’380 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This is the key manipulative action in the method of Claim 1 of the ’380 Patent. The technical meaning of “expanding” will determine what types of image processing operations (e.g., scaling, resizing, padding, or a more complex modification) fall within the claim’s scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is fundamental to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition for “expanding,” which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art of video processing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the context of the surrounding claim limitations and the specification's description of creating specific visual illusions implies a more particular meaning than simple image scaling. The lack of a specific definition may itself become a point of contention regarding claim indefiniteness.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory language alleging Defendant “put the inventions claimed... into service” and “enabled Defendant’s procurement of monetary and commercial benefit,” but does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent required for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).
  • Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. p. 6, ¶e). However, the body of the complaint does not allege any facts that would typically support such a claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents or objectively reckless conduct.

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

    1. A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Will the complaint, which fails to identify a single accused product and omits the referenced infringement charts, survive a threshold motion to dismiss for failure to state a plausible claim for relief?
    1. A key factual question will be one of technical correspondence: Assuming the case proceeds, does any Olympus product or service in the field of image processing or capture actually perform the highly specific, multi-step video modification methods recited in the asserted claims, such as generating and blending with a “bridge frame” or “expanding” image frames in the manner claimed?