DCT

2:25-cv-00071

VDPP LLC v. Abbott Laboratories Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00071, E.D. Tex., 01/24/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services for image capture and modification infringe two patents related to generating three-dimensional visual effects and the electronically controlled spectacles used for viewing them.
  • Technical Context: The patents address technologies for creating a 3D visual experience from 2D video content, primarily by leveraging an optical phenomenon known as the Pulfrich illusion and using active shutter glasses with variable tint lenses.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses concerning its patent portfolio. U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 underwent an ex parte reexamination, concluding with a certificate issued on December 11, 2024, that cancelled claims 26 and 27. The complaint, filed after this date, asserts claims 1-27 of this patent, including those that have been cancelled.

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
2024-12-11 Reexamination Certificate for ’444 Patent Issued, Cancelling Claims 26-27
2025-01-24 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," Issued July 4, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the slow transition times of electronically controlled variable tint materials used in active 3D viewing spectacles, particularly during significant changes in required optical density, such as between scene changes in a movie. The patent also notes that some of these materials have a limited "cycle life," or number of clear-to-dark transitions before they fail. (’444 Patent, col. 2:27-52, 61-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multiple layers of optoelectronic materials to fabricate the spectacle lenses. This multi-layer construction allows the spectacles to achieve faster transition times between different optical density states than would be possible with a single layer. The patent acknowledges that this approach may result in a "darker clear state" but considers this a worthwhile tradeoff for the increased transition speed. (’444 Patent, col. 2:52-61). The core concept is an electrically controlled spectacle with independently controllable left and right lenses housed in a frame (’444 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve the performance of active shutter glasses used for 3D viewing, making the visual experience smoother and more responsive to real-time adjustments based on the video content. (’444 Patent, col. 2:45-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-27, although a 2024 reexamination certificate cancelled claims 26-27 (’444 Reexam. Cert.). The abstract, which typically reflects the scope of the main independent claim(s), describes the essential elements of the spectacle apparatus as:
    • A spectacle frame
    • Optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame, comprising a left lens and a right lens
    • Each optoelectronic lens having a plurality of states
    • Wherein the state of the left lens is independent of the state of the right lens
    • A control unit housed in the frame adapted to control the state of each of the lenses independently
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (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," Issued July 25, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to create an optimized 3D stereoscopic effect when viewing standard 2D video content. The technical challenge is to dynamically adjust viewing spectacles in real-time to maximize the Pulfrich illusion—an optical effect where lateral motion is perceived as depth when one eye's view is darkened relative to the other. (’874 Patent, col. 3:9-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method that analyzes a 2D video to generate a modified video for 3D viewing. It acquires image frames, obtains motion vectors describing motion within the frames, and uses these vectors to calculate parameters like lateral speed and direction. An algorithm then generates a "deformation value" which is applied to the image frame to create a modified version. This modified frame is then blended with a "bridge frame"—a dissimilar intermediary frame (e.g., a black frame)—to create the final video sequence for display. (’874 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:31-39).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a method to automatically generate a 3D viewing experience from conventional 2D video content, without requiring specially filmed 3D source material. (’874 Patent, col. 46:53-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
    • Acquiring a source video comprised of a sequence of 2D image frames
    • Obtaining an image frame from the source video that includes two or more motion vectors
    • Calculating a single parameter for (a) a lateral speed of the image frame and (b) a direction of motion of the image frame, using the motion vectors
    • Generating a deformation value by applying an algorithm that uses an inter-ocular distance and both of the calculated parameters
    • Applying the deformation value to the image frame to identify a modified image frame
    • Blending the modified image frame with a bridge frame that is a non-solid color to generate a blended frame
    • Displaying the blended frame to the viewer
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, systems, or services by name (Compl. ¶¶8, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture, streaming, modification and displaying" (’444 Patent allegations) and "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" (’874 Patent allegations) (Compl. ¶¶8, 13).
  • The complaint provides no specific technical description of how any of Defendant's instrumentalities operate. It alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" the accused systems and that "Defendant put the inventions claimed... into service (i.e., used them)" (Compl. ¶¶8, 13).
  • No allegations regarding the accused products' specific market positioning are provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D, but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The narrative sections of the complaint do not provide sufficient detail for a claim-by-claim analysis of the infringement allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's primary challenge will be to establish a factual link between the asserted patents and any of Defendant's products or services. The complaint offers no information connecting Abbott Laboratories, a company focused on medical devices, diagnostics, and nutrition, to the patents' subject matter of 3D movie viewing spectacles and video processing for visual entertainment effects.
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the patent claims, which are described in the context of consumer electronics and entertainment media, can be construed to read on technologies in the medical imaging or diagnostics fields. For instance, a question for the court may be whether a component in a medical imaging device constitutes a "spectacle" as contemplated by the ’444 Patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not explain how any accused instrumentality performs the specific functions required by the claims, such as using "multi-layered variable tint materials" (’444 Patent) or calculating a "deformation value" from motion vectors to be "blended with a bridge frame" (’874 Patent). A key question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that any accused product performs these specific technical steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’444 Patent

  • The Term: "electrically controlled spectacle"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and defines the overall apparatus. Its construction is critical to determining the scope of the invention. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to wearable eyewear for entertainment, as consistently described in the patent, or if it can be interpreted more broadly to encompass any optical system with a frame and lenses, potentially including components of scientific or medical instruments.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the components generally as a "spectacle frame and optoelectronic lenses" without explicitly limiting their application (’444 Patent, Abstract). The specification also discusses various underlying optoelectronic technologies (electrochromic, SPD, PDLC) in general terms (’444 Patent, col. 19:26-43).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s title refers to "3Deeps Filter Spectacles," and the background repeatedly discusses the context of "viewing 2D movies as 3D movies" and solving problems related to the Pulfrich illusion. This context suggests an invention intended for consumer media consumption. (’444 Patent, Title; col. 2:21-27).

For the ’874 Patent

  • The Term: "blended with a bridge frame"
  • Context and Importance: This is a key step in the method of independent claim 1 that generates the final video output. Its definition will determine whether the claim covers general video processing techniques or is limited to the specific illusion-creating method described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes blending as being done in a "conventional manner" and the bridge frame as simply being "substantially dissimilar" to the image frames, which could suggest a wide range of video transition or composition techniques (’874 Patent, col. 4:38-40; col. 5:41-47).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention section describes a specific method of creating "visual illusions of figures and spaces in continuous movement" by repetitively presenting two similar image pictures (A, B) alternating with a third, dissimilar "bridging picture" (C). This suggests the "blending" and "bridge frame" are part of a specific, non-conventional technique for creating a perpetual motion illusion. (’874 Patent, col. 4:31-51).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. The direct infringement counts include conclusory language that Defendant’s actions "caused those claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform," but allege no specific facts to support the knowledge and intent required for induced infringement (Compl. ¶¶8, 13).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint prays for a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages but does not allege any facts suggesting Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶ VI.e).

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

This case, as currently pleaded, presents several fundamental questions for the court that extend beyond typical claim construction or infringement analysis.

  • Plausibility of Infringement: A threshold issue will be whether the complaint provides a plausible factual basis connecting the asserted patents, which are directed to 3D viewing technology for consumer entertainment, to any product or service of Defendant Abbott Laboratories, a company operating in the healthcare sector. The complaint currently offers no such connection.
  • Viability of Asserted Claims: Can Plaintiff maintain its assertion of claims 1-27 of the ’444 Patent when claims 26-27 were cancelled in an ex parte reexamination that concluded before the complaint was filed? This raises questions about the adequacy of Plaintiff's pre-suit investigation and the scope of its remaining infringement theory for that patent.
  • Definitional Scope: A central legal question will be one of claim construction: can terms rooted in the context of consumer 3D movie viewing, such as "spectacle" and the process of blending with a "bridge frame" to create a visual illusion, be construed broadly enough to read on the fundamentally different technologies and applications found in the medical device and diagnostics fields?