VDPP LLC v. Marriott Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Marriott Intl, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01046, E.D. Tex., 10/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district and having committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified image processing and image capture systems and services infringe two expired patents related to creating illusions of motion from a finite number of images.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address methods for generating visual effects, such as sustained motion and three-dimensionality, from a limited set of image frames, a technology relevant to digital media, animation, and advertising.
• Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit expired prior to the filing of the complaint, limiting any potential recovery to past damages. The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and discloses a history of settling previous litigations via confidential licenses, which Plaintiff argues did not trigger patent marking requirements.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	Earliest Priority Date ('902 and '922 Patents)
2006-04-18	U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Issues
2018-04-17	U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issues
2022-01-22	U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Expires
2023-09-09	U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Expires
2025-10-17	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 - "Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of creating the appearance of continuous, sustained motion in film or electronic media without requiring a large sequence of unique image frames, which is how conventional movies operate (’902 Patent, col. 1:22-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of repetitively displaying a short sequence of pictures, typically comprising at least two "substantially similar" image pictures (A, B) and a "bridging picture" (C) that is "substantially dissimilar," such as a solid black frame. By looping this sequence (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...), the method creates an optical illusion of ongoing movement from a very small data set (’902 Patent, col. 2:15-35). The method can be enhanced by creating and inserting blended frames (e.g., A/B) into the sequence (’902 Patent, col. 2:60-67).
• Technical Importance: This technique provided a data-efficient method for generating sustained motion effects, which was particularly relevant for digital media formats where storage capacity and processing power could be constrained (’902 Patent, col. 2:15-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11 (Compl. ¶9).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • Selecting at least two visually similar image pictures.
  • Selecting a dissimilar bridging picture.
  • Arranging these pictures into a sequential series.
  • Placing the series onto a plurality of picture frames.
  • Repeating the series multiple times to create a continuous plurality of frames that, when viewed, produce an appearance of continuous movement (’902 Patent, col. 14:50-67).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint characterizes the '922 patent as being directed to image processing methods (Compl. ¶13). While the patent title and background discuss 3D spectacles, the asserted claims focus on a different problem: creating modified video frames for display from an original video stream ('922 Patent, col. 114:26-45).
• The Patented Solution: The asserted claims describe an apparatus with a processor that obtains two image frames from a video stream and generates "modified" versions of each by "expanding" them. The apparatus also generates a solid-color "bridge frame" and displays the two modified image frames ('922 Patent, col. 114:28-45). This claimed solution is a method of image processing, distinct from the physical spectacles discussed elsewhere in the patent.
• Technical Importance: Methods for modifying and generating video frames are fundamental to video compression, special effects, and creating 3D visual experiences from 2D sources.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-12 (Compl. ¶14).
• Independent Claim 1 requires an apparatus with a processor adapted to perform the steps of:
  • Obtaining a first and second image frame from a video stream.
  • Generating a first modified image frame by "expanding" the first image frame.
  • Generating a second modified image frame by "expanding" the second image frame.
  • Generating a solid-color "bridge frame."
  • Displaying the first and second modified image frames ('922 Patent, col. 114:26-45).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, system, or service by name (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges in general terms that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). No specific functionality of any Marriott product is described. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is found in claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The pleading itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping the elements of the asserted claims onto any functionality of an accused Marriott product.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard, given the absence of any identified accused product and the reliance on unfiled exhibits.
• Scope Questions ('902 Patent): A potential dispute may arise over the scope of "appearance of continuous movement" and how "dissimilar" a "bridging picture" must be to meet the claim limitations (’902 Patent, col. 14:50-67).
• Technical Questions ('922 Patent): The infringement analysis for the '922 Patent will depend heavily on the technical meaning of generating a modified image frame by "expanding" it, a term not explicitly defined in the patent's specification ('922 Patent, col. 114:32-33). The case may turn on whether any of Defendant's systems perform an operation that can be construed as "expanding" a frame in the manner claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’902 Patent

• The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to distinguishing the invention from a simple two-frame animation loop. The degree of dissimilarity required will define the scope of infringement, determining whether a wide or narrow range of intervening frames can satisfy the limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the bridging picture's role is to act as a "bridge-interval" between recurrences of the primary images, suggesting a functional definition based on breaking the visual sequence (Compl. ¶18, referencing '902 patent; '902 Patent, col. 3:18-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the bridging picture is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture, but may also be a strongly contrasting image-picture," which may support an argument that the dissimilarity must be significant and perceptually distinct (’902 Patent, col. 2:30-33).

For the ’922 Patent

• The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This is the core active step of the claimed image modification process. The definition of "expanding" will be critical, as it is not a standard term of art with a universally accepted meaning in video processing. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent provides no explicit definition, leaving its meaning open to interpretation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of potential interpretations. Parties may argue for a broad meaning encompassing any form of image scaling, resizing, or digital zooming.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification does not appear to offer a specific definition or embodiment of "expanding" an image frame, which may lead a court to look for implicit limitations or, alternatively, find the term indefinite.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint includes a conditional request for a finding of willful infringement and treble damages, contingent on discovery revealing that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and their infringement (Compl. p. 7, ¶e). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge.

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 accused product or provide factual support for its infringement theories, beyond referencing unfiled exhibits, satisfy federal pleading standards?
• For the '902 patent, a core issue will be one of functional scope: what constitutes a legally sufficient "appearance of continuous movement," and does any accused system, once identified, actually produce it by using a "dissimilar" "bridging picture" as claimed?
• For the '922 patent, the case will likely turn on a key question of claim construction: what is the proper technical definition of "expanding" an image frame, a term that is central to the asserted claim but lacks a clear definition in the patent's specification?