DCT

2:25-cv-01062

VDPP LLC v. Schok LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01062, E.D. Tex., 10/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s image processing systems and image capture devices infringe two expired patents related to methods for modifying video images to create 3D or other visual effects.
  • Technical Context: The patents address technologies for creating illusions of three-dimensional depth or continuous motion from standard two-dimensional video content, primarily through software-based image manipulation and, in some embodiments, specialized viewing spectacles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. It also notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, but asserts that none of those licenses involved an admission of infringement and therefore do not trigger patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). Both asserted patents are expired, limiting any potential damages to the period before their expiration dates.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Earliest 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
2025-10-23 Complaint Filed

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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with electronically controlled variable tint spectacles (used to create a 3D effect from 2D movies) having a slow transition time when changing between different optical densities, which can disrupt the viewing experience (ʼ452 Patent, col. 2:25-40). It also notes the limited "cycle life" of some optoelectronic materials used in such spectacles (ʼ452 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The specification discloses using multiple layers of electronically controlled variable tint materials to fabricate the lenses, which can achieve faster transition times between clear and dark states than a single layer (ʼ452 Patent, col. 2:46-56). While the patent title and background focus on spectacles, the asserted claims are directed toward an apparatus for image processing, which involves generating "modified image frames" by removing portions of selected frames and blending them with a "bridge frame" to create a combined, displayed image (’452 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: This image processing technique provided a method for creating illusions of continuous motion or other visual effects from a limited number of source images, a process the patent refers to as "Eternalizing" (’452 Patent, col. 3:45-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1.
  • Claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 describes an apparatus comprising:
    • A storage adapted to store one or more image frames; and
    • A processor adapted to:
      • obtain first and second images from different video streams;
      • stitch the images together to generate a stitched image frame;
      • generate first, second, and third modified image frames by removing different portions of the stitched frame;
      • identify a bridge frame;
      • blend each of the three modified frames with the bridge frame to generate three blended frames;
      • overlay the three blended frames to generate a combined frame; and
      • display the combined frame.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶9).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of originating "visual illusions of figures and spaces in continuous movement" using only a finite number of pictures, such as two substantially similar images from a motion picture film (’380 Patent, col. 8:26-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of repetitively presenting two or more similar image pictures alternated with a "bridging picture" (e.g., a solid-colored frame) to create the appearance of "continuous, seamless and sustained directional movement" (’380 Patent, col. 8:26-34). The asserted claims describe a method for modifying video by expanding source frames, combining them, and displaying the resulting modified frame (’380 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for the creation of fluid motion effects from a limited set of source frames, which can be used for generating visual illusions in motion pictures from 2D source content.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1.
  • Claim 1 of the ’380 Patent describes a method for generating modified video, comprising the steps of:
    • Acquiring a source video with 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 modified first image frame;
    • Expanding the second image frame to generate a modified second image frame;
    • Combining the two modified image frames to generate a modified combined image frame; and
    • Displaying the modified combined image frame.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 2-30 (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific products by name. It broadly accuses Defendant’s "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).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" these systems and has "put the inventions claimed... into service (i.e., used them)" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). No specific technical details regarding the functionality or market position of the accused instrumentalities are provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary infringement charts attached as Exhibit B (for the ’452 Patent) and Exhibit D (for the ’380 Patent), but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). The pleading itself contains only general allegations that Defendant's systems directly infringe the asserted claims, without describing how any specific feature of an accused product maps to the limitations of the claims (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim chart analysis. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: A central issue will be factual and evidentiary. As the complaint provides no technical details, a key question is what evidence Plaintiff will present to demonstrate that Defendant's accused "image processing" and "image capture" systems perform the specific, multi-step processes required by the claims, such as "stitching" frames, generating and blending with a "bridge frame" (’452 Patent, Claim 1), or "expanding" source frames to create a modified output (’380 Patent, Claim 1).
    • Scope Questions: The specifications of both patents are heavily focused on creating 3D visual effects using specialized spectacles that exploit the Pulfrich illusion. This raises the question of whether the asserted image-processing claims should be interpreted as being limited to this context, or if they can be read more broadly to cover general-purpose image manipulation and capture technologies that may be unrelated to 3D viewing spectacles.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’452 Patent

  • The Term: "bridge frame"
  • Context and Importance: This term is a central element in the claimed method for creating a combined image. The definition of what constitutes a "bridge frame" will be critical to determining infringement, as it defines the intermediate element used to blend modified source frames.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The shared specification suggests a "bridge frame" can be very simple, describing it as a "bridging interval" which is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" and noting that in electronic media it "may simply be a timed unlit-screen pause" (’380 Patent, col. 8:35-39).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same section describes the bridging picture as being "substantially dissimilar to the other substantially similar pictures," which could be argued to require a discernible difference in character beyond merely being a blank interval (’380 Patent, col. 8:29-34).

’380 Patent

  • The Term: "expanding the first image frame"
  • Context and Importance: This is an active, manipulative step in the claimed method for generating a modified frame. The construction of "expanding" will determine the scope of transformative acts that fall within the claim, such as scaling, cropping, or altering aspect ratio.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "expanding" is not explicitly defined in the specification. In the absence of a specific definition, its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art of image processing would likely be broad, potentially encompassing various forms of image enlargement or modification.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be understood in the specific context of the patent's disclosure, which focuses on generating visual illusions of motion and depth. The specification discusses modifying frames by "removing a portion" or "stitching" frames together, suggesting that "expanding" should be construed as one of a specific set of manipulations for creating the disclosed "Eternalism" effects, rather than any generic image enlargement function (’380 Patent, col. 11:15-18; ’452 Patent, Claim 1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific counts for induced or contributory infringement, nor does it allege facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims. The allegations are limited to direct infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiff's prayer for relief seeks a declaration that Defendant's infringement is willful and requests treble damages (Compl. Prayer ¶e). However, the body of the complaint does not allege specific facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. The basis for willfulness appears to rest on Defendant’s conduct after the filing of the complaint.

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

  1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The primary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be evidentiary. Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, uncover technical evidence demonstrating that the Defendant's broadly accused systems perform the specific and detailed image manipulation steps recited in the asserted claims, such as generating and blending with a "bridge frame" or "expanding" image frames in the manner claimed?
  2. Definitional Scope: A core legal issue will be claim construction. Can the image processing terms, such as "bridge frame" and "expanding", which are disclosed in a patent specification almost entirely dedicated to 3D spectacles and the Pulfrich illusion, be construed broadly enough to read on general-purpose image capture and processing technologies?
  3. Damages for Expired Patents: As both patents are expired, the case will focus entirely on determining reasonable royalty damages for past infringement. The dispute will likely involve complex economic analysis regarding the value, if any, the patented methods contributed to the accused products during the damages period.