DCT

2:25-cv-01118

VDPP LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01118, E.D. Tex., 11/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services related to image capture and modification infringe two patents concerning methods for creating the appearance of sustained motion and three-dimensional effects from a limited number of images.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital art and media techniques for generating visual illusions, such as continuous motion or 3D depth, using sequences of similar and dissimilar images.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses that Plaintiff or its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses. Plaintiff contends that because these licenses did not include admissions of infringement, no duty to mark products arose, and therefore its claim for damages is not limited.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902
2001-01-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922
2006-04-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Issues
2018-04-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issues
2025-11-11 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,"

  • Issued: April 18, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional animation and film, which require a large number of unique, sequential pictures to create the appearance of movement. It also notes that prior art live-performance techniques using a small number of pictures were transient and difficult to record or commercialize (’902 Patent, col. 1:22-28; col. 2:6-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to create an illusion of continuous and sustained motion using a finite number of images, as few as two (’902 Patent, col. 1:15-21). The method involves the repetitive presentation of at least two "substantially similar" image pictures that alternate with a third, "substantially dissimilar" visual interval or "bridging picture," such as a solid black frame (’902 Patent, col. 2:21-28). Repeating this sequence in a loop (e.g., Image A, Image B, Bridge C, Image A, Image B, Bridge C) is described as creating a seamless visual illusion of an event "impossible in actual life" (’902 Patent, col. 2:42-52; Fig. 1c).
  • Technical Importance: This technique provides a method for creating complex visual effects with very low data requirements, a notable consideration for early digital media formats where storage and processing power were limited (’902 Patent, col. 2:18-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Selecting at least two visually similar image pictures.
    • Selecting a dissimilar bridging picture.
    • Arranging the pictures into a sequential series containing the image pictures and the bridging picture.
    • Placing the series on 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's assertion of claims 1-11 reserves the right to assert dependent claims directed to more specific embodiments, such as using a solid black picture for the bridge (claim 2) or blending the pictures (claim 3).

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - "Faster State Transitioning For Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials,"

  • Issued: April 17, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem with electronically controlled spectacles used for 3D viewing, specifically those that create 3D effects by rapidly changing the tint of the lenses (e.g., to induce the Pulfrich effect). The problem is that the materials in existing lenses transition too slowly between light and dark states, which can degrade the 3D effect and limit synchronization with on-screen action (’922 Patent, col. 3:20-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials, such as electrochromic materials, for the lenses (’922 Patent, col. 3:45-51). By using multiple layers, the spectacles can achieve faster transition times between different levels of optical density. This allows for more rapid and precise control over the tint of each lens, enabling better synchronization with a video source to produce a higher-quality 3D illusion (’922 Patent, col. 3:51-54; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: By enabling faster lens state transitions, the invention aimed to improve the quality, responsiveness, and immersiveness of 3D viewing systems that rely on dynamically altering light transmission to each eye (’922 Patent, col. 3:20-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A storage and a processor.
    • The processor is adapted to obtain a first and second image frame from a video stream.
    • The processor generates a first modified image frame by "expanding" the first image frame.
    • The processor generates a second modified image frame by "expanding" the second image frame.
    • The processor generates a solid-color "bridge frame" that is different from the first two frames.
    • The processor displays the first modified frame, the second modified frame, and the bridge frame. (’922 Patent, col. 113:26-46)
  • The assertion of claims 1-12 suggests Plaintiff may pursue dependent claims covering embodiments where the bridge frame is black (claim 2) or where frames are modified by shrinking, stitching, or inserting (claims 3, 5, 7, 9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint broadly identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture devices" and "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not identify any specific products, services, or model numbers offered by JP Morgan Chase Bank. It provides only conclusory allegations that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" infringing systems (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The complaint states that support for its allegations is contained in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit D," but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe claims 1-11 of the ’902 Patent and claims 1-12 of the ’922 Patent (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). It references an "Exhibit D" claim chart to support these allegations, but this exhibit is not available in the public record (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). Without this exhibit or more detailed allegations in the body of the complaint, it is not possible to construct a claim chart or analyze the specific infringement theory.

  • Identified Points of Contention: The bare allegations in the complaint suggest several potential points of contention that may arise as the case proceeds.
    • Scope Questions: A threshold issue may be whether the patented methods, which are described in the context of creating artistic visual media, can be construed to apply to the operations of a financial institution like JP Morgan Chase Bank. For the ’922 patent, a key question is whether any of Defendant's systems perform the specific steps of "expanding" image frames and displaying them with a "bridge frame" as required by claim 1.
    • Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will likely concern whether any system operated by the Defendant actually performs the claimed methods. The complaint does not explain how, for example, a system related to "image capture devices" at a bank would select two "visually similar" images and one "dissimilar" bridging image and then repeat them in a loop to create an illusion of motion, as required by claim 1 of the ’902 Patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar" (’902 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the scope of the ’902 Patent. The nature of the required "bridge" between the two similar images will determine what kinds of video or image sequences infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on what kinds of visual interruptions qualify as a "dissimilar" picture.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the bridging interval "is preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture, but may also be a strongly contrasting image-picture" and can even be a "timed unlit-screen pause" in electronic media (’902 Patent, col. 2:28-34). This language may support an interpretation that covers a wide range of visual breaks, not just a distinct image file of a solid color.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and primary embodiments consistently refer to the third picture as a distinct entity, such as "a solid color, C" (’902 Patent, Abstract). A defendant could argue that "picture" implies a frame with defined visual content, which would narrow the scope to exclude mere transmission gaps or processing delays between frames.
  • The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines a specific act of image manipulation required by the asserted independent claim of the ’922 patent. The viability of the infringement allegation will depend on whether any accused process performs an action that meets the definition of "expanding."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific definition for "expanding." A plaintiff may argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any digital transformation that increases the dimensions of the image or a portion thereof, such as digital zoom or scaling.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s silence on the mechanism of "expanding" could also support a narrower construction. A defendant might argue that without further description, the term cannot be broadened to cover other types of image modification (e.g., cropping, stretching, or adding new content), even if they result in a larger final image. Dependent claims that recite other modifications like "shrinking" (claim 3) or "stitching" (claim 5) may suggest that "expanding" was intended to be a distinct and separate operation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conditional allegation of willfulness. It requests a finding of willfulness and an award of treble damages only if discovery reveals that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and knew or should have known its actions constituted infringement (Compl. p. 6, ¶e). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge at the pleading stage.

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

  • A threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s broad accusation against Defendant’s unspecified "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture" provide plausible grounds for infringement under the standards of Twombly and Iqbal, especially given the absence of the referenced claim chart exhibit?
  • A central technical question will be one of applicability: can the patented methods, which describe artistic techniques for creating visual illusions of motion from static images, be plausibly read onto the actual functions of systems and services operated by a commercial bank?
  • A key claim construction question will be one of definitional scope: does the term "expanding the first image frame" in the ’922 patent require a specific type of digital image scaling, and what evidence will be required to show that any of the Defendant's processes perform this specific function?