VDPP LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01118, E.D. Tex., 01/26/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed 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 an appearance of sustained motion and three-dimensional effects from a limited number of images.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital image processing techniques for creating visual illusions, such as sustained motion from a few repeating frames, and systems for viewing 2D content with an artificial 3D effect.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities, but asserts that none of these licenses involved the production of a patented article, a point raised in the context of compliance with patent marking statutes.

Case Timeline

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 Apr. 18, 2006)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of creating and commercializing an appearance of continuous motion from a very small number of images, noting that prior techniques were limited to transient "live performance" and could not be effectively recorded or distributed ’902 Patent, col. 2:6-12
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where at least two visually similar "image pictures" (e.g., A and B) are arranged in a repeating sequence with a dissimilar "bridging picture" (C), which is often a solid color like black. By repetitively displaying this sequence (A, B, C, A, B, C...), the method creates a perceptual illusion of sustained, seamless motion of unlimited duration using only a finite number of source images ’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-35 The patent also discloses blending adjacent frames to create a more fluid visual effect ’902 Patent, col. 2:56-67
• Technical Importance: The method provided a way to create, store, and display these novel visual effects on standard motion picture film or electronic media, moving them beyond the realm of ephemeral live performances ’902 Patent, col. 2:15-22

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11 Compl. ¶9
• Independent Claim 1 requires the essential elements of:
  • Selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and second).
  • Selecting a dissimilar bridging picture.
  • Arranging the pictures in a sequential order comprising the first image picture(s), the second image picture(s), and the bridging picture(s).
  • Placing this 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.

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - "Faster State Transitioning For Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials" (issued Apr. 17, 2018)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies performance limitations in electronically adjustable spectacles used to create a 3D effect from 2D images (known as the Pulfrich effect). Specifically, the variable tint materials in the lenses could have slow transition times between light and dark states, which can desynchronize the effect from the on-screen motion and create undesirable visual artifacts ’922 Patent, col. 3:25-40
• The Patented Solution: The ’922 Patent describes an apparatus and method for processing a video stream to create a visual motion effect. The system generates modified image frames from an original video stream (e.g., by expanding them) and displays them in a sequence that includes a solid-colored "bridge frame." This process is related to the "Eternalism" effect described in the ’902 patent, adapted into an apparatus claim format ’922 Patent, Claim 1 The broader specification also discusses spectacles with multi-layered, variable-tint lenses controlled by a processor to enable faster state transitions ’922 Patent, Abstract
• Technical Importance: The claimed system provides a specific apparatus-based approach to generating the visual effects disclosed in the parent ’902 patent, while the broader disclosure addresses the need for higher-performance hardware to optimize 3D viewing experiences.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-12 Compl. ¶14
• Independent Claim 1 is an apparatus claim requiring:
  • A storage and a processor.
  • The processor is adapted to obtain first and second image frames from a video stream.
  • The processor generates first and second "modified" image frames by "expanding" the original frames.
  • The processor generates a solid-color "bridge frame" that is different from the image frames.
  • The processor is adapted to display the first modified frame, the second modified frame, and the bridge frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific products, services, or systems by name. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" and "image capture devices" operated by Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Compl. ¶9, 14

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality of the accused instrumentality. It makes conclusory allegations that Defendant’s unnamed systems perform the steps of the asserted claims but offers no description of how they operate Compl. ¶9-10, 14-15 The complaint refers to a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit D" for support, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint Compl. ¶10, 15 No allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of the accused instrumentalities are made.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit (Exhibit D) that was not provided. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims of the ’902 and ’922 Patents Compl. ¶9, 14 For both patents, the complaint states that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services" that practice the claimed inventions Compl. ¶9, 14 The complaint does not, however, provide any specific facts explaining which of Defendant’s systems are accused or how they are alleged to meet the limitations of the asserted claims. The analysis of infringement is therefore premised on general allegations rather than specific factual pleadings.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the asserted claims, which are directed to creating artistic or entertainment-focused visual illusions of motion and depth, can be construed to read on the commercial operations of a financial institution. The nature of Defendant’s business as a bank suggests a potential fundamental mismatch with the subject matter of the patents-in-suit.
  • Technical Questions: As the complaint provides no technical details about the accused systems, a primary point of contention will be evidentiary. The core question is whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that any of Defendant’s systems perform the specific claim steps, such as arranging visually similar images with a "bridging picture" to create an "appearance of continuous movement" ’902 Patent, Claim 1 or generating "modified image frame[s] by expanding" original frames as part of a visual effect sequence ’922 Patent, Claim 1

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "an appearance of continuous movement" ’902 Patent, Claim 1

• Context and Importance: This term defines the outcome of the claimed method and is central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether routine image processing could be seen as infringing, or if the claim is limited to the specific type of artistic, perceptual illusion described in the patent. The dispute will likely focus on whether any sequential display of images in Defendant’s systems creates the claimed "appearance."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the claim language itself is broad and not explicitly limited to an artistic or entertainment context. The specification describes the result as a "visual illusion of figures and spaces in continuous movement" ’902 Patent, col. 2:16-17
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention as an artistic method, describing the result as "an event impossible in actual life" and a "transfixed continuous motion (a going without going anywhere)" ’902 Patent, col. 1:52-53, col. 7:24-25 This context may support a narrower construction limited to a specific type of perceptual illusion.

• The Term: "generate a... modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" ’922 Patent, Claim 1

• Context and Importance: This term recites a specific data manipulation step. The case may turn on whether routine image processing, such as resizing, cropping, or reformatting, which might occur in a bank's document imaging systems, qualifies as "expanding" for the purposes of the claim.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "expanding" is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument that it encompasses any process that increases the size or data of an image or a portion of it.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires this step as part of a larger process of generating a sequence with a bridge frame for display. The specification, which incorporates the disclosure of the ’902 Patent, frames this process in the context of creating the "Eternalism" visual effect, suggesting the "expanding" is not an incidental processing step but a deliberate one for creating a specific illusion ’922 Patent, col. 46:4-10

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include separate counts or plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a conditional request for a finding of willfulness and treble damages in its prayer for relief Compl., p. 7, ¶e This allegation is predicated on facts that may be revealed in discovery, specifically that the Defendant knew of the patents, infringed after gaining that knowledge, and knew or should have known its conduct constituted infringement.

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

• A central issue will be one of technical applicability: can the claims of the patents-in-suit, which describe methods and systems for creating specific artistic and perceptual visual illusions, be plausibly applied to the commercial "image capture and modification" systems of a financial institution?
• A foundational procedural question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: does the complaint, which fails to identify a single accused product and omits its own referenced evidentiary exhibit, allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for patent infringement under federal pleading standards?
• The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the context of creating visual effects, such as "appearance of continuous movement" and "expanding" an image frame, be construed broadly enough to cover routine data processing functions that may occur within Defendant's systems?