2:25-cv-01144
VDPP LLC v. MacY's Corp Services LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01144, E.D. Tex., 11/21/2025
- 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 alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services related to image display and modification infringe two patents concerning methods for creating an illusion of sustained three-dimensional motion from a finite number of images.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to creating visual effects of continuous motion and depth from a limited set of two-dimensional pictures, a technique relevant to digital media, e-commerce product visualization, and online advertising.
- 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 and argues at length that the patent marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) are not applicable, an issue that may be relevant to the calculation of potential damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-01-23 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 and 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 |
| 2025-11-21 | 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's background section describes the limitations of conventional filmmaking and animation, which require a large sequence of unique picture frames to depict motion, and notes the difficulty of creating an illusion of sustained movement from a very limited number of images, such as two. (’902 Patent, col. 1:22-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method, termed "Eternalism," for creating an illusion of continuous motion by repetitively displaying a sequence of at least two visually similar images (e.g., 'A' and 'B') along with a third, dissimilar "bridging picture" (e.g., a solid black frame 'C'). (’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-29). The continuous looping of this short sequence (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...) is described as creating a perception of "seamless and sustained directional movement" using a finite and small number of source images. (’902 Patent, col. 2:25-29).
- Technical Importance: The described method provided a technique to generate motion and depth effects with minimal data, a valuable attribute for early electronic and web-based media where bandwidth and storage were significant constraints. (’902 Patent, col. 2:18-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11. (Compl. ¶9).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’902 Patent recites a method with the following essential elements:
- selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and a second);
- selecting a dissimilar bridging picture;
- arranging the pictures in a sequential order to create a first series (one or more first image pictures, one or more second image pictures, and one or more bridging pictures);
- placing this series onto a plurality of picture frames; and
- repeating the series a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames that, when viewed, cause a viewer to perceive an appearance of continuous movement. (’902 Patent, col. 14:51-15:1).
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: While the patent title and much of its specification relate to 3D spectacles, the asserted claims are directed to image processing. In that context, the patent family addresses the general problem of creating 3D visual effects from 2D images. A specific challenge is creating these effects efficiently for display on electronic media. (’922 Patent, col. 8:51-57).
- The Patented Solution: The asserted claims describe an apparatus (e.g., a computer system) with a processor adapted to perform a specific image modification method. The processor obtains two image frames from a video stream, generates "modified" versions of each frame by "expanding" them, generates a "bridge frame," and then displays the modified frames and the bridge frame sequentially. (’922 Patent, col. 113:24-114:8). This process is a variation on the "Eternalism" concept from the '902 Patent.
- Technical Importance: Such automated image processing methods could enable the creation of motion or depth effects from standard video content without requiring specialized 3D recording equipment. (’922 Patent, col. 108:35-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-12. (Compl. ¶14).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’922 Patent recites an apparatus with a processor adapted to perform steps including:
- obtaining a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream;
- generating a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame, where the first modified image is different from the first image;
- generating a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame, where the second modified image is different from the second image;
- generating a bridge frame that is a solid color and different from the modified image frames;
- displaying the first modified image frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified image frame. (’922 Patent, col. 113:24-114:8).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It generally accuses "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 describe the functionality of any specific accused instrumentality. It alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" the accused systems. (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). Given that the Defendant is a major retailer, these allegations could potentially refer to its e-commerce website, mobile applications, or in-store digital advertising displays, all of which present images to consumers. However, the complaint provides no specific details to confirm this.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references preliminary exemplary infringement tables as Exhibits B and D but does not include them in the provided filing. (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). The analysis is therefore based on the narrative allegations.
For both the ’902 and ’922 Patents, the complaint alleges that Defendant operates systems that infringe the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The implicit infringement theory is that Defendant's unspecified systems perform the patented methods of creating motion effects by selecting, modifying, arranging, and repeatedly displaying sequences of images as recited in the claims. The complaint does not, however, map these allegations to any specific product feature or function.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Identified Points of Contention
- Factual Basis: A primary question will be whether the complaint's allegations have a sufficient factual basis, given the absence of any identification of a specific accused product or functionality. The Defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the pleadings under federal rules.
- Scope Questions (’902 Patent): A potential dispute may arise over whether standard e-commerce features, such as a user-navigated product image gallery, constitute the claimed "repeating the first series of pictures" to create an "appearance of continuous movement," or if that language requires an automated, looping visual effect as described in the patent's specification.
- Technical Questions (’922 Patent): The infringement analysis for the ’922 Patent may turn on the technical operation of Defendant's systems. A central question will be whether any of Defendant's systems perform the specific step of "generat[ing] a... modified image frame by expanding the... image frame" as required by the claim. The complaint provides no evidence or description of such a function.
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 question. Its construction will determine whether the claim reads on a wide range of sequential image displays or is limited to the specific "sustained," "seamless," and "fluid" illusion detailed in the specification.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the method can be used to originate "visual illusions of figures and spaces in continuous movement in any chosen direction." (’902 Patent, col. 2:16-18). This language could suggest the term is not limited to a single type of illusion.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed definition, describing "continuous movement" as "the illusion of a progressive action that can sustain as such into infinite time," and contrasts it with a mere "visual stutter" or simple repetition. (’902 Patent, col. 7:6-22). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific quality of perceived motion.
The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
Infringement of the asserted apparatus claim hinges on whether the processor is adapted to perform this specific modification. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine if it covers common, generic functions like digital zoom or is limited to a more specialized image manipulation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not qualified and could be argued to encompass any process that makes an image frame larger, such as a standard software resizing function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent family is focused on creating 3D and depth illusions. The '902 patent, which is part of the same family, describes how a "slight shrinking or enlargement of one area compared to the other creates a 'zooming' in or out effect," linking size changes to the creation of a depth illusion. (’902 Patent, col. 9:8-10). This context may support an interpretation that "expanding" refers to a manipulation intended to produce a specific visual effect related to depth, not just generic scaling.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
The complaint makes a conditional allegation of willful infringement. It requests a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages contingent on discovery revealing that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and infringed them despite knowing of the risk of infringement. (Compl. ¶VI.e). No specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged in the complaint itself.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case, in its initial stage, presents several fundamental questions for the court's consideration.
- A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency and factual basis: Can the plaintiff’s broad allegations against unspecified "systems, products, and services" survive a motion to dismiss, or will the court require the identification of specific accused instrumentalities and a more detailed explanation of how they allegedly infringe?
- A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: How broadly will the court construe the term "an appearance of continuous movement" from the ’902 Patent? Will it be interpreted to cover common, user-driven image slideshows on a retail website, or will it be limited to the specific, automated, and "sustained" visual illusion described in the specification?
- A final key question will be one of technical function: What is the scope of "expanding the... image frame" as recited in the ’922 Patent? The case may turn on whether this claim term can be read on generic image scaling functions or if it is limited by the patent's context to a specific manipulation designed to create a perceptual depth effect.