DCT

2:25-cv-01208

VDPP LLC v. Walgreen Co

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01208, E.D. Tex., 12/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Marshall, Texas, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified image processing systems and services infringed two patents related to methods for creating visual illusions of motion and three-dimensional depth.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns digital image and video processing techniques designed to create an appearance of sustained motion or 3D effects using a limited number of 2D images, a concept the patents term "Eternalism."
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that both patents-in-suit have expired, meaning the lawsuit exclusively seeks monetary damages for past infringement. Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and preemptively addresses potential patent marking issues by noting prior settlement licenses did not involve the production of a patented article.

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
2025-12-11 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"

  • Patent Identification: 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 (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem wherein conventional methods of creating the appearance of motion require a large sequence of non-repetitive pictures (e.g., a movie reel), while prior art techniques for using a finite number of pictures were limited to transient live performances that could not be easily recorded or commercialized (’902 Patent, col. 1:15-27; col. 2:6-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method, termed "Eternalism," that creates a "visual illusion" of sustained motion from a very limited set of images (’902 Patent, col. 2:52-54). This is achieved by selecting at least two "substantially similar" image pictures (A and B) and a third, "dissimilar" picture, referred to as a "bridging picture" (C), which is often a solid color (’902 Patent, col. 2:26-34). By arranging and repeating these images in a sequence (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...), the viewer perceives continuous movement without the need for a long, unique series of frames (’902 Patent, Fig. 1c; col. 2:42-52).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled the creation of novel visual effects that could be "permanently stored and copied and displayed on motion picture film or electronic media," overcoming the limitations of earlier live-performance-only techniques (’902 Patent, col. 2:18-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9).
  • Independent claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
    • Selecting at least two "visually similar" image pictures (a first and a second).
    • Selecting a "bridging picture" that is "dissimilar" to the image pictures.
    • 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 of pictures on a plurality of 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"

  • Patent Identification: 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 (Compl. ¶12).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges the patent is directed to technology for processing video streams (Compl. ¶13). The patent specification itself discusses challenges in creating 3D visual effects from standard 2D motion pictures and the technical limitations of electronically controlled spectacles used for this purpose, such as the time it takes for variable tint lenses to change state (’922 Patent, col. 3:20-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The complaint focuses on an apparatus for video processing that involves capturing image frames, modifying them, and combining them with a "bridge frame" for display (Compl. ¶13). The asserted independent claim describes an apparatus with a processor that obtains first and second image frames from a video stream, generates modified versions of these frames by "expanding" them, generates a solid-color "bridge frame," and then displays all three types of frames (’922 Patent, col. 113:24-46).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a system for generating modified video content, which can be used to create 3D-like visual effects from a standard 2D source video (’922 Patent, col. 1:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim with the following essential elements:
    • 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 "bridge frame" that is a solid color.
    • The processor is adapted to display the first modified image frame, the second modified image frame, and the bridge frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant’s unspecified "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D, but these exhibits were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). The narrative infringement allegations are conclusory and state that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems" that infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). Without the claim charts or a more detailed factual basis in the complaint, a substantive analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Basis: A primary question is what specific product or service offered by Defendant is accused of infringement. The complaint's lack of specificity may itself become a point of legal contention regarding whether it meets federal pleading standards.
    • Scope Questions (’902 Patent): Should the case proceed, a central issue may be whether any accused process creates the specific "appearance of continuous movement" as described in the patent, which the specification characterizes as an "illusion of an event impossible in actual life" (e.g., a door forever opening but never fully opening) (’902 Patent, col. 2:52-54, col. 7:8-13).
    • Technical Questions (’922 Patent): The infringement analysis for the ’922 Patent may turn on whether an accused apparatus performs the specific modification step of "expanding" the image frames, as required by the claim, and whether it generates and displays a separate, solid-color "bridge frame" in conjunction with the modified frames (’922 Patent, col. 113:30-46).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "visually similar" (’902 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The relationship between the first and second image pictures is foundational to the claimed method. The scope of this term will determine what kinds of image pairs can serve as the basis for the "Eternalism" effect, directly impacting the scope of infringement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the pictures are "preferably taken from side-by-side frame exposures from a motion picture film," suggesting that other types of similar images might also be covered (’902 Patent, col. 4:49-52).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s examples focus on images that are nearly identical, such as two frames from a movie film showing slight movement or two identical images where one is slightly "off-center" from the other, suggesting a high degree of similarity is required for the intended illusion to work (’902 Patent, col. 4:52-59; col. 5:10-18).

  • The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term recites a specific image modification. Whether Defendant’s systems perform this exact operation, as opposed to other common image manipulations like cropping, scaling, or filtering, will be a critical infringement question. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity could significantly narrow the claim's reach.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of the specification lists "expanding" as one of several possible modifications, alongside "shrinking," "reshaping," and "stitching," which could suggest the term should be understood within a general class of image transformation operations (’922 Patent, col. 113-115, Claims 1, 3, 5, 10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly recites "expanding" and does not include other modification types. The doctrine of claim differentiation, when compared to other claims that recite different modifications (e.g., claim 3's "shrinking"), may support an interpretation where "expanding" is given its specific meaning and is not interchangeable with other transformations.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conditional allegation of willfulness. It requests a finding of willfulness and treble damages only if discovery reveals that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit (Compl., p. 6, ¶e).

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

  1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue for the court will be one of factual specificity: Does the complaint’s failure to identify any specific accused product or service by name, instead relying on broad categories like "image processing systems," meet the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleadings established by federal court precedent?
  2. Operational Mismatch: A central evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: Assuming an accused product is identified, does it actually perform the unique "Eternalism" process claimed in the ’902 Patent, which is described as creating a non-naturalistic illusion of sustained, non-progressing motion, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and result?
  3. Claim Scope: The case may hinge on a question of definitional precision: Can the term "expanding the first image frame" in Claim 1 of the ’922 Patent be construed to cover general-purpose image scaling or resizing functions, or is it limited to a more specific type of image modification that may not be present in the accused systems?