DCT

2:25-cv-01213

VDPP LLC v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01213, E.D. Tex., 12/12/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas, in Marshall, TX.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s image processing and display systems infringe two expired patents related to methods for creating illusions of sustained motion from a finite number of image frames.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit concern specialized video processing techniques for generating perceptual effects of continuous or three-dimensional motion using a limited set of source images.
  • Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit expired prior to the filing of the complaint, limiting any potential recovery to damages for past infringement. The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it or its predecessors have previously entered into settlement licenses concerning its patent portfolio.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 ’902 and ’922 Patent Priority Date
2006-04-18 ’902 Patent Issue Date
2018-04-17 ’922 Patent Issue Date
2022-01-22 ’922 Patent Expiration Date
2023-09-09 ’902 Patent Expiration Date
2025-12-12 Complaint Filing Date

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 describes the challenge of creating the appearance of continuous motion in visual media, which typically requires a large series of unique, sequential picture frames. Prior art methods for creating such illusions from a small number of frames were described as being limited to live, transient performances that were difficult to commercialize or record (’902 Patent, col. 1:21-2:12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to create an illusion of sustained, seamless motion by repetitively displaying a short sequence of pictures. The core method involves looping at least two "substantially similar" image pictures (e.g., frames 'A' and 'B') with a "bridging picture" that is "substantially dissimilar," such as a solid black frame ('C'). By repeating the "A, B, C" sequence, the viewer perceives continuous movement without a noticeable start-over or return motion (’902 Patent, col. 2:15-56). The patent also discloses enhancing this effect by blending adjacent frames (e.g., creating A/B, B/C, C/A frames) for a more fluid presentation (’902 Patent, col. 2:57-3:5).
  • Technical Importance: The method enabled the creation of motion effects with very low data requirements, a significant consideration for early digital media or for artistic visual effects.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is central.
  • Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
    • Selecting at least a first and second visually similar image picture.
    • Selecting a dissimilar bridging picture.
    • Arranging the pictures in a sequential order comprising the image pictures and the bridging picture.
    • Placing this series onto a plurality of picture frames.
    • Repeating the series a plurality of times to create a perception of continuous movement.
  • The complaint does not specify which, if any, dependent claims are asserted.

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 complaint alleges the ’922 patent is directed to technology for processing video streams for display (Compl. ¶13). While the patent title and background discuss 3D spectacles that create depth illusion via the Pulfrich effect, the asserted apparatus claim focuses on a specific image processing method.
  • The Patented Solution: As recited in the asserted claim, the invention is an apparatus with storage and a processor that performs a specific sequence of image manipulations. The processor obtains two image frames from a video stream, generates "modified" versions of each by "expanding" them, generates a solid-color "bridge frame," and then displays the two modified image frames (’922 Patent, Claim 1). This process appears designed to prepare standard video for a specialized display or viewing effect.
  • Technical Importance: This claimed apparatus provides a specific, automated process for modifying video content, potentially for creating visual effects or for compatibility with specialized viewing hardware.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is the lead apparatus claim.
  • Claim 1 recites an apparatus with the essential elements of:
    • A storage for image frames.
    • A processor configured to:
      • Obtain a first and second image frame from a video stream.
      • Generate first and second "modified" image frames by "expanding" the original frames.
      • Generate a solid color "bridge frame."
      • Display the first and second modified image frames.
  • The complaint does not specify which, if any, dependent claims are asserted.

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 "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 or market context of any specific accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations may be found in claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). However, these exhibits were not included with the publicly filed complaint. The infringement theory is therefore based on the general, narrative allegations that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems" that practice the inventions of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). No specific operational details of any accused system are provided in the complaint body.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: The primary point of contention will be factual: identifying which, if any, of Defendant's systems perform the claimed methods. The complaint does not establish a connection between the business of a fast-food restaurant chain and the specific video processing techniques recited in the patent claims.
    • Technical Questions: A foundational technical question is whether any system operated by the Defendant performs the specific steps required by the claims. For the ’902 patent, this includes arranging visually similar frames with a dissimilar "bridging picture" and repeating the sequence to create a motion illusion. For the ’922 patent, this includes the specific step of "expanding" image frames as part of a modification process. The complaint provides no factual basis to suggest these functions are performed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar" (’902 Patent, Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the core inventive concept of the ’902 patent. Its definition will determine what types of video effects or transitions could be considered infringing. A broad definition might capture common video editing effects, while a narrow one would limit the claim to the specific visual illusion described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the bridge could be a "timed unlit-screen pause between serial re-appearances of the two or more similar image pictures," which could be argued to cover more than just a distinct frame (’902 Patent, col. 2:36-38).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the bridging picture as "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" and a "neutral or black frame," suggesting a discrete, static frame rather than a transitional effect (’902 Patent, col. 2:29-31, 2:53-54).
  • The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This active processing step is a critical limitation in the apparatus claim of the ’922 patent. The meaning of "expanding" will be dispositive for infringement, as it defines the specific modification performed by the accused processor. Practitioners may focus on this term because its technical meaning is not explicitly defined.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: In the absence of a specific definition, a party might argue for the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any form of digital enlargement or zooming.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that, read in the context of the patent family's focus on creating 3D effects, "expanding" implies a more complex image manipulation than a simple digital zoom, such as a transformation intended to create a stereoscopic effect. The lack of an explicit definition in the specification may itself become a central point of the construction dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges only direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a boilerplate request for a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages, contingent on discovery revealing that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶ VI.e). No specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

  1. Identification of the Accused Instrumentality: The central threshold issue is the complete absence of an identified accused product or service. The case cannot proceed without the Plaintiff specifying what system operated by a fast-food chain is alleged to practice the claimed video processing technology.
  2. Evidentiary Connection to the Technology: A key evidentiary question will be whether any of Defendant’s commercial activities—presumably related to advertising, digital menu boards, or online content—utilize the highly specific image processing methods of generating "bridging pictures" or "expanding" frames in the manner required by the claims.
  3. Scope of Damages: As both patents expired before the suit was filed, the case is exclusively a retrospective claim for damages. The dispute will likely focus on the appropriate damages period, which can extend up to six years prior to the complaint's filing date, and the calculation of a reasonable royalty for the use of the allegedly infringing, unidentified systems.