VDPP LLC v. Southwest Airlines Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Southwest Airlines Co. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01215, E.D. Tex., 12/12/2025
• 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 image processing systems and services infringed two expired patents related to creating illusions of motion and modifying video frames.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to digital image and video processing techniques for creating novel visual effects, a technology domain relevant to digital media, user interfaces, and online advertising.
• Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit expired prior to the filing of the complaint, limiting Plaintiff's potential relief to past damages. The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and discloses that it and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses, while arguing these licenses did not trigger patent marking requirements.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	’902 and ’922 Patents 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 addresses the challenge of creating an appearance of continuous, seamless movement from a small, finite number of pictures without the looping or repetition being obvious to the viewer (’902 Patent, col. 1:15-28). Conventional methods required a long series of non-repetitive pictures to depict motion, which was resource-intensive (’902 Patent, col. 1:21-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method, termed "Eternalism," that uses at least two "substantially similar" image pictures (e.g., adjacent frames from a film) and a third, "substantially dissimilar" "bridging picture" (often a solid black frame) (’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-28). By repetitively displaying these pictures in a sequence (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...), the method creates an illusion of sustained, ongoing motion from very limited source material (’902 Patent, col. 2:42-52). The specification also describes blending adjacent pictures to create a more fluid effect (’902 Patent, col. 2:56-65).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a novel technique for generating stylized visual effects for film and electronic media that could appear continuous and non-repeating while using minimal data.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is excerpted below.
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A method for creating an appearance of continuous movement with a plurality of picture frames using two or more pictures, comprising:
  • a) selecting at least two image pictures which are visually similar, a first image picture and a second image picture;
  • b) selecting a bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image picture;
  • c) arranging said pictures in a sequential order to create a first series of pictures, said sequential order being one or more first image pictures, one or more second image pictures, and one or more bridging pictures;
  • d) placing said first series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames wherein each picture of said first series is placed on a single frame; and
  • e) repeating the first series of pictures a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames... such that when said plurality of picture frames are viewed an appearance of continuous movement is perceived by a viewer.

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 background describes problems related to 3D viewing spectacles, specifically the time it takes for variable tint lenses to transition between light and dark states and the need to optimize optical densities to create a convincing 3D effect (the "Pulfrich effect") based on motion in a video (’922 Patent, col. 3:26-44).
• The Patented Solution: While the patent title and background focus on physical 3D spectacles, the specification and claims also describe a related apparatus and method for processing video frames, which is the focus of the complaint's allegations (Compl. ¶13). This patented solution involves a processor that obtains image frames from a video stream, generates modified versions of those frames (e.g., by shrinking, expanding, or reshaping portions), generates a dissimilar "bridge frame," and displays the modified frames and the bridge frame to create a visual effect (’922 Patent, col. 14:15-26; col. 113:25-114:5).
• Technical Importance: This technology describes a specific architecture for real-time video processing to create modified visual output, connecting the "Eternalism" concept from the ’902 patent to a more detailed apparatus implementation.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claims 1 and 9 are apparatus claims. Independent claim 1 is excerpted below.
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • An apparatus comprising: a storage adapted to store one or more image frames; and a processor adapted to:
  • obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream;
  • generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame, wherein the first modified image frame is different from the first image frame;
  • generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame, wherein the second modified image frame is different from the second image frame;
  • generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color, wherein the bridge frame is different from the first image frame and different from the second image frame;
  • display the first modified image frame;
  • display the second modified image frame; and
  • display the bridge frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product, service, application, or website feature. It alleges infringement by Defendant’s “systems, products, and services in the field of image processing” (’902 Patent allegations) and “in the field of image capture and modification” (’922 Patent allegations) (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The complaint alleges these systems perform functions that mirror the patent claims, such as to “capture and store image frames from different video streams, modify captured image frames, blend modified image frames based on an identified bridge frame, and generate a combined frame for display” (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any specific instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is provided in claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). However, these exhibits were not filed with the public complaint. The narrative infringement allegations are conclusory and largely track the language of the patents themselves.

For the ’902 Patent, the complaint alleges that Defendant’s systems “in the field of image processing” infringe claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9). For the ’922 Patent, it alleges Defendant’s systems for “image capture and modification” infringe claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14). Without the claim charts or more detailed allegations, a substantive analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can identify any specific instrumentality and present evidence that it performs the highly structured, multi-step methods recited in the claims. The defense may question whether Defendant's general-purpose video delivery or advertising systems perform the specific steps of selecting distinct "image pictures," generating a separate "dissimilar" "bridging picture," and repeating them in the claimed sequence.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused technology, once identified, meets the specific limitations of the claims. For the ’922 Patent, a key question will be whether the accused system constitutes the claimed "apparatus," with a processor specifically "adapted to" generate multiple, distinct modified frames and a bridge frame in the manner recited.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image picture" (’902 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the ’902 invention. Its construction will determine whether the claim reads on modern video compression and transition effects or is limited to the specific artistic method described. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant will likely argue that its standard video processing does not use a distinct, intentionally inserted "dissimilar" picture, but rather involves continuous data streams where frames are highly similar or differences are artifacts of compression.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the bridging picture can be a "timed unlit-screen pause," which could be argued to cover any brief interval or transition between frames (’902 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the bridging picture as a discrete, intentionally selected element, preferably a "solid black or other solid-colored picture" or a "strongly contrasting image-picture," distinguishing it from the "image pictures" that contain the subject of the motion (’902 Patent, col. 2:28-32).

• Term: "a processor adapted to... generate a first modified image frame... generate a second modified image frame... generate a bridge frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This series of limitations defines the specific functions of the claimed apparatus. The infringement analysis will depend on whether an accused system must be specifically designed to perform these discrete "generate" steps in sequence. Practitioners may focus on this language because Defendant could argue its systems use a single, integrated process for modifying a video stream, rather than discretely generating three separate types of frames (modified 1, modified 2, bridge) as required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "adapted to" is often given a broad construction, meaning the processor need only be capable of performing the functions, not exclusively designed for them. The specification discusses these steps in the general context of creating visual effects from video (’922 Patent, col. 14:15-26).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites three separate "generate" steps for three distinct frames. This structure may support a narrower reading that requires the processor to perform a sequence of separate operations, as opposed to a single, holistic transformation of a video signal.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It includes a conditional request for enhanced damages and a finding of willfulness, contingent on discovery revealing that Defendant knew of the patents prior to the lawsuit and subsequently infringed (Compl., p. 6, ¶e).

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

1. A primary question will be evidentiary and procedural: Can the Plaintiff survive a motion to dismiss given the complaint’s failure to identify a single accused product or provide any specific factual allegations of infringement beyond conclusory statements that track the patent claims?
2. A central dispute will be one of technical application: Assuming the case proceeds, what evidence can Plaintiff show that a general commercial system, such as an airline's in-flight entertainment or web advertising platform, performs the highly specific and stylized method of "Eternalism"—selecting two similar frames, inserting a dissimilar "bridging" frame, and looping the sequence—as required by the ’902 patent?
3. The analysis will also involve a question of functional scope: Does any accused system function as the specific multi-step "apparatus" claimed in the ’922 patent, which requires a processor adapted to discretely generate multiple modified frames and a bridge frame, or do the accused systems employ more conventional video processing architectures that fall outside the claim’s scope?