VDPP LLC v. Home Depot USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Home Depot USA., Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00049, E.D. Tex., 01/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified systems, products, and services related to image processing infringe two patents concerning methods for creating the illusion of three-dimensional motion from a finite number of two-dimensional images.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to creating sustained, looping visual effects and the perception of depth by repetitively sequencing and blending a small number of similar 2D images with a dissimilar "bridging" image.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states that it is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities. The complaint notes that these prior licenses were to end litigation and did not involve admissions of infringement or agreements to produce a patented article, which Plaintiff argues obviates any patent marking requirement.

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’s background section describes the difficulty of creating the appearance of continuous, sustained motion using a finite number of pictures, noting that prior art attempts in live performance were transient and could not be effectively recorded or commercialized for film or electronic media (Compl. ¶7; ’902 Patent, col. 1:15-2:12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to create a visual illusion of seamless, sustained motion by repetitively presenting a sequence of at least two visually similar image pictures (e.g., 'A' and 'B') along with a third, dissimilar "bridging picture" (e.g., 'C') ('902 Patent, Abstract). This sequence (e.g., A, B, C) is repeated in a loop, causing the viewer to perceive continuous movement without a visible start-over point ('902 Patent, col. 2:41-52). The method can be enhanced by blending adjacent pictures (e.g., creating A/B and B/C frames) to create a more fluid effect ('902 Patent, col. 2:56-68).
• Technical Importance: The described method enables the creation of looping animations and 3D effects from a very small set of 2D source images, allowing such effects to be stored and displayed on conventional film or digital media ('902 Patent, col. 2:15-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-11 of the ’902 Patent (Compl. ¶9).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • 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 (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.
  • repeating the series a plurality of times to create a continuous set of frames that, when viewed, creates an appearance of continuous movement. ('902 Patent, col. 14:50-15:1).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of a range (1-11) includes them.

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: While the patent's title and abstract focus on 3D spectacles, the asserted claims relate to image processing. The patent's background discusses issues with prior 3D viewing systems and notes that the transition times for variable tint materials in electronic spectacles can be too slow to sync properly with on-screen motion, a problem this invention aims to solve ('922 Patent, col. 3:24-54).
• The Patented Solution: The complaint focuses on an apparatus for image processing (Compl. ¶13). Asserted Claim 1 describes an apparatus with a storage and a processor adapted to obtain image frames from a video stream, generate modified frames by "expanding" the original frames, generate a "bridge frame" of a solid color, and then display the modified frames ('922 Patent, col. 113:25-47). This apparatus provides a specific hardware/software implementation for creating visual effects similar to those described in the ’902 Patent.
• Technical Importance: The invention claims a specific apparatus (a processor-based system) for executing image modification and display sequences, potentially providing a concrete technical embodiment for the methods described in the earlier ’902 patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-12 of the ’922 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Independent Claim 1 requires an apparatus comprising:
  • A storage adapted to store one or more image frames.
  • A processor adapted to:
    • obtain a first and second image frame from a video stream.
    • generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame.
    • generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame.
    • generate a bridge frame that is a solid color and different from the modified frames.
    • display the first and second modified image frames. ('922 Patent, col. 113:25-47).
• The complaint's assertion of claims 1-12 implicitly includes dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused product, system, or service sold or offered by Home Depot (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). It does not provide any description of the functionality of any specific accused instrumentality or its market context. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations in its body. It refers to "Exhibit B" for the ’902 Patent and "Exhibit D" for the ’922 Patent as containing support for the infringement allegations, but these exhibits were not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). The narrative theory is limited to general statements that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems" that infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary issue for early stages of litigation may be whether the complaint's failure to identify a specific accused instrumentality or provide factual support for infringement meets federal pleading standards.
  • Technical Questions: Without the referenced claim charts, it is not possible to identify specific points of contention. Key questions would revolve around how an unspecified Home Depot system performs the claimed steps. For the ’902 Patent, this includes whether the system "selects," "arranges," and "repeats" visually similar images with a "dissimilar" "bridging picture." For the ’922 Patent, a central question would be whether an accused apparatus contains a processor that performs the specific function of "generating a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’902 Patent: "bridging picture" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of what constitutes a "bridging picture" is fundamental to the scope of Claim 1. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused process uses an intermittent frame or interval that meets this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests this can be a "timed unlit-screen pause" or a "neutral or black frame," not necessarily a conventional image ('902 Patent, col. 2:36-37, 2:53-54). This language may support an interpretation that includes blank intervals or black screens.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the term "picture," which could imply an affirmative visual element rather than a mere pause or absence of an image. The patent's figures depict the bridging picture 'C' as a distinct, solid-colored frame, which could be argued to narrow the term to a tangible, displayed visual element ('902 Patent, Fig. 1a).

’922 Patent: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term recites a specific image manipulation. The infringement case for this claim will depend on whether the accused system performs this exact "expanding" operation or an equivalent. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a narrow and specific limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’902 patent, incorporated by reference, discusses more general transformations like "shrinking or enlargement" and a "zooming' in or out effect," which could support construing "expanding" more broadly to cover general scaling or resizing operations ('902 Patent, col. 9:9-10).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant would likely argue that the claim's use of the specific word "expanding" limits the scope to that precise function, distinguishing it from other modifications like cropping, general scaling, or zooming, and that the patentee chose this specific word over other available, broader terms.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes no factual allegations of pre- or post-suit knowledge by the Defendant. It includes a boilerplate request in the prayer for relief to declare the infringement willful "provided discovery reveals" that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. p. 7, ¶e).

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

• A threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint’s failure to identify any specific accused product from Home Depot—a retailer not typically known for developing image processing technology—or to provide the referenced infringement charts, meet the plausibility standards for patent infringement pleading?
• A central technical question for the ’902 Patent will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "bridging picture," as used in the patent, be construed to cover standard video transitions or blank intervals allegedly used in a modern digital system, or is it limited to the specific, discrete colored frames shown in the patent's embodiments?
• A key evidentiary question for the ’922 Patent will be one of functional specificity: Assuming an accused system is identified, what evidence will show that its processor performs the precise, claimed step of "generating a... modified image frame by expanding the... image frame," as opposed to other common image scaling or resizing techniques?