DCT

2:26-cv-00073

VDPP LLC v. Jamba Juice LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00073, E.D. Tex., 01/26/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services for image processing and display infringe two expired patents related to methods for creating an appearance of sustained motion from a finite number of pictures and to image processing for 3D displays.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to the field of digital image processing, specifically concerning techniques to create illusions of continuous motion and three-dimensionality with high data efficiency.
  • Key Procedural History: Both asserted patents expired prior to the filing of the complaint, limiting any potential recovery to past damages. The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has entered into prior settlement licenses, but argues these do not trigger patent marking requirements.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902
2001-01-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 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
2022-01-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Expires
2023-09-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Expires
2026-01-26 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 addresses the challenge of creating the appearance of continuous movement without relying on the traditional cinematic method of displaying a long sequence of unique, non-repetitive picture frames, a process that can be data-intensive (’902 Patent, col. 1:15-21). Prior attempts to create such illusions in live performance settings were transient and could not be easily recorded or commercialized (’902 Patent, col. 2:6-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using a very small number of images—as few as two visually similar "image pictures" (A and B) and one dissimilar "bridging picture" (C), such as a solid black frame. By arranging these pictures in a repeating sequence (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C…), the method creates an optical illusion of sustained, seamless motion of unlimited duration. The patent also discloses blending adjacent pictures (e.g., creating an A/B blend) to make the illusion more fluid. (’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-27; Fig. 1c).
  • Technical Importance: This technique offered a way to generate motion effects using minimal data, a significant consideration for digital media formats where storage capacity and transmission bandwidth were limited (’902 Patent, col. 2:18-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 recites 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 comprising the first image picture, the second image picture, and the bridging picture;
    • placing this series onto a plurality of picture frames; and
    • repeating the series a plurality of 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"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with prior art 3D spectacles that use electronically controlled variable tint lenses to create a 3D effect from 2D motion (known as the Pulfrich effect). It notes that single-layer electrochromic materials used in such spectacles can have slow transition times between light and dark states, which can degrade the 3D illusion (’922 Patent, col. 3:50-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is directed to an apparatus and method for image processing, as well as to the spectacles themselves. The claims asserted in the complaint focus on an image processing apparatus that modifies and displays image frames. For example, the apparatus obtains frames from a video stream, generates modified frames by "expanding" them, generates a solid-color "bridge frame," and then displays the modified frames and the bridge frame in sequence. (’922 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:25-47).
  • Technical Importance: The technology described in the patent as a whole aims to create more responsive, versatile, and higher-quality 3D viewing systems by improving both the hardware (spectacles) and the image processing methods.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶13). 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;
    • 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 solid color bridge frame different from the first and second image frames; and
    • display the first modified image frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified image frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, systems, or services by name (Compl. ¶8, ¶13). It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" that Defendant allegedly "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused instrumentality. It makes only conclusory allegations that Defendant's unspecified systems perform infringing methods (Compl. ¶8, ¶13). No allegations regarding the products' market context or commercial importance are provided.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D but does not attach them to the pleading (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). In their absence, the infringement theory is based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that Defendant's unidentified systems directly infringe the ’902 Patent by "directly infring[ing] one or more of claims of the '902 patent prior to the patent's expiration" through use (Compl. ¶8). Similarly, for the ’922 Patent, the complaint alleges Defendant's systems "infringed one or more of claims of the '922 patent" by performing "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶13). The pleading does not explain how any specific system meets the limitations of the asserted claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: The primary point of contention will be factual. A threshold question for discovery will be the identification of the specific accused systems and their precise technical operations, as the complaint provides no such details.
    • Scope Questions (’902 Patent): A potential dispute may arise over whether Defendant’s systems, once identified, practice the specific method of using a "dissimilar" "bridging picture" to create the claimed "appearance of continuous movement," or if they simply use conventional video looping techniques that fall outside the claim scope.
    • Technical Questions (’922 Patent): An evidentiary question will concern whether any accused system performs the specific step of "expanding" an image frame as required by independent claim 1. The complaint provides no factual basis to support this allegation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’902 Patent:

  • The Term: "appearance of continuous movement"
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central, as it defines the output of the claimed method. A dispute may arise over whether this term covers any repeating animation that appears seamless to a viewer or is limited to the specific optical illusion described in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the patented "Eternalism" effect from standard looping animations.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the outcome as an "illusion of a progressive action that can sustain as such into infinite time," which could support a broad reading on any animation that appears to continue indefinitely (’902 Patent, col. 7:8-10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with the "visual stutter" of simple frame repetition and describes the effect as "transfixed continuous motion (a going without going anywhere)," suggesting a unique, hypnotic quality beyond a simple loop (’902 Patent, col. 7:19-26).

For the ’922 Patent:

  • The Term: "expanding the first image frame"
  • Context and Importance: This term recites an affirmative processing step in claim 1. Its definition will determine whether a variety of image manipulation functions, such as zooming or resizing, meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "expanding," which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any process that makes an image or a portion of it larger.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Other claims in the patent recite distinct modification steps like "shrinking" (claim 5) and "reshaping" (claim 9). The use of different terms for different modification types may support an argument that "expanding" has a specific technical meaning that is distinct from other forms of resizing and does not cover all methods of making an image larger.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a conditional request for a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages. This request is predicated on the possibility that discovery will reveal Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and their infringement (Compl. p. 7, ¶e). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge at the pleading stage.

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

  • A threshold issue will be one of factual specificity: can the Plaintiff, through discovery, identify a specific accused product or service and articulate a technical basis for how that instrumentality meets the patent claim limitations, given the lack of such detail in the complaint?
  • A central technical question will be one of functional distinction: regarding the '902 patent, do the accused systems (once identified) practice the claimed method of using a dissimilar "bridging picture" to create a specific optical effect, or do they employ conventional video looping techniques that fall outside the scope of the claims?
  • The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: concerning the '922 patent, can the claim term "expanding the first image frame" be construed to cover the image processing techniques utilized by the accused systems, or is its meaning limited to a specific type of modification not performed by Defendant?