DCT

3:22-cv-02831

VDPP LLC v. Panasonic Corp Of North America

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:22-cv-02831, N.D. Tex., 12/16/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures infringe a patent related to methods for generating modified video by processing and blending image frames.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves digital video processing techniques to create visual effects, including creating the illusion of three-dimensional depth from conventional two-dimensional video sources.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 ’444 Patent Priority Date
2017-07-04 ’444 Patent Issue Date
2022-12-16 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 - Faster State Transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444, Faster State Transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials, issued July 4, 2017 (the "’444 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes technical challenges with electronically controlled spectacles used to create 3D illusions from 2D movies. Specifically, it identifies the slow transition time of variable tint materials (e.g., electrochromics) and the limited "cycle life" of such materials as obstacles to optimally synchronizing the spectacles' lenses with on-screen motion (’444 Patent, col. 2:24-68).
  • The Patented Solution: While the patent’s title and detailed description focus heavily on hardware (spectacles), the claims are directed to a software or system-level method for video processing. The patented solution, as claimed, involves an apparatus with a processor and storage that manipulates video frames by obtaining an image frame, expanding it, generating a "bridge frame," and then blending and displaying the result to create a modified video output (’444 Patent, Abstract; col. 47:40-54). This process is described in the specification as a method for originating "visual illusions of figures and spaces in continuous movement" (’444 Patent, col. 4:33-37).
  • Technical Importance: The described methods for frame manipulation sought to create novel visual effects, such as sustained, continuous motion from a finite number of source images, a process the patent refers to as "Eternalism" (’444 Patent, col. 4:55-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-27 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is representative of the apparatus claims.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An apparatus comprising a storage and a processor
    • The processor is adapted to obtain a first image frame from a video stream
    • The processor expands the first image frame to generate a modified image frame
    • The processor generates a "bridge frame" of a non-solid color that is different from the first and modified image frames
    • The processor blends the modified image frame with the bridge frame to generate a blended modified image frame
    • The processor displays the blended modified image frame
  • The assertion of claims 1-27 includes all dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, system, or service by name. It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities infringe by being or including a "system comprising a storage adapted to store one or more image frames and a processor adapted to obtain a first image frame from a first video stream" (Compl. ¶10).
  • The complaint does not provide any specific technical details about the functionality of any Panasonic product or service beyond reciting language from the patent's claims. It makes no allegations regarding the market positioning or commercial importance of any specific accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit (Compl. ¶9). Therefore, the infringement theory must be summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations. The core allegation is that Defendant’s unnamed systems directly and indirectly infringe claims 1-27 of the ’444 Patent (Compl. ¶¶8, 10-11). The complaint’s technical basis for this allegation is limited to the assertion that Defendant’s systems contain a processor and storage that obtain image frames from a video stream, mirroring the preamble of the asserted independent claims (Compl. ¶10). The complaint provides no specific facts alleging how any accused product performs the subsequent, specific processing steps required by the claims, such as "expanding" the image frame, generating a "bridge frame," or "blending" the frames.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Specificity Questions: A primary point of contention may arise from the complaint’s lack of factual specificity. The complaint does not identify which of Defendant’s products are accused or provide any factual allegations explaining how those products perform the specific, multi-step video processing methods recited in the asserted claims. This raises the question of whether the allegations meet the plausibility pleading standard.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on factual questions for which the complaint offers no detail. For example: What evidence suggests that any Panasonic product performs a process of "expanding" an image frame, generating a distinct "bridge frame," and then "blending" these frames to create a final output, as specifically required by claim 1?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "bridge frame"
  • Context and Importance: This term is a neologism central to the claimed invention, appearing in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. Its construction will be critical for determining the scope of the claimed video processing method and whether any functionality in the accused products meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key point of novelty, and its definition is not immediately apparent from the term itself.
  • **Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation