VDPP LLC v. One Plus Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: One Plus Corp. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:23-cv-01864, N.D. Tex., 08/18/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Irving, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement and conducted substantial business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services related to automotive manufacturing and motion pictures infringe two patents concerning methods and systems for modifying video images, including techniques for generating 3D visual effects.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to technologies for creating stereoscopic 3D effects from 2D video and for optimizing the performance of variable-tint electronic spectacles used for 3D viewing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380 - "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380, "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials," issued July 10, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies challenges in viewing 3D motion pictures. One method, which relies on the "Pulfrich illusion," uses spectacles with one darkened lens to create a 3D effect from 2D motion. However, the optimal tint (optical density) of the lens depends on the speed of motion and ambient light, which fixed-tint glasses cannot accommodate (’380 Patent, col. 3:10-23). Additionally, electronically controlled variable tint lenses often suffer from slow transition times between light and dark states, which can hinder synchronization with video content (’380 Patent, col. 3:25-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an "electronically controlled spectacle" with lenses made of variable tint materials that can adjust their optical density (’380 Patent, Abstract). A control unit receives synchronization signals and adjusts each lens independently to optimize the 3D effect based on factors like motion in the video (’380 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3). To address slow transition times, the patent proposes using multi-layered electrochromic materials, which are described as enabling faster changes between tint states compared to single-layer designs (’380 Patent, col. 4:43-52).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide a more dynamic and higher-quality 3D viewing experience from standard 2D video sources by tailoring the optical properties of the viewing spectacles to the specific content being displayed in real-time (’380 Patent, col. 3:15-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-30 of the '380 patent (Compl. ¶8). Independent claims 1 (method) and 9 (apparatus) are representative.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • Acquiring a source video with a sequence of image frames.
  • Identifying first and second image frames at different chronological positions.
  • "Expanding" the first and second image frames to generate first and second modified image frames.
  • Combining the modified frames into a "modified combined image frame" with specific dimensional properties.
  • Displaying the modified combined image frame.
• Independent Claim 9 (Apparatus):
  • An apparatus with storage for image frames and a processor.
  • The processor is adapted to obtain first and second image frames, "expand" them into modified frames, combine them, and display the result.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials"

• Patent Identification: 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: As a related patent, the ’922 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’380 Patent, namely the limitations of fixed-filter spectacles for viewing 3D content and the slow response times of some electronically controlled variable tint materials (’922 Patent, col. 3:25-52).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is also consistent with the ’380 Patent, describing electronically controlled spectacles with lenses that can be independently adjusted (’922 Patent, Abstract). This patent also describes methods of modifying video by generating and inserting "bridge frames" between original video frames to create particular visual effects, such as the illusion of continuous movement (’922 Patent, col. 8:54-61; col. 16:49-54).
• Technical Importance: This patent further explores methods of image processing and display sequencing in conjunction with active spectacles to create specific, enhanced visual and perceptual effects beyond simple 3D simulation (’922 Patent, col. 8:54-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-12 of the '922 patent (Compl. ¶15). All independent claims (1, 5, 7, 9, 11) are apparatus claims.
• Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
  • An apparatus with storage and a processor.
  • The processor is adapted to obtain first and second image frames from a video stream.
  • Generate first and second modified image frames by "expanding" the original frames.
  • Generate a "bridge frame" that is different from the first and second image frames.
  • Display the first modified frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified frame.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 15). It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture" for the ’380 Patent and in the "field of motion pictures" for the ’922 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any description of the functionality, operation, or market context of any specific accused instrumentality. It alleges in a conclusory manner that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" infringing systems (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 15).

• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for the infringement allegations can be found in preliminary exemplary tables attached as Exhibits B and D (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 16). However, these exhibits were not included with the complaint filing. As such, the complaint itself provides no specific mapping of claim elements to any feature of an accused product. The infringement theory must be inferred from the general allegations. Given the lack of detail, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

Identified Points of Contention

• Pleading Sufficiency: The most immediate point of contention is whether the complaint satisfies the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement. By failing to name a single accused product or explain how any product meets any specific claim limitation, the complaint may be vulnerable to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
• Technical Questions: A primary technical question is what evidence Plaintiff will offer to demonstrate that any of Defendant's products or services in the vaguely defined fields of "automotive manufacture" or "motion pictures" perform the claimed steps of "expanding" image frames, generating "modified combined image frames," or generating and displaying "bridge frames" (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 15).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The construction of the following terms may be central to resolving the dispute, should the case proceed past the pleading stage.

The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (’380 Patent, Claim 1; ’922 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is a core step in the claimed methods for creating "modified" frames. Its construction will define the scope of image manipulation covered by the patents. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine whether it is limited to specific 3D formatting techniques or covers a broader range of video processing operations.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes multiple ways of creating 3D effects and visual illusions, suggesting "expanding" could encompass various transformations like stretching, duplicating, or re-arranging image data to create stereoscopic pairs or other effects (’380 Patent, col. 48:18-24).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and associated descriptions often show specific embodiments, such as arranging two frames side-by-side (’380 Patent, Fig. 18B). A party could argue that "expanding" should be limited to these disclosed arrangements for creating a composite frame.

The Term: "bridge frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

The generation and display of a "bridge frame" is a required element in the independent claims of the ’922 Patent. The definition of this term is critical for infringement, as its absence from an accused process would defeat the allegation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition, stating a bridge frame can be "a solid black picture, a solid colored picture, or a timed unscreened display" (’922 Patent, col. 16:52-54). This language could support construing the term to mean any kind of interstitial or transitional frame.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent frequently discusses the bridge frame in the context of a specific visual illusion it calls "Eternalism," which creates an appearance of continuous movement (’922 Patent, col. 8:54-61). A party might argue that a "bridge frame" is not just any separator but must be a frame used for the specific purpose of creating this illusion, as described in the detailed embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It asserts that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others" to use its products in an infringing manner, but provides no specific factual support, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11, 17-18).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the patents "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 17). This allegation, on its own, would only support a claim for post-filing willfulness. The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement and treble damages (Compl. ¶(e), p. 6).

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

This case, in its initial stage, presents several fundamental questions that must be resolved before any substantive technical dispute can be addressed.

• A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does a complaint that fails to identify a single accused product or provide any detail on how an infringement occurs satisfy the federal pleading standards for patent cases, or will it be dismissed for failing to state a plausible claim for relief?
• Should the case proceed, a key evidentiary question will be one of infringement identification: What specific products or services from One Plus Corp. will Plaintiff accuse, and what evidence will it provide to show these products actually perform the image modification and display methods recited in the patents?
• Finally, the case may turn on a question of definitional scope: Will key terms like "expanding" an image frame and "bridge frame" be interpreted broadly to cover a wide array of video processing techniques, or will they be construed narrowly and limited to the specific 3D and visual-illusion-generating embodiments detailed in the patent specifications?