VDPP LLC v. Costarhd LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: CostarHD, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01666, N.D. Tex., 07/01/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacturing infringe a patent related to methods for modifying video images.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns digital video processing methods that modify and combine image frames to create specific visual effects or illusions of continuous motion.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity with no products to mark.

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," issued July 10, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes problems with existing methods for creating 3D visual effects. For instance, creating the "Pulfrich illusion" (a 3D effect from 2D motion) with shutter glasses is hindered by the slow transition speed of the electrochromic materials used in the lenses, which cannot keep pace with high frame-rate video and may have limited lifespans. (’380 Patent, col. 3:25-50).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses two main approaches. The first involves improved electronically controlled spectacles using multi-layered electrochromic materials for faster lens tint transitions. (’380 Patent, col. 3:51-64). The second, which is the focus of the asserted claims, involves methods of digitally modifying the video content itself. This is done by creating intermediate or "bridge" frames between the original video frames, which are then blended or combined to create an illusion of continuous, sustained motion without the flicker or artifacts of other methods. (’380 Patent, col. 8:47-65, Abstract). This image processing can be performed on a computer or other processing device. (’380 Patent, col. 63:1-17).
• Technical Importance: The described methods for generating modified video sequences suggest an approach to creating motion-based visual effects that is independent of specialized display hardware or viewing glasses. (’380 Patent, col. 23:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-30. (Compl. ¶8). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • acquiring a source video comprising a sequence of image frames, wherein each of the image frames being associated with a respective chronological position in the sequence;
  • identifying a first image frame associated with a first chronological position in the sequence of the source video and a second image frame associated with a second chronological position in the sequence of the source video;
  • expanding the first image frame to generate a modified first image frame, wherein the modified first image frame is different from the first image frame;
  • expanding the second image frame to generate a modified second image frame, wherein the modified second image frame is different from the second image frame;
  • combining the modified first image frame and the modified second image frame to generate a combined image frame having first and second opposing sides defining a first dimension and third and fourth opposing sides defining a second dimension; and
  • displaying the modified combined image frame.
• The complaint does not specify which, if any, dependent claims it intends to assert.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture." (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentalities are systems that "maintain[], operate[], and administer[]" methods related to modifying an image. (Compl. ¶8, 10). No further technical detail on the functionality or operation of these accused systems is provided. The complaint alleges Defendant's actions caused the claimed inventions to be put into service and that Defendant procured monetary and commercial benefit from it. (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" for support of its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit. (Compl. ¶9). The narrative allegations state that Defendant's "systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture" infringe claims 1-30 of the '380 patent by performing methods related to "modifying an image." (Compl. ¶8, 10). Without the claim chart exhibit or a more detailed description of the accused instrumentality, a specific, element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the complaint alone. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a definitive analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the language of independent claim 1, the following terms may become central to the case.

• The Term: "expanding the first image frame"

• Context and Importance: The meaning of "expanding" is critical to understanding the scope of the claimed modification step. The complaint does not specify how the accused automotive systems allegedly "expand" image frames. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a wide range of image processing techniques (e.g., scaling, padding, warping, or generating new pixel data) fall within the claim's scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is not explicit in defining "expanding," which may support an argument for a broader, plain-and-ordinary meaning that could cover various forms of image enlargement or modification.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes creating "bridge" frames that are "visually similar" or "substantially similar" to create an illusion of motion. (’380 Patent, col. 8:52-61). This context might support a narrower construction where "expanding" must be tied to the specific purpose of generating these types of bridge frames, rather than any generic image enlargement.

• The Term: "combining the modified first image frame and the modified second image frame to generate a combined image frame"

• Context and Importance: This term defines how the modified frames are brought together. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused systems perform a "combining" step that meets the claim's requirements. The dispute may turn on what constitutes a "combined" frame, for example, whether it requires placing two distinct images side-by-side, blending them, or some other form of digital composition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "combining" is general and could be argued to cover a wide array of digital video composition techniques, including overlaying, blending, or stitching frames together.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the "combined image frame" to have "first and second opposing sides" and "third and fourth opposing sides," which suggests a specific spatial arrangement, such as placing the modified frames adjacent to one another to create a new, larger frame. (’380 Patent, col. 112:59-63). This could be used to argue against infringement by systems that only blend or overlay frames without creating such a defined composite structure.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶10, 11). The allegations for both are based on Defendant having "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers and/or the customers of its related companies), on how to use its products and services (e.g., systems and methods related to modifying an image)" in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶10, 11).

Willful Infringement

The complaint includes a prayer for relief requesting a declaration that Defendant's infringement is willful and seeking treble damages. (Compl. ¶VI.e). The complaint does not, however, plead any specific facts to support a claim of pre-suit knowledge of the '380 patent.

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

• Product Identification and Technical Function: A threshold issue for the case will be identifying which of Defendant's "systems, products, and services in the field of automotive manufacture" are actually accused and determining, through discovery, whether their technical operation involves the specific image modification and combination steps recited in the patent claims.
• Claim Scope and Applicability: The central legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "expanding" and "combining," which are described in the patent in the context of creating 3D or motion illusions for human viewers, be construed to read on the technical processes that may be used in "automotive manufacture" systems, whose purpose is not detailed in the complaint?
• Evidentiary Sufficiency for Indirect Infringement: A key factual question will be what evidence exists to support the allegation that Defendant specifically instructed or encouraged its customers to use its systems in a way that directly practices every element of the asserted method claims, as required to prove indirect infringement.