VDPP LLC v. Revo America Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Revo America Corp (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01659, N.D. Tex., 06/27/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Coppell, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services for image capture and modification infringe patents related to methods for generating modified video and for electronically controlled spectacles.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves digital video processing to create stereoscopic (3D) visual effects from 2D sources and the hardware for viewing such content.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that U.S. Patent 10,021,380 expired on August 15, 2022, which may limit the scope of potential damages for that patent. The complaint also references prior settlement licenses with other entities, which could become relevant to future damages calculations or reasonable royalty analyses.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874 - Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles for Optimized 3Deeps Stereoscopic Viewing, Control Method and Means therefore, and System and Method of Generating and Displaying a Modified Video

• Issued: July 25, 2017 (the "’874 Patent")

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to overcome limitations of prior art methods for creating 3D visual effects, which often required special dual-camera filming, complex projection systems, or restricted on-screen motion to create a convincing illusion of depth (’874 Patent, col. 3:38-51, col. 5:56 - col. 6:10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for processing a standard 2D video source to create a modified video with a 3D effect. The system analyzes motion vectors within an image frame, calculates parameters like speed and direction, and uses this data to generate a "modified image frame." This frame is then blended with a "bridge frame" (e.g., a solid color frame) to produce a final blended frame for display, creating an illusion of depth for the viewer (’874 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶8).
• Technical Importance: This technology purports to enable the conversion of standard 2D motion pictures into content with 3D visual effects without requiring specialized 3D filming equipment, potentially reducing production costs and complexity (’874 Patent, col. 1:50-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is asserted.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Acquiring a source video comprising a sequence of 2D image frames.
  • Obtaining an image frame from the source video that includes two or more motion vectors describing motion.
  • Calculating a single parameter for both the lateral speed and direction of motion using the motion vectors.
  • Generating a deformation value using an algorithm that uses an inter-ocular distance and both of the calculated motion parameters.
  • Applying the deformation value to the image frame to identify a modified image frame.
  • Blending the modified image frame with a first bridge frame that is different from the modified image frame to generate a first blended frame.
  • Blending the modified image frame with a second bridge frame that is different from the first bridge frame to generate a second blended frame.
  • Displaying the first and second blended frames to the viewer.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-4.

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 "’380 Patent")

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a technical problem in active eyewear used for 3D viewing (such as "3Deeps Filter Spectacles"). Specifically, it notes that the variable tint materials (electrochromics) in the lenses can have a "slow transition time" when changing optical density, which can fail to synchronize with fast-moving on-screen action and create a jarring visual experience for the user (’380 Patent, col. 3:24-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multi-layered variable tint materials for the spectacle lenses. This multi-layer construction is designed to enable faster transitions between different tint states (e.g., from clear to dark) than a single-layer lens, allowing the spectacles to respond more quickly to control signals synchronized with the video content (’380 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:48-54). The system includes a control unit that independently manages the state of the left and right lenses (’380 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: By enabling faster lens state transitions, the invention aims to improve the performance and user experience of active 3D viewing glasses, reducing visual artifacts and better synchronizing the viewer's perception with the on-screen action (’380 Patent, col. 3:55-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-30 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claims 1 (method) and 6 (apparatus) are representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Generating modified video.
  • Acquiring a source video comprising a sequence of image frames.
  • Identifying a first image frame and a second image frame from the source video.
  • Expanding the first image frame to generate a modified first image frame.
  • Expanding the second image frame to generate a modified second image frame.
  • Combining the modified first image frame and the modified second image frame to generate a modified combined image frame.
  • Generating a bridge frame.
  • Blending the modified combined image frame with the bridge frame to form a blended modified combined image frame.
• The essential elements of independent claim 6 include:
  • An apparatus comprising a storage device and a processor.
  • The processor is adapted to obtain frames, identify first and second image frames, expand them to generate modified frames, combine the modified frames, generate a bridge frame, and blend the modified combined frame with the bridge frame.
• The complaint asserts a range of claims including multiple independent and dependent claims (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" and "image capture devices" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality. The allegations of functionality are conclusory and track the language of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶8). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D, but these exhibits were not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). The complaint’s narrative allegations assert that Defendant’s unidentified products infringe because they "maintained, operated, and administeredd systems" that perform the patented methods (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). For the ’874 Patent, this includes capturing, modifying, blending, and displaying video frames (Compl. ¶8). For the ’380 Patent, this includes "modifying images" (Compl. ¶13).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations linking any particular product feature to a claim element, a central point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that any of Defendant’s products practice the claimed methods. Specifically, what evidence demonstrates that Defendant's products generate and use a "bridge frame" as required by the ’874 Patent, or relate to the "spectacles" claimed in the ’380 Patent?
  • Technical Questions: A threshold question for the ’380 Patent is how an "image capture device" (Compl. ¶14) could infringe claims directed to an "electronically controlled spectacle" comprised of a frame and lenses for viewing (’380 Patent, Claim 26). This suggests a potential mismatch between the category of accused technology and the subject matter of the patent's claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’874 Patent

• The Term: "bridge frame"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the blending step that allegedly creates the 3D effect. Its definition will determine what kinds of intermediate or transitional frames fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either limit the claim to specific implementations or broaden it to cover a wide range of modern video processing techniques.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of claim 1 simply requires "generating a bridge frame" without further structural or functional limitations, which may support a broad construction covering any generated intermediate frame used for blending.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the bridge frame as potentially being a "non-solid color" (’874 Patent, Abstract) and provides examples such as a "solid black picture, a solid colored picture, or a timed unscreened space" (’874 Patent, col. 16:50-53). A defendant may argue these examples limit the term to frames that are distinct from the primary video content.

’380 Patent

• The Term: "an electronically controlled spectacle"
• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental to the infringement case for the ’380 Patent, as the complaint accuses "image capture devices" rather than eyewear. If "spectacle" is construed to require a wearable apparatus, the infringement theory may face significant challenges.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for a broader interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract explicitly describes "an electronically controlled spectacle" as including a "spectacle frame" and "optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame" (’380 Patent, Abstract). The patent figures, such as Figure 1, consistently depict a pair of wearable glasses. This intrinsic evidence strongly supports a narrow construction limited to eyewear.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for indirect infringement. However, it includes language suggesting that "but for Defendant's actions, the claimed-inventions embodiments...would never have been put into service," which could form the basis for a later-argued theory of induced infringement (Compl. ¶9).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged as a separate count but is requested in the prayer for relief. The request is conditional, stating that infringement should be declared willful "provided discovery reveals that Defendant knew (1) knew of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶VI.e). This indicates the allegation is predicated on facts to be developed during discovery.

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold procedural question will be whether the complaint’s generalized allegations against unnamed "systems" and "devices" satisfy the plausibility standard under Twombly/Iqbal, or whether they are too conclusory to provide Defendant with fair notice of the infringement claims.
2. Instrumentality Mismatch: A key substantive question for the ’380 Patent will be one of applicability: how can claims directed to an "electronically controlled spectacle," which the patent describes as wearable eyewear, be asserted against "image capture devices"? This raises a potential foundational disconnect between the claimed invention and the accused technology.
3. Definitional Scope: For the ’874 Patent, the case may turn on a question of claim construction: can the term "bridge frame," which the patent illustrates with specific examples like solid color frames, be construed broadly enough to read on modern video transition or blending techniques that may be used in Defendant's products?