DCT

3:25-cv-03240

VDPP LLC v. 7 Eleven Inc

Key Events

Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
- Defendant: 7-Eleven, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
Case Identification: 3:25-cv-03240, N.D. Tex., 11/24/2025
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Irving, Texas, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services related to image processing and modification infringed two now-expired patents directed to methods and apparatuses for creating an illusion of sustained motion using a finite number of images.
Technical Context: The patents relate to digital image processing techniques for creating specific visual effects, a technology domain relevant to digital advertising, media production, and user interface design.
Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit expired prior to the complaint's filing, restricting this action to recovery for past damages. The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities concerning its patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	’902 and ’922 Patents Priority Date
2006-04-18	’902 Patent Issue Date
2018-04-17	’922 Patent Issue Date
2022-01-22	’922 Patent Expiration Date
2023-09-09	’902 Patent Expiration Date
2025-11-24	Complaint Filing Date

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,”

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, entitled “Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures,” issued April 18, 2006.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of creating an appearance of continuous, sustained motion without using the large number of sequential, non-repetitive pictures required by traditional moviemaking. Prior art methods for achieving similar effects in live performances were described as transient and difficult to commercialize for film or electronic media (’902 Patent, col. 1:23-40; col. 2:5-12).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where at least two "substantially similar" image pictures (e.g., Picture A and Picture B) are alternated with a third, "substantially dissimilar" picture, referred to as a "bridging picture" (Picture C). This sequence (A, B, C) is then repeated in a continuous loop to create the illusion of sustained motion from a very small set of source images (’902 Patent, col. 2:20-30; Fig. 1c). The specification notes that this effect can be made more fluid by blending adjacent pictures in the sequence (’902 Patent, col. 2:56-66).
Technical Importance: This method provided a technique for generating novel visual effects, described as "Eternalisms," that could be stored and displayed on motion picture film or electronic media using minimal source material (’902 Patent, col. 2:16-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9). Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- selecting at least two image pictures which are visually similar;
- selecting a bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image pictures;
- arranging said pictures in a sequential order to create a first series of pictures;
- placing said first series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames; and
- repeating the first series of pictures a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture 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,”

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922, entitled “Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials,” issued April 17, 2018.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: While the patent's title and abstract relate to 3D spectacles, the asserted claims and the corresponding allegations in the complaint focus on image processing. The complaint alleges the patent is directed to an apparatus for capturing, modifying, and blending image frames with a "bridge frame" to generate a combined frame for display (Compl. ¶13). This suggests an apparatus-based approach to implementing the methods described in the related ’902 Patent.
The Patented Solution: The ’922 Patent claims an apparatus comprising a storage and a processor. The processor is adapted to obtain image frames from a video stream, generate modified versions of those frames (e.g., by "expanding" them), generate a dissimilar "bridge frame" (e.g., a solid color), and display the modified frames and the bridge frame in sequence (’922 Patent, col. 114:25-45). This automates the creation of the visual effects described in the ’902 Patent.
Technical Importance: The invention claims a system-level implementation for creating sustained motion effects, potentially applicable in automated video processing, content generation, or digital display systems (’922 Patent, col. 8:16-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14). Independent Claim 1 is for an apparatus with the following key elements:
- a storage adapted to store one or more image frames;
- a processor adapted to:
  - obtain a first image frame and a 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 bridge frame which is a solid color and is different from the 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 product, system, or service by name. It broadly accuses Defendant’s "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" of infringing the ’902 Patent and "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" of infringing the ’922 Patent (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. It makes only conclusory allegations that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" infringing systems (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations may be found in claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). However, these exhibits were not provided with the complaint. The narrative infringement allegations are conclusory, stating that Defendant’s unspecified systems directly infringed one or more claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). Without a specific accused instrumentality or detailed infringement theory, a substantive analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the complaint alone.

Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Questions: The central dispute will be factual. A threshold question is what specific 7-Eleven systems are accused and whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that these systems perform the specific, ordered steps of the asserted claims. For example, does any accused system select two "visually similar" images and a "dissimilar" bridging image, and then repeat them in a sequence as required by claim 1 of the ’902 Patent?
- Scope Questions: If an accused instrumentality is identified, its operation will be compared to the claim language. For the ’922 Patent, a question may arise as to whether any image resizing or scaling performed by the accused system constitutes "expanding the first image frame" as recited in claim 1, or if it is a technically distinct operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’902 Patent

The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image pictures" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed method, as the interplay between the similar image pictures and the dissimilar bridging picture creates the claimed illusion of motion. The scope of "dissimilar" will be critical to determining infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim requires only that the bridging picture be "dissimilar," which could encompass any image that is not visually similar to the other two.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the bridging picture as "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" or a "strongly contrasting image-picture" (’902 Patent, col. 2:30-33). The abstract also describes the third picture as "usually a solid color, C." A party may argue these descriptions limit the scope of "dissimilar" to this preferred embodiment.

’922 Patent

The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: Infringement of this apparatus claim hinges on whether the accused processor is "adapted to" perform this specific modification. The definition of "expanding" will determine whether common image manipulation techniques, such as zooming or scaling, fall within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because generic image processing systems perform many types of transformations, and establishing a match to this specific language is essential.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "expanding" is not explicitly defined, which may support a construction covering any process that makes an image or a portion of it larger.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent includes separate claims directed to other modifications like "shrinking" (Claim 2) and "stitching" (Claim 5), suggesting "expanding" is a distinct operation that is not interchangeable with other forms of image modification.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement. The core allegations focus on direct infringement through Defendant's use of the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).
Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement in its counts but raises the possibility in its prayer for relief. It requests that infringement be declared willful and damages trebled "provided discovery reveals that Defendant (1) knew of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing date of the lawsuit" and subsequently infringed (Compl. ¶VI.e). This represents a contingent allegation dependent on evidence of pre-suit knowledge obtained during discovery.

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

A fundamental evidentiary question will be one of factual basis: Can the Plaintiff identify a specific 7-Eleven product or service and provide evidence that it performs the highly particularized method of creating a motion illusion by sequencing two similar images with a third, dissimilar "bridging" image, as required by the patents?
A threshold legal issue may be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint's failure to identify any accused instrumentality or provide non-conclusory factual allegations of infringement meet the plausibility standard required to sustain a patent infringement claim in federal court?
Should the case proceed, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "bridging picture," which the patent specification consistently describes as a solid-colored or strongly contrasting frame, be construed broadly enough to read on any "dissimilar" content that might appear between two similar images in a conventional digital media system?