DCT

3:25-cv-03250

VDPP LLC v. Canon USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
    • Defendant: CANON U.S.A., INC. (Texas)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
  • Case Identification: 3:24-cv-03250, N.D. Tex., 11/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant Canon U.S.A., Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services for image capture and modification infringe two patents related to methods for processing and modifying video images to create visual effects.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital video processing, specifically to methods of creating illusions of 3D depth or continuous motion from standard 2D video sequences by analyzing motion and blending modified frames.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities in prior litigations, but asserts these licenses were to terminate litigation rather than to authorize the production of a patented article, a distinction relevant to potential defenses under the patent marking statute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Earliest Priority Date ('380' Patent)
2001-01-23 Earliest Priority Date ('874' Patent)
2017-07-25 '874 Patent Issued
2018-07-10 '380 Patent Issued
2025-11-25 Complaint Filed

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 methods for creating a 3D visual effect from a standard 2D motion picture using special spectacles, an effect known as the "Pulfrich illusion." A technical challenge with this method is that the variable-tint materials used in the spectacle lenses often transition between light and dark states too slowly to synchronize effectively with on-screen motion, degrading the 3D effect (’380 Patent, col. 3:25-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses two related solutions. The first involves using multi-layered variable tint materials in the spectacles to achieve faster state transitions (’380 Patent, col. 3:55-63). The second, recited in the asserted claims, is a method for generating "modified video" by algorithmically creating an illusion of continuous motion from a finite number of image frames. This is achieved by taking source image frames, modifying them (e.g., "expanding" them), and blending them with generated "bridge frames" to create a sequence of blended frames for display (’380 Patent, col. 8:51-col. 9:18).
  • Technical Importance: The technology proposes methods to generate enhanced visual effects (such as pseudo-3D or perpetual motion) from conventional 2D video content, potentially avoiding the need for specialized and costly 3D recording equipment and workflows.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 6, and 21, among others (Compl. ¶8). Claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 is a method for generating modified video, comprising the essential elements of:
    • Acquiring a source video with a sequence of image frames.
    • Identifying first and second image frames from the sequence.
    • "Expanding" the first image frame and the second image frame to generate respective modified frames.
    • Combining the two modified frames to generate a "modified combined image frame."
    • Generating a "bridge frame."
    • Blending the modified combined image frame with the bridge frame.
    • Displaying the resulting blended frame.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 1-30 (Compl. ¶8).

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 Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of automatically converting 2D video into a format that produces a 3D stereoscopic effect when viewed with filter spectacles. This requires accurately detecting motion within the video, even against complex backgrounds, and using that information to modify the image appropriately (’874 Patent, col. 3:4-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that analyzes a video's motion vectors—data commonly embedded in compressed video that describes how blocks of pixels move between frames. From these vectors, the system calculates parameters for "lateral speed" and "direction of motion." An algorithm then uses these parameters to generate a "deformation value," which is applied to the image frame to create a "modified image frame." This modified frame is then blended with generated "bridge frames" for display to the viewer (’874 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 42A).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a data-driven method for creating modified visual effects by leveraging the motion vector information already present in many digital video formats, potentially enabling real-time 2D-to-3D conversion.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶13).
  • Claim 1 is a method for generating and displaying a modified video, comprising the essential elements of:
    • Acquiring a source video.
    • Obtaining an image frame containing two or more motion vectors.
    • Calculating a "single parameter" for both the lateral speed and direction of motion, using the motion vectors.
    • Applying an algorithm that uses these parameters to generate a "deformation value."
    • Applying the deformation value to the image frame to identify a "modified image frame."
    • Blending the modified image frame with first and second different "bridge frames" to generate first and second blended frames.
    • Displaying the blended frames.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused product by name. It broadly accuses Defendant's "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶8, ¶13).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused instrumentality. It alleges in general terms that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" the accused systems and has "put the inventions claimed by the Patents-in-Suit into service (i.e., used them)" (Compl. ¶8, ¶13). The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of the accused products beyond seeking compensation for Defendant's "procurement of monetary and commercial benefit" from the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶8, ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is found in preliminary claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). However, these exhibits were not filed with the public complaint. The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s unnamed products and services related to image capture and modification perform the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶8, ¶13). Without the claim charts or a more detailed description of the accused technology, a substantive analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Specificity: A primary issue will be whether the plaintiff can connect its general allegations to specific functionalities within specific Canon products. The complaint currently lacks the factual detail to demonstrate how any particular Canon product performs the patented methods.
    • Technical Operation: For the ’380 Patent, a potential point of contention may be whether any accused product performs the specific sequence of "expanding," "combining," and "blending" frames with a "bridge frame" as recited in the claims. For the ’874 Patent, a key technical question may be whether any accused Canon system calculates a "deformation value" based on motion vectors and applies it to modify an image frame as the claim requires, or if it uses fundamentally different image processing techniques.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from the ’380 Patent: "expanding the first image frame"

    • Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 and is central to how the "modified first image frame" is created. Its construction will be critical because standard video processing involves many types of image manipulation (e.g., scaling, cropping, resampling), and whether any of those operations constitute "expanding" as claimed will be a key dispute.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the term in the claims but does not provide a specific, limiting definition in the detailed description for this particular embodiment, which could support an argument for a broader meaning covering various forms of image enlargement or alteration.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent family focuses on creating specific visual illusions. A defendant may argue that "expanding" must be understood not as simple resizing, but as a specific manipulation intended to facilitate the blending with "bridge frames" to create the illusion of perpetual motion, as described in the patent's summary of the invention (’380 Patent, col. 8:51-col. 9:18).

  • Term from the ’874 Patent: "deformation value"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the output of the core algorithmic step of claim 1 and the direct input for modifying the image frame. Infringement will depend on whether any parameter calculated in an accused system meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be coined by the patentee and its scope will determine whether the claim reads on conventional image processing algorithms.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim functionally defines the term as the result of "applying an algorithm that uses both of the parameters" (i.e., speed and direction of motion) (’874 Patent, cl. 1). This functional language may support an interpretation that covers any value derived from those specific inputs that is then used to modify an image.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes generating the deformation value by "applying an algorithm that uses the inter-ocular distance and both of the parameters" (’874 Patent, col. 18:21-23). While claim 1 does not recite "inter-ocular distance," a party could argue this context implies the "deformation value" is not a generic parameter but one specifically calculated for creating a stereoscopic depth effect, thereby narrowing its scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of "direct infringement" and does not contain separate counts or specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶10, ¶15).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement. While the prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees, it does not plead the knowledge or intent required to support a claim for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶d).

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

  1. A threshold issue will be one of factual sufficiency: Can the complaint's generalized allegations against Defendant’s broad category of "image capture and modification" products survive a motion to dismiss, or will the plaintiff be required to identify specific products and articulate a plausible, non-speculative theory of how they meet the detailed limitations of the asserted claims?
  2. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can patent-specific terms such as "expanding the... image frame" and "deformation value," which are rooted in the patents' specific methods for creating visual illusions, be construed broadly enough to encompass the potentially different algorithms used for general-purpose image processing and enhancement in modern commercial products?