VDPP, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.; Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00929, N.D. Tex., 09/11/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified systems, products, and services related to motion pictures infringe a patent concerning electrically controlled spectacles used for viewing video content.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using electronically controlled, variable-tint spectacles to create three-dimensional visual effects from conventional two-dimensional motion pictures.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was issued to the inventors and subsequently assigned to the Plaintiff. An Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (9,426,452 C1) was issued on April 4, 2025, which confirmed the patentability of asserted claims 2 and 4. The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	’452 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2016-08-23	’452 Patent - Issue Date
2023-09-11	Complaint Filing Date
2025-04-04	’452 Patent - Reexamination Certificate Issued

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 - "Faster State Transitioning for Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with electronically controlled variable tint materials used in viewing spectacles: they can have slow transition times between light and dark states, which is problematic for synchronizing with fast-moving video content, such as during scene changes (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-44). The patent also notes that the limited "cycle life" of these materials can be a concern (’452 Patent, col. 2:55-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes fabricating the spectacle lenses from multiple layers of optoelectronic materials. This multi-layer structure is described as enabling faster transition times between different optical densities than would be possible with a single layer, while also potentially increasing the operational "cycle life" of the materials (’452 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-55). A control unit housed in the spectacle frame independently controls the state of the left and right lenses based on synchronization signals (’452 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the viability of using active-shutter glasses to create a 3D effect (the Pulfrich illusion) from standard 2D content by better synchronizing the lens state with on-screen lateral motion (’452 Patent, col. 14:11-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶8).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system for presenting a video, comprising an apparatus and an electrically controlled spectacle.
  • The apparatus includes a storage for image frames and a processor adapted to "reshape a portion of at least one of the one or more image frames" and display them.
  • The electrically controlled spectacle includes a frame, separate left and right optoelectronic lenses, and a control unit to independently control the state of each lens.
  • Each lens has at least a "dark state and a light state."
  • The control unit "places both the left lens and the right lens to a dark state" when viewing the video.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product, method, or service by name. It broadly refers to "systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶9). The body of the complaint offers only conclusory statements that track the language of the asserted claims without providing specific factual support linking them to an accused product. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by a motor vehicle company of a patent directed to "electrically controlled spectacle[s]." A primary question will be whether the Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused "systems, products, and services" (Compl. ¶8) include or direct the use of such spectacles in a manner that falls within the claim scope.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks any technical description of how an accused Honda product operates. A central question for the court will be what evidence exists to show that a Honda system performs the specific processing step of "reshap[ing] a portion of...image frames" or the specific control step of placing "both the left lens and the right lens to a dark state" while a user is viewing a video, as required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "electrically controlled spectacle"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central component of the claimed invention. As the defendant is a car manufacturer and not an eyewear company, the construction of "spectacle" will be critical to determining whether there is any infringing product. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether an infotainment system that may be compatible with third-party accessories can be considered part of a system comprising a "spectacle."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe a "system for presenting a video" that comprises both an apparatus (processor) and the spectacle, which could suggest the two components do not need to be sold in the same box.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract, detailed description, and figures consistently depict a wearable pair of glasses with a frame and lenses (e.g., ’452 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; Fig. 5). This consistent depiction may support an interpretation that requires a self-contained, physical eyewear device.

• The Term: "reshape a portion of at least one of the one or more image frames"

• Context and Importance: This term defines a specific function of the claimed "processor." The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether any processing in the accused systems can be characterized as "reshaping."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests various manipulation techniques, including superimposing, stitching, or relocating portions of images, which a plaintiff might argue covers a range of video processing functions (’452 Patent, col. 9:50-68).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent heavily associates image manipulation with creating the "Eternalism" visual effect, a complex artistic method involving blending and sequencing distinct images (’452 Patent, col. 4:45-50). A defendant may argue that "reshape" must be limited to this specific, non-standard form of video processing, not general video playback.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting that Honda has "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use its products to infringe (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The complaint does not cite specific user manuals, marketing materials, or other instructions that would form the basis for these claims.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶10-11). This allegation, if proven, could only support a finding of post-filing willfulness, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

• A core issue will be one of applicability: How does a patent claim requiring an "electrically controlled spectacle" and a processor that "reshapes" image frames apply to the unspecified "systems, products, and services" of a motor vehicle manufacturer? The complaint's lack of specificity on this connection presents a significant threshold question.
• A second key question will be evidentiary: Assuming a relevant product is identified, what factual evidence will support the allegation that it performs the specific functions of claim 1, particularly the final step where a control unit "places both the left lens and the right lens to a dark state" during video playback? The patent itself describes this state as being for an alternate "sunglasses" mode, not the primary 3D viewing mode, which may create a point of contention.
• A final question will be one of claim scope: Can the term "reshape a portion of... image frames" be construed broadly to cover standard video display functions, or will it be limited by the specification's detailed descriptions of creating complex, artistic visual effects, a function not typically associated with automotive infotainment systems?