VDPP LLC v. I Pro Americas Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: I-PRO AMERICAS, INC. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-02783, S.D. Tex., 06/13/2025
• Venue Allegations: The complaint, filed in the Southern District of Texas, contains venue allegations that refer to the District of Utah. The complaint alleges that Defendant is a resident of Utah with a regular and established place of business in that district, where acts of infringement allegedly occurred.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s image capture devices and related systems infringed a patent related to methods and systems for modifying images to create a 3D effect.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to electronically controlled spectacles that manipulate light to each eye to create a perception of depth (the "Pulfrich effect") when viewing 2D motion pictures.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patent-in-suit expired on August 15, 2022, limiting the case to recovery for past damages. Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses, which it argues did not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-01-22	Earliest Priority Date Claimed ('380 Patent)
2018-07-10	U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380 Issued
2022-08-15	'380 Patent Expiration Date Alleged in Complaint
2025-06-13	Complaint Filing Date

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 addresses the problem of creating a convincing 3D visual effect from a standard 2D motion picture without requiring special cameras or projection systems (’380 Patent, col. 2:19-25). Specifically, it seeks to improve upon systems that use the "Pulfrich illusion"—where darkening one eye causes a delay in signal processing to the brain, creating a perception of depth for moving objects. The patent notes that prior solutions using fixed-tint glasses were suboptimal, as the ideal tint level changes based on ambient light and the speed of motion in the video (’380 Patent, col. 3:25-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an electronically controlled pair of spectacles with lenses whose tint (or "optical density") can be adjusted independently for each eye (’380 Patent, Abstract). A control unit, housed in the spectacle frame, receives synchronization signals and adjusts the tint of each lens to dynamically optimize the Pulfrich effect based on the motion and brightness of the video being watched (’380 Patent, col. 23:25-33; Fig. 3). This allows for a continuous, adjustable 3D effect tailored to the specific viewing conditions.
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a more robust and higher-quality 3D viewing experience from ubiquitous 2D content, overcoming the "one-size-fits-all" limitation of passive, fixed-tint 3D glasses (’380 Patent, col. 22:42-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-30, and notes that it may limit its assertions to method claims as the case proceeds (Compl. ¶9, ¶13).
• Independent claim 1, a system claim, recites the following elements:
  • An electronically controlled spectacle includ[ing] a spectacle frame and optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame.
  • The known lenses have a left lens and a right lens, and each of the optoelectronic lenses having a plurality of states, wherein the state of the left lens is independent of the state of the right lens.
  • The electronically controlled spectacle also includes a control unit housed in the frame, the control unit being adapted to control the state of each of the lenses independently.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" these systems which "infringed one or more of claims of the '380 patent" by performing methods of modifying images (Compl. ¶8-9). It further alleges that Defendant "put the inventions claimed by the '380 Patent into service (i.e., used them) before the '380 patent expired" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is contained in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶10). This exhibit was not included with the public filing.

The narrative allegations state that Defendant's "image capture devices" infringed claims of the ’380 Patent and that Defendant "put the inventions claimed... into service (i.e., used them)" (Compl. ¶9). This allegation of "use" suggests a theory of direct infringement of the system claims, such as claim 1. However, without the claim chart or any description of the accused products, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint accuses "image capture devices" of infringing a patent directed to "spectacles" for viewing images (Compl. ¶9; ’380 Patent, Abstract). A central question will be whether the accused instrumentalities fall within the scope of the claims, and how an "image capture device" could be considered an "electronically controlled spectacle."
• Technical Questions: The complaint provides no factual basis to assess how the accused products meet the specific limitations of the claims. For a system claim like claim 1, key questions would include: What component of the accused system constitutes the "spectacle frame" and "optoelectronic lenses"? How does the accused system provide for independent control over the "state" of left and right lenses?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"optoelectronic lenses" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core functional component of the claimed spectacle. Its construction will be critical to determining if the technology in the accused "image capture devices" can be considered equivalent to the claimed "lenses." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely determine whether the patent applies only to wearable eyewear or could be read more broadly.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the invention may be embodied using various technologies, including "electrochromic devices," "suspended particle devices (SPDs)," and "liquid crystal devices (LCDs)" (’380 Patent, col. 27:45-66). This could support an argument that the term covers any electronically controlled light-modulating element, not just a traditional lens.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the invention in the context of "spectacles," "glasses," and devices "to be worn by a viewer," with figures depicting conventional eyewear (e.g., ’380 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 14:62-66). An argument could be made that the term is limited to components suitable for use in such wearable devices.

"control unit being adapted to control the state of each of the lenses independently" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the intelligent aspect of the invention—the ability to dynamically and separately adjust each eye's view. Infringement will depend on whether the accused systems possess a component that performs this specific, independent control function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the control unit receiving synchronization signals from various sources, including "wireless signals (Infrared, radio or sound)" (’380 Patent, col. 22:62-64). This could support a broad reading to include any processor that receives external data to adjust two separate outputs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed embodiments show the control unit implementing specific algorithms to "maximize the Pulfrich illusion" by calculating optimal optical density based on motion and luminance (’380 Patent, col. 23:25-33). This may support a narrower construction requiring the control unit to perform these specific optimization functions, rather than just any form of independent control.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or contributory infringement. It alleges only direct infringement (Compl. ¶11).

Willful Infringement

The complaint makes a conditional allegation of willfulness. It asks the court to declare the infringement willful "provided discovery reveals that Defendant knew (1) knew of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing date of the lawsuit; (2) after acquiring that knowledge, it infringed the patent; and (3) in doing so, it knew, or should have known, that its conduct amounted to infringement" (Compl. p. 6, ¶e).

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

1. Identification of the Accused Instrumentality: The primary and most immediate question is what specific "systems, products, and services" are being accused. The complaint's complete lack of specificity on this point makes any substantive analysis of the dispute impossible and will be a central focus of early discovery.
2. Definitional Scope: A core legal issue will be whether the term "electronically controlled spectacle" as claimed in the patent can be construed to read on the "image capture devices" alleged to infringe. The resolution of this question will likely determine whether the patent has any applicability to the accused technology.
3. Evidentiary Basis for Infringement: Given the patent expired prior to the suit, the case is a backward-looking damages action. A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can muster to show that Defendant "used" a system meeting every limitation of a claim—such as the "optoelectronic lenses" and independent "control unit"—at any point before August 15, 2022.