VDPP LLC v. Touch Dynamic Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Touch Dynamic Inc. (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-04177, S.D. Tex., 09/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Houston and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s image processing and image capture systems, products, and services infringe two U.S. patents related to methods and systems for creating stereoscopic 3D visual effects from 2D video content.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves analyzing 2D video for motion and luminance to dynamically control electronically tintable spectacles, or otherwise modifying image frames, to produce a 3D visual illusion for the viewer.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 expired on January 22, 2022, and Plaintiff seeks damages for infringement that occurred prior to its expiration. Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and addresses the issue of patent marking, arguing that prior settlement licenses with other entities did not create a marking obligation under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

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,” issued August 23, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a problem with electronically controlled variable tint materials used to create 3D effects from 2D movies: they are often incapable of the fast transition times required to synchronize with video content, particularly between scenes with significant changes in brightness. A related problem is the limited “cycle life” of these optoelectronic materials. (’452 Patent, col. 2:40-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multiple layers of optoelectronic materials to fabricate the lenses of viewing spectacles. This multi-layer approach is described as enabling faster transition times because the overall change in optical density is distributed across several layers, each requiring a smaller, quicker adjustment. The patent also suggests this can increase the cycle life of the materials. (’452 Patent, col. 2:49-61).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the performance and durability of electronically controlled spectacles designed to generate 3D illusions, making them more practical for consumer use with standard 2D video sources. (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 recites:
  • A system for presenting a video, comprising an apparatus with a storage for image frames and a processor.
  • The processor is adapted to reshape a portion of at least one image frame and cause the frames to be displayed.
  • The system further comprises an electrically controlled spectacle with a frame, left and right optoelectronic lenses, and a control unit.
  • The lenses have a plurality of states, with the state of the left lens being independent of the right lens.
  • The control unit is adapted to control the state of each lens independently.
  • Each lens has a dark state and a light state.
  • When viewing the video, the control unit places both the left and right lens to a dark state.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims.

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: Creating a convincing 3D effect from 2D video using the Pulfrich illusion requires precisely modulating the tint of a viewer's spectacles to correspond with the speed, direction, and brightness of on-screen motion. A static or manually adjusted filter is suboptimal for dynamic video content. (’874 Patent, col. 14:5-20).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method and apparatus that analyzes a source video to acquire motion vectors. It then calculates parameters for lateral speed and direction of motion and generates a "deformation value" based on these parameters and the viewer's inter-ocular distance. This value is applied to the image frame, which is then blended with a "bridge frame" to generate a modified video for display. (’874 Patent, Abstract; col. 42:25-46).
• Technical Importance: This technology automates the process of optimizing a 3D visual effect from standard 2D video, removing the need for specially filmed 3D content and adapting the effect in real-time to the video being viewed. (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 recites a method with the following steps:
  • Acquiring a source video of 2D image frames.
  • Obtaining a first image frame from the video.
  • Generating a modified image frame by performing an action such as expanding, removing a portion of, or stitching the first image frame.
  • Generating a first altered image frame that includes non-overlapping portions derived from the modified image frame.
  • Generating a second altered image frame that includes different non-overlapping portions derived from the modified image frame.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, system, or service by name. It alleges infringement by Defendant’s “systems, products, and services in the field of image processing” and “image capture and modification” generally (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The functionality of the accused instrumentalities is described only in conclusory terms, stating that Defendant “maintains, operates, and administers” systems that directly infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of any specific accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary exemplary claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D to support its allegations of infringement for the ’452 and ’874 Patents, respectively (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). However, these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint. In their absence, the complaint’s narrative theory of infringement alleges that the Defendant “put the inventions claimed by the [Patents-in-Suit] into service (i.e., used them)” (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The pleading does not provide specific factual allegations detailing how any particular product or service meets the limitations of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can identify any specific product or service from Defendant that practices the claimed inventions. The complaint’s current allegations are framed at a high level of generality, raising the question of what evidence supports the claim that Defendant's unspecified systems perform the detailed processing steps or embody the specific apparatus claimed in the patents.
  • Scope Questions: For the ’452 Patent, a potential issue is whether Defendant’s accused systems, once identified, constitute a system that includes both a processor for "reshaping" an image frame and the claimed "electrically controlled spectacle." For the ’874 Patent, a key question may be whether any accused method performs the specific sequence of generating a "modified image frame," followed by generating first and second "altered image frames" with "non-overlapping portions" as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from ’452 Patent, Claim 1: "reshape a portion of at least one of the one or more image frames"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core image-processing function of the claimed apparatus. Its construction will be critical in determining what types of digital image manipulation (e.g., cropping, scaling, stitching, object removal) fall within the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a variety of image manipulations, stating that actions may include "reshaping a portion of an image frame, and relocating a portion of an image frame" (’452 Patent, col. 10:1-3). This language may support a construction that encompasses a wide range of image modification techniques.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description repeatedly discusses blending, stitching, and creating combined or overlayed frames from multiple source or modified frames to create a visual illusion (’452 Patent, col. 10:11-24). This context may support a narrower construction limiting "reshape" to modifications performed for the purpose of creating such combined or blended stereoscopic effects.

• Term from ’874 Patent, Claim 1: "generating a deformation value"

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the output of the core analysis step in the claimed method. The definition of this term will determine whether it requires a value that directly alters image geometry or if it can be a simpler parameter, such as one that controls external viewing hardware.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states the deformation value is generated using an algorithm and "is applied to the image frame to identify a modified image frame." (’874 Patent, Abstract). This could be interpreted broadly to mean any value that leads to a modification, including a value that indirectly causes a modification by controlling external spectacles.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The word "deformation" itself implies a change in form or shape. The claim requires "applying the deformation value to the image frame to identify a modified image frame," which is then blended with other frames (’874 Patent, col. 72:1-12). This may support a construction requiring the value to be used to directly alter the pixel data or structure of the image frame itself.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a prayer for a declaration of willful infringement and an award of treble damages (Compl. p. 7, ¶e). The allegation is predicated on the condition that "provided discovery reveals that Defendant (1) knew of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing date of the lawsuit" and subsequently infringed (Compl. p. 7, ¶e). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant.

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

This case, as currently pled, presents several fundamental questions for the court.

• A threshold procedural issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Do the complaint's allegations, which identify neither a specific accused product nor any particular infringing activity beyond conclusory statements, provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the governing Twombly/Iqbal standard?
• Assuming the case proceeds, a core evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that a specific product or service from Defendant performs the multi-step image modification and blending methods of the ’874 patent or constitutes the complete processor-and-spectacle system claimed in the ’452 patent?
• A key legal issue will be one of definitional scope: How will claim terms such as "reshape a portion" (’452 Patent) and "generating a deformation value" (’874 Patent) be construed? The interpretation of these terms will be central to determining whether the patents cover a broad range of modern image processing technologies or are limited to the specific techniques for creating 3D illusions described in the specifications.