DCT
4:25-cv-05849
VDPP LLC v. Burger King Co LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
- Defendant: Burger King Company LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 4:25-cv-05849, S.D. Tex., 12/05/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a non-practicing entity, alleges that Defendant’s unspecified image processing and image modification systems infringe two expired patents related to methods for creating visual illusions of sustained motion using a limited number of image frames.
- Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital video processing techniques for creating novel visual effects, specifically the appearance of continuous, non-progressive motion, by repetitively sequencing similar images with a dissimilar "bridging" frame.
- Key Procedural History: Both asserted patents expired prior to the complaint's filing, meaning the lawsuit is exclusively for past monetary damages. The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses and preemptively argues that statutory marking requirements do not apply.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-01-23 | Earliest Priority Date for '902 & '922 Patents |
| 2006-04-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Issued |
| 2018-04-17 | U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issued |
| 2022-01-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Expired |
| 2023-09-09 | U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Expired |
| 2025-12-05 | 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"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty of creating an illusion of continuous movement from a very small, finite number of pictures (e.g., as few as two), noting that prior attempts to commercialize such unique visual phenomena had been "disappointingly compromised" ( Compl. ¶7; ’902 Patent, col. 2:7-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention, termed "Eternalism," proposes a method that involves the repetitive presentation of at least two "substantially similar" image pictures that alternate with a third, "substantially dissimilar" picture, referred to as a "bridging picture" (e.g., a solid black frame) (’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:19-26). This looped sequence, when viewed, creates a perceptual illusion of sustained, ongoing motion without the actual progression typical of standard video, as illustrated in Figures 1a-1c which depict two similar frames (A, B) and a dissimilar frame (C) being arranged into a repeating series (’902 Patent, Fig. 1c).
- Technical Importance: The method enables the creation of novel visual effects from a minimal amount of data, which can be stored, copied, and displayed on motion picture film or electronic media (’902 Patent, col. 2:15-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- selecting at least two visually similar image pictures;
- selecting a dissimilar bridging picture;
- arranging the pictures in a sequential order to create a series;
- placing the series on a plurality of picture frames; and
- repeating the series a plurality of times to create 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"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not specify a problem addressed by this patent. The patent's background section discusses issues related to the slow transition times and limited life-cycles of optoelectronic materials used in adjustable 3D spectacles (’922 Patent, col. 4:26-44).
- The Patented Solution: A notable divergence exists between the ’922 Patent's title/abstract, which focus on 3D filter spectacles, and its asserted claims, which are directed to a video processing apparatus. The complaint's description aligns with the claims, stating the patent is directed to an apparatus for capturing, modifying, blending, and displaying image frames (Compl. ¶13). The claimed solution is an apparatus with a processor that obtains first and second image frames from a video stream, generates modified versions of these frames by "expanding" them, generates a solid-color "bridge frame," and then displays the modified frames and the bridge frame (’922 Patent, col. 114:24-46).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a specific apparatus for implementing video processing techniques to generate visual effects, a foundational technology in digital media systems.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim with the following essential elements:
- a storage adapted to store image frames;
- a processor adapted to:
- obtain a first and 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 solid color bridge frame;
- display the first modified image frame;
- display the second modified image frame; and
- display the bridge frame.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). No specific technical functionality of any Burger King system is described. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references preliminary infringement charts in Exhibits B and D, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). The analysis below is based on the general allegations in the complaint's body. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'902 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) selecting at least two image pictures, a first image picture and a second image picture, which are visually similar | Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" are alleged to perform this step. | ¶9 | col. 14:50-54 |
| b) selecting a bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image pictures | Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" are alleged to perform this step. | ¶9 | col. 14:55-56 |
| c) arranging said pictures in a sequential order to create a first series of pictures... | Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" are alleged to perform this step. | ¶9 | col. 14:57-61 |
| d) placing said first series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames... | Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" are alleged to perform this step. | ¶9 | col. 14:62-64 |
| e) repeating the first series of pictures a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames... | Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" are alleged to create this effect. | ¶9 | col. 14:65-col. 15:2 |
'922 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus comprising: a storage adapted to...store one or more image frames; a processor adapted to: | Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" are alleged to be such an apparatus. | ¶14 | col. 114:25-28 |
| obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream | The processor in Defendant's accused systems is alleged to perform this step. | ¶14 | col. 114:29-30 |
| generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame... | The processor in Defendant's accused systems is alleged to perform this step. | ¶14 | col. 114:31-33 |
| generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame... | The processor in Defendant's accused systems is alleged to perform this step. | ¶14 | col. 114:34-36 |
| generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color... | The processor in Defendant's accused systems is alleged to perform this step. | ¶14 | col. 114:37-39 |
| display the first modified image frame; display the second modified image frame; and display the bridge frame | The processor in Defendant's accused systems is alleged to perform these display steps. | ¶14 | col. 114:40-46 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary question is one of applicability: What systems operated by a fast-food company could plausibly perform the highly specific video processing methods and apparatus functions described in the patents-in-suit?
- Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether any of Defendant’s systems, such as digital menu boards or marketing content systems, actually implement the claimed techniques. For the ’902 patent, this raises the question of whether any system uses a "dissimilar" "bridging picture" to create a sustained motion effect. For the ’922 patent, it raises the question of whether any system performs the specific step of "expanding" image frames as part of its process. The complaint provides no facts to address these technical questions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar" (’902 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of the ’902 patent. The nature of the "bridging picture" and the scope of "dissimilar" will define the boundary between the claimed method and conventional video looping. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a wide or narrow range of video effects infringes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a blank frame, stating it "may also be a strongly contrasting image-picture" (’902 Patent, col. 2:30-32).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments consistently describe the bridging picture as a "solid black or other solid-colored picture" or a "neutral or black frame" (’902 Patent, col. 2:28-30, col. 2:53-54).
- The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This is the specific image modification step required by the apparatus claim of the ’922 patent. Infringement hinges on whether any accused system performs an operation that can be defined as "expanding."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader/Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the ’922 patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition or description of what "expanding" an image frame entails in the context of the invention. This absence of a specific definition in the intrinsic record suggests that its meaning may be a significant point of dispute, likely relying on arguments about its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement, alleging Defendant "used" the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). It does not plead specific facts to support claims for induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is pleaded conditionally. The complaint requests a finding of willfulness "provided discovery reveals that Defendant (1) knew of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing date" (Compl. ¶VI.e). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to present several threshold challenges for the plaintiff that will likely define the early stages of litigation. The key open questions for the court will be:
- The Question of an Accused Instrumentality: The central issue is the complete absence of any identified accused product or service. A threshold question for the case will be whether Plaintiff can, in discovery, identify any specific system, marketing display, or other technology operated by a fast-food chain that plausibly practices the specific video processing techniques claimed in the patents.
- The Evidentiary Question of Technical Operation: Assuming an instrumentality is identified, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: does any accused system actually perform the specific steps of arranging visually similar images with a "dissimilar" "bridging picture" (’902 patent) or modifying video frames by "expanding" them (’922 patent)? The viability of the infringement claims will depend entirely on uncovering evidence of these specific technical operations.