DCT

4:25-cv-05900

VDPP LLC v. Inter IKEA Systems BV

Key Events

Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
- Defendant: Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (Netherlands)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
Case Identification: 4:25-cv-05900, S.D. Tex., 12/09/2025
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 patent infringement within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services for image processing infringe two patents related to methods for creating an illusion of sustained motion and three-dimensional effects from a finite number of two-dimensional images.
Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital image processing techniques that generate an appearance of continuous movement by cyclically displaying two or more similar images separated by a dissimilar "bridging" image.
Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. The complaint notes that both patents-in-suit have expired, limiting any potential damages to the period before their respective expiration dates. The complaint also references prior settlement licenses with other entities, which may raise questions regarding compliance with statutory marking requirements, although Plaintiff argues that those requirements are not applicable.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	Priority Date for ’902 and ’922 Patents
2006-04-18	’902 Patent Issue Date
2018-04-17	’922 Patent Issue Date
2022-01-22	’922 Patent Expiration Date
2023-09-09	’902 Patent Expiration Date
2025-12-09	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,” issued April 18, 2006

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating the appearance of continuous, seamless motion from a very limited number of images, such as two, without the jarring effect of a visible loop or repetition that would occur with simple alternation (’902 Patent, col. 1:21-27). It also notes that prior attempts to record unique, live-performance visual effects via video were "disappointingly compromised" (’902 Patent, col. 2:7-9).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using at least two "substantially similar" image pictures and a third, dissimilar "bridging picture," which is often a solid color like black. These pictures are arranged in a repeating sequence (e.g., Image A, Image B, Bridge C) and displayed to a viewer. This cycle, when repeated, creates an "illusion of continuous, seamless and sustained directional movement" from the two source images (’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-27). The patent also discloses blending adjacent images to create smoother transitions and a more fluid effect (’902 Patent, col. 2:56-66).
Technical Importance: This method provides a technique to generate compelling motion effects with minimal data, a valuable attribute for digital media where storage and bandwidth can be constraints (’902 Patent, col. 2:18-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9).
Independent Claim 1 requires:
- selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and a second);
- selecting a bridging picture that is dissimilar to the image pictures;
- arranging the pictures in a sequential order comprising the first, second, and bridging pictures;
- placing this series of pictures on a plurality of frames; and
- repeating the series multiple times to create the appearance of continuous movement for a viewer.

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - “Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials,” issued April 17, 2018

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: While the patent title refers to 3D spectacles, the asserted claims are directed to image processing. The technical challenge implicitly addressed by the claims is the efficient creation of motion effects by manipulating existing video frames rather than creating new content from scratch (’922 Patent, col. 114:28-47).
The Patented Solution: The patent claims an apparatus, comprising storage and a processor, that implements a method similar to that of the ’902 Patent. The processor is adapted to obtain image frames from a video stream, generate "modified" image frames by performing a specific action such as expanding, stitching, or reshaping the original frames, generate a solid-color "bridge frame," and then display the sequence of modified frames and the bridge frame. (’922 Patent, col. 114:26-47 (Claim 1)). This recasts the core inventive concept as a tangible system rather than a pure method.
Technical Importance: By claiming an apparatus with a processor adapted to perform specific functions, the patent covers concrete hardware and software systems that execute these image manipulation techniques, potentially simplifying the identification of infringing products (’922 Patent, col. 114:26-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts one or more of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14).
Independent Claim 1 requires an apparatus with:
- a storage for image frames;
- a processor adapted to:
  - obtain a first and second image frame from a video stream;
  - generate first and second modified image frames by expanding the original frames;
  - generate a solid-color bridge frame dissimilar to the original frames; and
  - display the first modified frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified frame.
Other independent claims (5, 9, 11) recite similar systems where the modification step is "stitching," "inserting," or "reshaping" rather than "expanding."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, services, or systems by name (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). It refers generally to Defendant’s "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality. It alleges that support for its infringement allegations can be found in exhibits attached to the complaint; however, these exhibits were not included in the provided documents (Compl. ¶10, ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits that are not provided (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). The narrative allegations state only that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services" that infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). Without the referenced exhibits or more detailed factual allegations, a direct comparison of accused functionality to claim elements is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint’s general allegations, absent specific product identification and the referenced exhibits, meet the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement.
Scope Questions: Should the case proceed, a primary dispute will be identifying the specific accused instrumentalities. Once identified, a scope question for the ’902 Patent will be what constitutes "visually similar" images in the context of Defendant’s systems. For the ’922 Patent, a key question will be whether any accused processor performs the specific modification steps recited in the claims (e.g., "expanding," "stitching").
Technical Questions: The central technical question will be whether any identified accused system actually performs the claimed sequence of selecting, arranging, modifying, and repeatedly displaying images with a dissimilar "bridging" picture to create a motion effect.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’902 Patent:
- The Term: "visually similar" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to defining the relationship between the core images used to create the motion effect. The scope of this term will determine whether a wide or narrow range of image pairs falls within the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a qualitative descriptor central to the core inventive concept.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the images can be "identical except that one is off-center from the other," indicating that similarity can be based on object identity rather than precise pixel-for-pixel correspondence (’902 Patent, col. 4:55-57).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states the images are preferably "side-by-side frame exposures from a motion picture film" where "only a slight difference is noted between the two images," which may support a narrower construction requiring a high degree of resemblance derived from sequential capture (’902 Patent, col. 4:50-55).
For the ’922 Patent:
- The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific processing step performed by the claimed apparatus. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as it distinguishes the claim from other claims in the patent that recite different modifications (e.g., "stitching" or "reshaping").
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition of "expanding," which may support an interpretation based on its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering various forms of digital scaling or zooming.
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that, in the context of the patent as a whole, "expanding" must refer to a specific type of image manipulation intended to create the "Eternalism" visual effect, and not merely any generic resizing function. The lack of a specific definition, however, may make this a difficult position to support solely from intrinsic evidence.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not include separate counts for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that "but for Defendant's actions, the claimed-inventions embodiments involving Defendant's products and services would never have been put into service," language that hints at a theory of inducement (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint makes a placeholder allegation for willful infringement, stating that discovery may reveal Defendant knew of the patents prior to the lawsuit (Compl. p. 6, ¶e). It seeks a declaration of willfulness and treble damages in its prayer for relief but offers no specific factual basis for pre-suit knowledge (Compl. p. 7, ¶f).

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

Identification of the Accused Technology: The most immediate and critical question is one of factual specificity: can the Plaintiff identify, through discovery or amended pleadings, specific instrumentalities (e.g., software in a product configurator, a feature in an app, an in-store display system) that allegedly practice the claimed methods? Without this, the case may face significant challenges in moving forward.
Definitional Scope: A core legal issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court define key terms like "visually similar" (’902 Patent) and the specific modification verbs like "expanding" (’922 Patent)? The outcome of claim construction will substantially narrow or broaden the scope of infringement.
Technical Operation: A central evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: assuming an accused system is identified, does its underlying software architecture and operation map onto the specific, sequential steps required by the claims—namely, the selection of similar images, the generation or selection of a dissimilar "bridge" image, and the cyclical repetition of this sequence to create an optical illusion?