DCT

4:25-cv-05905

VDPP LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-05905, S.D. Tex., 12/09/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified image processing systems and services infringe two expired patents related to methods for creating illusions of three-dimensional motion from two-dimensional images.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to digital image manipulation techniques for creating 3D or sustained-motion effects from a limited number of 2D source images, a field relevant to digital media, entertainment, and visual effects.
  • Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit expired prior to the complaint's filing, limiting any potential relief to monetary damages for past infringement. The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and includes detailed arguments attempting to preempt a defense of failure to mark under 35 U.S.C. § 287 by referencing prior settlement licenses that allegedly did not involve the production of patented articles.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Earliest 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 describes the difficulty of creating and commercializing visual effects of continuous motion that are derived from a finite number of pictures, noting that prior methods were limited to transient live performances and were not suitable for storable media like film or electronic files (U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, col. 2:6-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention, termed "Eternalism," proposes a method to create an illusion of sustained, seamless motion by repetitively displaying a sequence of at least three pictures: two that are "substantially similar" image pictures (e.g., frames A and B) and a third "bridging picture" that is "substantially dissimilar" (e.g., a solid black frame C) ('902 Patent, col. 2:15-31). By repeatedly looping this sequence (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...), the method creates the perception of continuous movement without requiring a large number of unique frames ('902 Patent, col. 2:41-55).
  • Technical Importance: The method provided a way to capture and reproduce a unique optical illusion on permanent, distributable media, moving the effect from the realm of performance art to commercial video and film production ('902 Patent, col. 2:15-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
    • selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and second image picture);
    • selecting a bridging picture which is dissimilar to the image pictures;
    • arranging the pictures in a sequential order comprising one or more first image pictures, one or more second image pictures, and one or more bridging pictures;
    • placing this series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames; and
    • repeating the series a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames that, when viewed, produce 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,” issued April 17, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: While the patent's title and background discuss active spectacles for 3D viewing, the asserted claims focus on a different problem: the generation of image sequences for display. The complaint alleges the patent is directed to methods to "capture and store image frames... modify... blend... and generate a combined frame" (Compl. ¶13).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution recited in the asserted independent claim is an apparatus with a processor that performs specific image manipulation steps. It obtains two image frames from a video stream, generates modified versions of each frame by "expanding" them, generates a solid-color "bridge frame" that is different from the modified frames, and then displays the modified frames ('922 Patent, claim 1). This claimed process aligns conceptually with the "Eternalism" method of the '902 patent.
  • Technical Importance: The patent claims a specific, processor-based implementation for generating a sequence of modified images from a video source, which could be used to create visual effects for 3D or enhanced-motion viewing.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14). Independent apparatus claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
    • a storage adapted to store one or more image frames;
    • a processor adapted to:
      • obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first 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 bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color and is different from the modified image frames;
      • display the first modified image frame; and
      • display the second modified image frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, system, 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, features, or market context for any accused instrumentality is provided. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D but does not include them with the pleading (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). The narrative infringement allegations are conclusory and lack factual detail. The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems" that directly infringed the patents prior to their expiration (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). It does not, however, describe how any particular system performs the steps recited in the asserted claims. For example, for the ’902 Patent, the complaint does not explain how an accused system selects "visually similar" images and a "dissimilar" bridging picture, arranges them, and repeats the sequence. For the ’922 Patent, it does not explain how an accused system generates modified frames by "expanding" them or generates and displays a solid-color bridge frame.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: A threshold dispute may concern whether the complaint provides sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief. The complete absence of an identified accused instrumentality raises the question of how Plaintiff can support its allegations that Defendant's systems practice each limitation of the asserted claims.
    • Scope Questions: Should an accused system be identified, a likely point of contention for the '902 Patent will be whether the system's process for transitioning between images or scenes constitutes the use of a "dissimilar" "bridging picture" as claimed. For the ’922 Patent, a key question will be whether any modification performed by an accused system constitutes "expanding the first image frame" as required by the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology, certain terms may become central to the case.

  • The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar" ('902 Patent, claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the scope of the claim. Infringement may depend on whether a wide variety of video transition effects can be considered a "dissimilar" "bridging picture," or if the term is limited to more specific interruptions, such as a blank frame.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "dissimilar," which could be argued to encompass any frame that is visually distinct from the primary image frames.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides examples of the bridging picture as "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" or a "neutral or black frame," which may support a narrower construction ('902 Patent, col. 2:27-31, 2:53-54).
  • The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" ('922 Patent, claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: The claim requires a specific modification action: "expanding." The infringement analysis for the '922 patent hinges on whether an accused process performs this specific type of modification, as opposed to other digital alterations like cropping, shrinking, or reshaping.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "expanding" should be interpreted broadly to include any form of digital scaling or resizing that makes the image or a portion of it larger.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "expanding," which could lead to a focus on its plain and ordinary meaning. The lack of specific examples or alternative definitions in the specification may suggest that the term should be limited to a standard geometric scaling operation and not other, more complex image transformations.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a prayer for a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages (Compl. p.6-7, ¶f). This is based on a conclusory allegation that if discovery reveals pre-suit knowledge, Defendant "knew, or should have known, that its conduct amounted to infringement" (Compl. p.6, ¶e). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A primary issue will be one of procedural sufficiency: given the complaint's failure to identify any specific accused product, system, or service, the initial question for the court may be whether the pleadings meet the plausibility standard required to proceed to discovery.
  • A key technical question will be one of process mapping: if the case proceeds, can the abstract, method-based steps of the patents—such as selecting "visually similar" images, inserting a "dissimilar bridging picture," or "expanding" a frame—be demonstrably mapped onto the concrete operations of any of Defendant's complex, modern image processing technologies?
  • The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "expanding," as used in the '922 patent, be construed to cover general-purpose digital video scaling or modification algorithms, or is it limited to a more specific form of image manipulation that may not be present in Defendant's systems?