VDPP LLC v. Frontier Airlines Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Frontier Airlines, Inc. (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:26-cv-00514, S.D. Tex., 01/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified systems and services related to image processing infringe two expired patents concerning methods for creating illusions of motion from a finite number of images.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital image and video processing techniques for creating an appearance of sustained motion or three-dimensional effects using a limited set of repeating image frames.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes a history of prior settlement licenses with other entities. The complaint asserts that both patents-in-suit expired prior to the filing of the suit, limiting any potential damages to the period before their expiration dates in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Case Timeline

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 describes the challenge of creating an illusion of continuous motion, which traditionally requires a long series of unique, non-repetitive pictures (like in a movie). Prior art methods for creating such effects from a small number of images were limited to transient live performances that could not be easily recorded or commercialized (ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method, termed "Eternalism," that uses a finite number of pictures—as few as two "substantially similar" image pictures and one "substantially dissimilar" bridging picture (e.g., a solid black frame)—arranged in a repeating sequence or loop. This repetitive presentation is intended to create for the viewer a perceptual illusion of sustained, seamless movement without the need for a large number of unique frames (ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:15-30). The patent also describes enhancing this effect by blending adjacent pictures in the sequence (ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:56-65).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for creating novel artistic visual effects of sustained motion that were impossible in actual life and could be stored and reproduced on film or electronic media (ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:15-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-11, with claim 1 being independent (Compl. ¶9).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • selecting at least two visually similar image pictures;
  • selecting a dissimilar bridging picture;
  • arranging the pictures in a sequential order comprising the image pictures and the bridging picture;
  • placing this series of pictures onto a plurality of picture frames; and
  • repeating the series a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of frames that, when viewed, creates 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 patent background discusses challenges with various methods for viewing 3D images, including the cost and complexity of producing 3D motion pictures and the limitations of existing 3D filter spectacles ('922 Patent, col. 2:40-45; col. 6:53-7:18).
• The Patented Solution: While the patent title focuses on 3D spectacles, the asserted claims and the complaint's description focus on an apparatus for image processing. The complaint characterizes the invention as a system that captures, stores, modifies, and blends image frames from video streams based on a "bridge frame" to generate a combined frame for display (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 claims an apparatus with a processor adapted to obtain two image frames, generate modified versions of them by "expanding" them, generate a solid-color "bridge frame," and then display the modified image frames ('922 Patent, col. 114:26-47).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention provides a specific apparatus-based implementation for modifying and displaying image frames to create visual effects, potentially related to the "Eternalism" concept of the parent '902 patent ('922 Patent, col. 8:1-9:10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-12, with claims 1 and 9 being independent (Compl. ¶14).
• Independent Claim 1 requires an apparatus with a storage and a processor adapted to:
  • obtain a first image frame and a 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 bridge frame of a solid color;
  • display the first modified image frame; and
  • display the second modified image frame.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but references claims 1-12 generally (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific product, system, method, or service provided by Defendant Frontier Airlines (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint broadly alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). It provides no details on the technical functionality of these accused instrumentalities or how they relate to the business of an airline. The complaint does not contain sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that infringement charts are attached as Exhibits B and D (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). As these exhibits were not provided, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is limited to conclusory statements that Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services" practice the claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The complaint does not explain what these systems are, what they do, or how their operation maps to the specific limitations of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Specificity Question: The primary point of contention will be the complaint's failure to identify any accused instrumentality. A central question for the court will be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief against an airline for infringing patents directed to artistic video effects.
• Scope Questions: Should the case proceed, a key dispute will concern the applicability of the patent claims to the operations of a commercial airline. For example, a question for the court will be whether any image processing performed by Defendant, such as for in-flight entertainment or marketing, falls within the scope of a method for creating an "appearance of continuous movement" as claimed in the ’902 Patent. Similarly, it is unclear how an airline's systems would perform the "expanding" of image frames required by the ’922 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902

• The Term: "visually similar" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The relationship between the two "image pictures" is foundational to the claimed method. The definition of "visually similar" will determine how different the two source images can be while still falling within the claim, which is central to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example of "two side-by-side frames taken from a movie film showing movement of an object," noting such frames "would be similar to each other but not identical" (’902 Patent, col. 5:55-60). This may suggest the term requires images taken from sequential moments in time of the same scene.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification also describes an embodiment where the two images are "identical except that one is off-center from the other" (’902 Patent, col. 3:55-57). This could support an interpretation that covers any two images that are largely the same but have a slight positional or compositional difference, regardless of their origin.

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922

• The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This active processing step is a core limitation of the claimed apparatus. Its definition will be critical to determining infringement, as it requires a specific type of image modification. Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning is not explicitly defined.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "expanding" is not defined, which may support an argument for giving it a plain and ordinary meaning, such as increasing the dimensions or scale of the image or a portion thereof.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ’922 patent incorporates the specification of the ’902 patent, which discusses various image manipulations like offsetting or superimposing images (’902 Patent, col. 3:55-57; col. 5:46-52). A party might argue that "expanding" should be read in light of these more specific disclosures and not as a simple digital zoom.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not contain specific allegations of fact to support claims for induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on direct infringement by use (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint includes a conditional request for a finding of willful infringement and treble damages, contingent upon discovery revealing that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit (Compl. p. 7, ¶e).

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

1. Plausibility of Infringement: A threshold issue will be whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief under the standards of Twombly and Iqbal. The complete absence of any identified accused product or service, combined with the apparent mismatch between the claimed video-art technology and the known business of an airline, raises a fundamental question of whether the lawsuit can proceed past a motion to dismiss.

2. Technological Applicability: The case will turn on whether the Plaintiff can connect the patented methods—which are described in the context of creating artistic, illusionary video effects—to any specific process or system actually used by Frontier Airlines. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical relevance: do any of the Defendant's operations, whether in marketing, training, or in-flight systems, perform the specific steps of selecting "visually similar" and "dissimilar" frames in a repeating loop to create a "continuous movement" illusion?

3. Claim Scope in Context: If an accused system is identified, a central legal question will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the context of artistic visual media, such as "visually similar image pictures" and "expanding" an image frame, be construed to cover functionalities within a commercial aviation enterprise system that were not contemplated by the patent disclosure?