VDPP LLC v. General Motors Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: General Motors Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00956, W.D. Tex., 08/14/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western 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 alleges that unspecified systems, products, and services offered by Defendant in the field of motion pictures infringe a patent related to electrically controlled spectacles for creating 3D visual effects.
• Technical Context: The technology involves active shutter glasses with variable tint lenses that are electronically controlled to modify light transmission, enabling 3D viewing experiences from 2D content by manipulating visual timing to the viewer's eyes.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent has an extensive continuation history. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, an ex parte reexamination certificate was issued which confirmed the patentability of asserted dependent claims 2 and 4. Asserted independent claim 1 was not reexamined. This post-filing development may influence future arguments regarding claim validity and scope.

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`"

• Patent Identification: 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 (’452 Patent). (Compl. ¶6)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with electronically controlled variable tint spectacles used for 3D viewing, wherein the materials used are too slow to transition between light and dark states. This slow transition time can prevent synchronization with fast-moving content in a motion picture, undermining the desired 3D illusion (such as the Pulfrich effect). A secondary problem identified is the limited "cycle life" of some of these materials. (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-43, 56-62)
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multiple layers of optoelectronic material to fabricate the spectacle lenses. By using two or more layers, the patent asserts that the transition time between optical states can be significantly reduced, even if it results in a "slightly darker clear state." The system includes a control unit housed in the spectacle frame that independently controls the state of the left and right lenses. (’452 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-55)
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve the performance and responsiveness of active shutter glasses, making them more effective at producing stereoscopic effects from standard 2D motion pictures by precisely timing light delivery to each eye. (’452 Patent, col. 2:16-24)

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4. (Compl. ¶8)
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’452 Patent recites:
  • A system for presenting a video, the system comprising:
  • an apparatus comprising a storage and a processor adapted to reshape a portion of one or more image frames; and
  • an electrically controlled spectacle comprising a spectacle frame, optoelectronic left and right lenses with a plurality of states, and a control unit housed in the frame;
  • wherein the state of the left lens is independent of the state of the right lens;
  • wherein the control unit is adapted to control the state of each lens independently;
  • wherein each lens has a dark state and a light state; and
  • wherein when viewing the video the control unit places both the left lens and the right lens to a dark state.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶8)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name. It broadly refers to Defendant's "systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures." (Compl. ¶8)

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any specific details regarding the functionality or operation of any General Motors product. The allegations are framed in abstract terms, stating that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems related to "an electrically controlled spectacle frame and optoelectronmic [sic] lenses housed in the frame." (Compl. ¶¶8, 10). No information is provided to connect this technology to the business of an automotive manufacturer.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is found in a "preliminary exemplary table attached as Exhibit B." (Compl. ¶9). This exhibit was not included with the complaint document. Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges direct infringement by use, asserting that Defendant "put the inventions claimed by the ’452 Patent into service (i.e., used them)." (Compl. ¶8). The narrative theory is that Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services" meet the limitations of at least claims 1-4 of the patent. (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not explain how any instrumentality made or sold by an automotive company would perform the functions of the claimed system, which centers on video presentation and electronic spectacles.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Basis: The primary point of contention is the complaint's complete lack of factual specificity regarding the accused instrumentality. The central question for the court will be whether the plaintiff has plausibly alleged that General Motors, an automotive company, makes, uses, or sells any product or service that falls within the scope of a patent for 3D viewing spectacles.
  • Technical Questions: Without an identified product, no technical comparison is possible. A threshold question is what evidence the complaint provides to suggest that any General Motors system performs the function of placing "both the left lens and the right lens to a dark state" in an "electrically controlled spectacle" when a user is "viewing a video," as required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The profound ambiguity of the complaint places significant weight on the construction of fundamental claim terms to bridge the apparent gap between the patent and the defendant.

"electrically controlled spectacle"

• Context and Importance: This term is the centerpiece of the invention. Whether Defendant provides or uses anything that meets this definition is critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case appears to depend on applying the term to a product category not traditionally associated with "spectacles," such as in-vehicle display systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract defines the invention broadly as including a "spectacle frame and optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame" with a "control unit." (’452 Patent, Abstract). This functional language, if read expansively, might be argued to encompass non-wearable hardware that performs a similar light-filtering function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Filter Spectacles" and repeatedly uses terms like "3Deeps Filter Spectacles," "viewing spectacles," and "sunglasses." (’452 Patent, Title; col. 2:16-17, 3:9-11). The patent’s figures exclusively depict traditional, wearable eyeglasses, which may support a narrower construction limited to devices worn by a user. (’452 Patent, Figs. 1, 5, 11)

"system for presenting a video"

• Context and Importance: This preamble term sets the field of the invention. The infringement theory depends on casting an automotive product or service as such a "system." Its construction will determine whether an in-car infotainment system, for example, can be considered within the patent's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is not explicitly limited to entertainment and could be argued to cover any system that presents video, such as a driver-assist or navigation display.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification is heavily focused on creating 3D illusions for "motion pictures," discussing at length the "Pulfrich illusion," "anaglyph 3D spectacles," and synchronization with movie frames. (’452 Patent, col. 1:45-54; col. 3:9-14). This context suggests the "system" is one intended for viewing entertainment media, not functional vehicle displays.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement by claiming Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others" to use its products and services in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶10-11). No specific facts, such as excerpts from user manuals or marketing materials, are provided to support these conclusory allegations.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’452 Patent from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶10). The complaint seeks a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e)

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

• A core issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint, which accuses an automotive manufacturer of infringing a patent on 3D glasses without identifying a single accused product, meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of product identification: Can the plaintiff demonstrate that General Motors is involved with any product, service, or system—whether an in-car display, a virtual reality tool used in design, or an entertainment partnership—that could plausibly be considered an "electrically controlled spectacle" for "presenting a video" as claimed in the patent?
• A central legal question will involve claim validity and scope: In light of the post-filing reexamination that confirmed dependent claims 2 and 4 but did not address independent claim 1, how will the parties and the court approach the presumption of validity and construction for the full set of asserted claims?