VDPP LLC v. Nissan North America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Nissan North America, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00957, W.D. Tex., 08/14/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant having a "regular and established place of business" in the district, in addition to selling products and committing alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified systems, products, and services infringe a patent related to electrically controlled spectacles that use multi-layer variable tint materials to create 3D visual effects from motion pictures.
• Technical Context: The technology involves active shutter glasses designed to rapidly alter the tint of each lens independently, enabling the creation of 3D illusions (such as the Pulfrich effect) from standard 2D video content.
• Key Procedural History: An Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the patent-in-suit was issued on April 4, 2025. The certificate confirmed the patentability of asserted claims 2 and 4, while claims 1 and 3 were not reexamined. This action may strengthen the presumption of validity for the confirmed claims.

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of slow transition times in electronically controlled variable tint materials used for 3D viewing spectacles. Such materials may not be able to switch between clear and dark states fast enough to synchronize with rapid on-screen motion, limiting the effectiveness of the 3D illusion (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-42). A related problem is the limited "cycle life" of these materials, which can degrade after many clear-dark cycles (’452 Patent, col. 2:56-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes fabricating the spectacle lenses from multiple layers of variable tint material. This multi-layer construction allows for faster overall state transitions because each individual layer only needs to undergo a smaller, and therefore quicker, change in optical density to contribute to the total desired effect (’452 Patent, col. 2:48-55; FIG. 6b). FIG. 10 graphically illustrates how a double-layer lens can achieve a target transmissivity significantly faster than a single-layer lens (’452 Patent, FIG. 10).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve the performance and responsiveness of active shutter glasses, making it feasible to create a compelling, real-time 3D effect from 2D content by precisely synchronizing lens states to on-screen lateral motion (’452 Patent, col. 2:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 2, and dependent claims 3 and 4.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system for presenting a video, comprising:
  • An apparatus with a storage and a processor adapted to "reshape a portion" of a video frame.
  • An "electrically controlled spectacle" with a frame, a control unit, and independently controllable left and right optoelectronic lenses.
  • Each lens has a dark state and a light state.
  • The control unit "places both the left lens and the right lens to a dark state" when viewing the video.
• Independent Claim 2 recites an apparatus for video processing, comprising:
  • A storage and a processor.
  • The processor is adapted to perform a sequence of steps including obtaining first and second different images, stitching them together, generating multiple "modified image frames" by removing portions, identifying a "bridge frame," and blending the modified frames with the bridge frame to generate blended frames, which are then overlaid and displayed.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (’452 Patent, col. 46:17-47:4; Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, service, or vehicle model. It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide any description of the technical functionality of an accused instrumentality. It makes only conclusory allegations that Defendant's unspecified products and services perform infringing methods or processes (Compl. ¶2, ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in an "Exhibit B," but this exhibit was not included with the provided filing (Compl. ¶9). The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the narrative allegations, which lack specific factual support linking any accused product to the claim elements.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Link: The primary question is the factual basis for the suit. The complaint does not explain the connection between an automobile manufacturer (Nissan) and a patent on 3D viewing spectacles. It fails to identify any accused product, leaving it unclear whether the infringement theory targets an in-vehicle infotainment system, a service, or another unspecified instrumentality.
  • Scope Questions: A threshold issue for the court will be whether any Nissan product or system falls within the scope of the claimed "apparatus" for video processing or the "electrically controlled spectacle." For Claim 2, which was confirmed in reexamination, a key question is whether any Nissan product performs the highly specific "stitching," "blending," and "modifying" process described as "Eternalism" in the patent's specification (’452 Patent, col. 33:45-46).
  • Technical Questions: For Claim 1, a central technical question is what evidence exists that an accused system performs the claimed function of causing the spectacle's control unit to place "both the left lens and the right lens to a dark state" during video viewing. The patent specification notes this state is for an alternate "sunglasses" function, raising the question of how it relates to active video presentation as required by the claim (’452 Patent, col. 21:31-39).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint's lack of detail makes it difficult to pinpoint specific disputes, but the following terms are fundamental to the patent's scope.

• The Term: "electrically controlled spectacle"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the central hardware component of the claimed invention. The entire case hinges on whether Plaintiff can tie an accused Nissan system to such a device. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the claims are limited to wearable eyeglass-type devices or could be construed more broadly, and to challenge the link between the defendant and this claim element.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "spectacle" and focus on the functional components: a frame, lenses, and a control unit. The specification also refers to various types of optoelectronic materials, suggesting the invention is not limited to one specific technology (’452 Patent, col. 19:1-42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The entirety of the patent's description, including the title, abstract, and figures (e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 5), consistently depicts a traditional, wearable pair of glasses. A defendant would likely argue that the term must be construed in this specific context.

• The Term: "reshape a portion of at least one of the one or more image frames" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the video processing function of the apparatus in the system of Claim 1. Its construction will determine whether standard video playback functions (like scaling an image to fit a screen) fall within the claim's scope, or if it requires more specialized image manipulation intended to create a 3D effect.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "reshape" is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument that it encompasses any alteration of a frame's geometry or content.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification extensively describes specific image manipulations—such as creating "Eternalisms" by stitching, blending, and offsetting images—to produce visual illusions (’452 Patent, col. 33:20-col. 34:65). A court may read the term "reshape" in light of these specific disclosures, potentially limiting it to manipulations related to creating 3D or other optical effects.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" to use its products in an infringing manner. It alleges contributory infringement on the same basis. No specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, are provided to support these claims (Compl. ¶10, ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10, ¶11). The prayer for relief seeks treble damages, indicating an intent to pursue a claim for post-suit willful infringement (Compl. p. 5, ¶e).

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of factual linkage: What specific Nissan product is being accused, and what evidence does Plaintiff possess to connect its functionality to the "electrically controlled spectacle" and video processing methods recited in the patent? The complaint’s failure to identify an accused instrumentality presents a significant initial hurdle for the Plaintiff.
• A key issue will be one of technical infringement: Assuming a product is identified, does its operation meet the specific, and arguably narrow, limitations of the asserted claims? This includes the "both lenses dark" state required by Claim 1 and the complex "Eternalism" video synthesis process required by Claim 2.
• A strategic question will be the impact of the reexamination: How will the confirmation of claims 2 and 4 during Ex Parte Reexamination influence case strategy? This procedural event strengthens the validity of the claims covering the complex video processing method, potentially encouraging Plaintiff to focus discovery on finding evidence of infringement for those specific claims.