DCT

7:24-cv-00068

VDPP LLC v. HP Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00068, W.D. Tex., 03/04/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified systems and services related to motion pictures infringe a patent directed to electronically controlled eyeglasses that use multi-layered lenses to create 3D visual effects from 2D content.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves active shutter glasses that rapidly alter the tint of each lens independently to create a 3D stereoscopic effect (the Pulfrich illusion) when viewing standard 2D video.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity. An ex parte reexamination certificate for the patent-in-suit, requested after the complaint was filed, confirmed the patentability of claims 2 and 4. Claims 1 and 3 were not reexamined during that proceeding, which may leave the validity of Claim 1 as a potential issue for the court.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 ’452 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2016-08-23 ’452 Patent - Issue Date
2024-03-04 Complaint Filing Date
2024-03-18 ’452 Patent - Reexamination Request Date
2025-04-04 ’452 Patent - Reexamination Certificate Issue Date

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"

  • Issued: August 23, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with existing electronically controlled eyeglasses used to create 3D effects from 2D movies. The variable-tint materials used in the lenses, such as electrochromic materials, often have "slow transition time[s]" and may have a limited "'cycle life' (number of clear-dark cycles before failure)" ('452 Patent, col. 2:25-42, 55-60). These limitations can prevent the glasses from synchronizing effectively with fast-paced on-screen motion, degrading the 3D illusion.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using "multiple layers of electronically controlled variable tint materials" to fabricate the lenses ('452 Patent, col. 1:49-54). By using two or more thin layers instead of one thick one, the patent asserts that the lenses can achieve "faster transition times" between different levels of darkness, as illustrated in the comparative graph of Figure 10 ('452 Patent, col. 1:52-54; Fig. 10).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve the performance and responsiveness of active shutter glasses, making the 3D effect generated from 2D content more convincing and viable for high-frame-rate digital media ('452 Patent, col. 2:30-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1 and 2.
  • Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
    • An apparatus comprising a storage and a processor adapted to "reshape a portion of at least one of ... image frames" and display them.
    • An electrically controlled spectacle with a frame, "optoelectronic lenses" (left and right), and a control unit.
    • A function wherein the control unit "places both the left lens and the right lens to a dark state" when viewing the video.
  • Independent Claim 2 (Apparatus Claim):
    • An apparatus with a storage and a processor.
    • The processor is adapted to perform a series of image manipulation steps, including: obtaining first and second different images from video streams, stitching them together, generating modified frames by "removing a first portion" and a "second portion" of the stitched frame, identifying a "bridge frame," blending the modified frames with the bridge frame, and displaying the resulting "combined frame."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 3-4 (Compl. ¶ 8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶¶ 8-11). It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of motion pictures" allegedly maintained and operated by Defendant (Compl. ¶ 8).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused instrumentalities are functionally "a system related to an electrically controlled spectacle frame and optoelectronmic lenses housed in the frame" (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11). No further details regarding the technical operation or market context of any actual HP product are provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a preliminary exemplary table supporting the infringement allegations is attached as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶ 9). The complaint’s narrative theory alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling or operating systems that practice the methods of the ’452 Patent (Compl. ¶ 8). The complaint further alleges that Defendant’s actions involving "a system related to an electrically controlled spectacle frame and optoelectronmic lenses" cause infringement of claims 1-4 (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A foundational issue will be whether any product or service from HP, a company not primarily known for entertainment hardware, falls within the scope of the claimed "electrically controlled spectacle" (Claim 1) or the specific image-processing "apparatus" of Claim 2. The complaint's failure to identify an accused instrumentality raises the question of whether its allegations are sufficiently plausible.
    • Technical Questions: Should an accused product be identified, a key technical question will be whether it actually performs the functions required by the claims. For Claim 1, this includes whether the product can place both lenses of a spectacle into a "dark state." For Claim 2, this includes whether it performs the specific, multi-step process of stitching, removing portions, blending with a bridge frame, and displaying a combined frame.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a central function of the processor in the claimed system. Its construction is critical because it defines the type of image manipulation covered by the claim. The dispute will likely focus on whether this term covers any generic video processing or is limited to the specific context of creating 3D effects.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests various forms of image manipulation, such as creating the "appearance of the window moving and/or enlarging or shrinking in size" ('452 Patent, col. 6:21-23). This may support an interpretation that covers a range of image alterations beyond simple cropping.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's consistent focus is on creating 3D illusions via the Pulfrich effect. A defendant may argue that "reshape" must be construed in this limited context, rather than covering any arbitrary image processing unrelated to generating a 3D effect with active spectacles.

The Term: "optoelectronic lenses" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core hardware component of the claimed spectacle. The infringement analysis hinges on whether Defendant provides any product that includes or constitutes such lenses.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines these broadly to include "electrochromic devices, suspended particle devices, and polymer dispersed liquid crystal devices," suggesting the term is not limited to a single technology ('452 Patent, col. 2:1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description is overwhelmingly focused on solving problems specific to electrochromic materials ('452 Patent, col. 16:47-65). A party could argue the term should be understood by its function within the "3Deeps Filter Spectacles" system, thereby implicitly limiting its scope to technologies suitable for that application.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, claiming Defendant has "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged knowledge of the ’452 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," indicating a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11, VI.e).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of factual plausibility: can the Plaintiff provide any evidence that Defendant HP Inc. makes, uses, or sells the specific "electrically controlled spectacle" system of Claim 1 or the image-processing apparatus of Claim 2? The complaint's failure to name an accused product suggests this will be an immediate point of challenge.
  • A key legal and technical question will be one of claim scope: if an accused product is identified, does its functionality meet the specific limitations of the claims? In particular, can the term "reshape" in Claim 1 be construed to read on the accused functionality, and does the accused system perform the precise sequence of stitching, modifying, and blending steps required by Claim 2?
  • A final question may concern validity: while claims 2 and 4 were confirmed in a recent reexamination, the system of Claim 1 was not reviewed. This procedural history suggests that the validity of Claim 1 could become a significant battleground if the case progresses past initial pleading challenges.