DCT

7:24-cv-00346

VDPP LLC v. Ge Healthcare Tech Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00346, W.D. Tex., 12/30/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper 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 Defendant’s image capture, modification, and display systems, products, and services infringe patents related to stereoscopic 3D viewing technology and methods for modifying video frames.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to technologies for generating three-dimensional visual effects from two-dimensional video content and for improving the performance of active shutter glasses used for 3D viewing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities and argues at length that the patent marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) are not applicable, in part because the licenses did not authorize the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Earliest Priority Date for ’874 and ’444 Patents
2017-07-04 U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 Issues
2017-07-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874 Issues
2024-12-30 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874 - *"Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles for Optimized 3Deeps Stereoscopic Viewing, Control Method and Means therefore, and System and Method of Generating and Displaying a Modified Video,"* Issued July 25, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a method for creating modified video content suitable for 3D viewing, which involves processing image frames from a source video. The background discusses methods for producing 3D images from 2D images, including using the Pulfrich effect which relies on motion vectors and luminance measures to create a 3D illusion. (U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874, col. 1:47-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method for modifying video by obtaining an image frame from a 2D source video, creating a modified frame through operations like expanding, removing a portion, or stitching, and then blending this modified frame with a "bridge frame" (e.g., a non-solid color frame) to generate a final blended frame for display. (’874 Patent, Abstract). The overall system is designed to generate a video that can produce a stereoscopic effect when viewed. (’874 Patent, col. 2:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: This technology purports to enable the generation of 3D-like video content from standard 2D sources, thereby expanding the range of material that can be viewed with a stereoscopic effect without requiring specialized 3D filming equipment. (’874 Patent, col. 1:47-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4. (Compl. ¶8).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • Acquiring a source video comprised of a sequence of 2D image frames.
    • Obtaining a first image frame from the source video.
    • Generating a modified image frame by performing one of three specified actions: (i) expanding the first image frame, (ii) removing a portion of the first image frame, or (iii) stitching the first image frame with a portion of a second image frame.
    • Generating a first altered image frame that includes first and second non-overlapping portions derived from the modified image frame.
    • Generating a second altered image frame that includes third and fourth non-overlapping portions derived from the modified image frame.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 - *"Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials,"* Issued July 4, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "slow transition time" in electronically controlled variable tint materials used in active shutter glasses for 3D viewing. Such materials may take several seconds to change from a clear to a dark state, which can be too slow to synchronize with high-frame-rate video. A related problem is the limited "cycle life" (number of clear-dark cycles before failure) of some materials. (U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444, col. 2:27-44, 60-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multiple layers of optoelectronic material to fabricate the lenses of the spectacles. By using two or more layers, the patent claims that faster transition times can be achieved because each layer undergoes a smaller, and therefore quicker, change in optical density to achieve the desired total effect. This approach can also increase the overall cycle life of the lenses. (’444 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-59). Figure 6b illustrates a multi-layered lens structure. (’444 Patent, Fig. 6b).
  • Technical Importance: This solution aims to improve the performance, responsiveness, and durability of active 3D viewing glasses, enabling a smoother and more reliable synchronization with on-screen content. (’444 Patent, col. 2:48-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-27. (Compl. ¶13). Independent claims include 1, 17, 22, and 26.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • An electrically controlled spectacle for viewing a video, comprising:
    • A spectacle frame.
    • Optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame, comprising a left and right lens, each having a plurality of states, where the state of the left lens is independent of the right lens.
    • A control unit housed in the frame, adapted to control the state of each lens independently.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific GE Healthcare products, systems, or services by name. (Compl. ¶8, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant operates "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" that infringe the ’874 Patent and "systems, products, and services in the field of image image capture, streaming, modification and displaying" that infringe the ’444 Patent. (Compl. ¶8, ¶13). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technical functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D but does not include them in the filing, precluding a detailed, element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations. (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The narrative infringement theory for the ’874 Patent is that Defendant’s systems perform a "method and apparatus adapted to capture and store image frames from different video streams, modify captured image frames, blend modified image frames based on an identified bridge frame, and generate a combined frame for display." (Compl. ¶7). For the ’444 Patent, the complaint alleges Defendant's systems perform "methods and systems for capturing and modifying images." (Compl. ¶12). Without the exhibits, the specific mapping of any accused functionality to the claim elements is not provided.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary legal question may be whether the complaint’s failure to identify a single accused product by name meets the plausibility standard for pleading patent infringement under Federal Circuit precedent.
    • Scope Questions (’874 Patent): A potential point of contention for the ’874 Patent is whether Defendant’s systems, described generically as being in the "field of image capture and modification," perform the highly specific method steps of claim 1, such as generating "altered image frames" containing distinct "non-overlapping portions" derived from a modified frame. (Compl. ¶7; ’874 Patent, col. 72:11-24).
    • Technical Questions (’444 Patent): A fundamental technical question for the ’444 Patent is whether Defendant’s accused "systems, products, and services" include an "electrically controlled spectacle" as required by claim 1. (Compl. ¶13; ’444 Patent, col. 5:56). The complaint’s description of the accused technology focuses on image processing and display, which raises the question of a potential mismatch between the accused instrumentality and the claimed apparatus.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "bridge frame" (’874 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the patented method of video modification. The dispute will likely focus on whether this term is limited to the specific illusion-creating contexts described in the specification or if it can be read more broadly to cover any form of intermediate or transitional frame used in modern video processing.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the bridge frame simply as being a "non-solid color and different from the modified image frame," which could suggest a broad scope. (’874 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description, which incorporates related patents by reference, explains that a "bridging picture" is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" or a "timed unlit-screen pause" used to create "visual illusions" of continuous movement from a finite number of still images. (’874 Patent, col. 3:42-50). This context may support a narrower construction tied to a specific artistic effect.

  • Term: "electrically controlled spectacle" (’444 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the apparatus of claim 1. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether there is any infringement, given that the complaint accuses "systems" for "image capture" rather than eyewear.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not appear to provide a basis from the intrinsic record for a broader interpretation that would cover non-eyewear systems.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract explicitly states the invention "includes a spectacle frame and optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame." (’444 Patent, Abstract). The figures, such as Figure 1, consistently depict a conventional pair of glasses. This intrinsic evidence strongly suggests the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning as a pair of glasses.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include separate counts for indirect or contributory infringement. While it uses the phrase "put the inventions... into service (i.e., used them)," it provides no specific factual allegations regarding knowledge, intent, instruction, or the sale of non-staple components that would be required to plead indirect infringement. (Compl. ¶8, ¶13).
  • Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement and treble damages. (Compl. ¶VII.e). The complaint, however, does not allege any facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit or objectively reckless conduct by the Defendant.

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

  • A foundational issue will be one of identification and pleading sufficiency: Can the complaint survive a motion to dismiss when it fails to identify a single accused product by name, instead alleging infringement by generic "systems" in the "field of image capture"?
  • A key question for the ’444 Patent will be one of apparatus scope: Can the term "electrically controlled spectacle," which the patent specification consistently depicts as eyewear, be construed to read on Defendant’s accused systems for image capture and display, which are not alleged to include any form of glasses?
  • A central evidentiary question for the ’874 Patent will be one of functional operation: Does the accused technology perform the specific, multi-step method of creating "altered image frames" with "non-overlapping portions" by blending them with a "bridge frame," or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical function and purpose of the accused systems?