DCT

7:25-cv-00199

VDPP LLC v. Office Depot LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00199, W.D. Tex., 04/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in Midland, Texas, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services for image capture, modification, and display infringe two patents related to generating 3D visual effects from 2D video content and the specialized spectacles used for viewing them.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for processing 2D video to create a stereoscopic illusion known as the Pulfrich effect, and the electronically controlled eyewear that facilitates this viewing experience.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, but alleges none of these licenses were for the production of a patented article, a point relevant to potential patent marking defenses.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 ’444 and ’874 Patents Earliest Priority Date
2017-07-04 U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 Issues
2017-07-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874 Issues
2025-04-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the "slow transition time" of electronically controlled variable tint materials used in spectacles designed to create 3D effects from 2D movies. This slowness can prevent the spectacles from optimally synchronizing with fast-paced action or scene changes in a film. A related problem is the limited "cycle life" of some of these materials. (’444 Patent, col. 2:28-44; col. 2:61-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using spectacles with "multi-layers of electronically controlled variable tint materials" to achieve faster transition times between different optical density states than a single layer would allow. The abstract describes spectacles with independently controlled left and right lenses, each having multiple states, allowing for dynamic adjustment based on the on-screen content. (’444 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-57; Fig. 6b).
  • Technical Importance: This multi-layer approach was intended to make 3D viewing systems based on the Pulfrich illusion more responsive and effective, particularly for content with rapid changes in motion that require quick adjustments in lens tinting. (’444 Patent, col. 2:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-27 (Compl. ¶8).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • An electrically controlled spectacle for viewing a video, comprising:
    • a spectacle frame;
    • optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame, the lenses comprising a left lens and a right lens, each of the optoelectrical lenses having a plurality of states;
    • wherein the state of the left lens is independent of the state of the right lens; and
    • a control unit housed in the frame, the control unit being adapted to control the state of each of the lenses independently.

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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a systematic method to generate modified video content suitable for creating a 3D stereoscopic effect when viewed with specialized filter spectacles. (’874 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:19-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method for processing a 2D video stream. It involves obtaining an image frame, analyzing its motion vectors to calculate parameters for lateral speed and direction, generating a "deformation value" based on these parameters, and applying this value to create a modified image frame. This modified frame is then blended with a "bridge frame" to produce the final output for display. (’874 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:25-67).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provides an automated method for converting standard 2D video into content that can produce a 3D effect, by algorithmically analyzing and modifying video frames based on their intrinsic motion data. (’874 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method comprising the steps of:
    • acquiring a source video comprised of a sequence of 2D image frames;
    • obtaining an image frame from the source video that includes two or more motion vectors that describe motion;
    • calculating a single parameter for lateral speed and a single parameter for direction of motion using the motion vectors;
    • generating a deformation value by applying an algorithm that uses both of the parameters;
    • applying the deformation value to the image frame to identify a modified image frame; and
    • blending the modified image frame with a bridge frame that is a non-solid color and different from the modified image frame, to generate a blended frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image image capture, streaming, modification and displaying" (’444 Patent allegations) and "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" (’874 Patent allegations) that are maintained, operated, or administered by Defendant. (Compl. ¶8, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim chart exhibits (Exhibits B and D) that were not provided with the filed complaint; therefore, the analysis is based on the narrative allegations. (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

  • ’444 Patent Infringement Theory: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s unnamed systems, products, and services infringe one or more claims of the ’444 Patent. (Compl. ¶8). It does not explain how these accused instrumentalities meet the limitations of the asserted claims, which are directed to an "electrically controlled spectacle."
  • ’874 Patent Infringement Theory: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s unnamed systems, products, and services infringe one or more claims of the ’874 Patent. (Compl. ¶13). It does not provide specific facts explaining how these instrumentalities perform the claimed method of generating and displaying a modified video.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions (’444 Patent): A central dispute may concern the scope of the term "electrically controlled spectacle." The complaint accuses broad "systems, products, and services" (Compl. ¶8), while the patent claims appear directed to a physical eyewear device with a "spectacle frame" and "lenses housed in the frame." (’444 Patent, col. 5:50-55). This raises the question of whether a software system or a distributed service can constitute a "spectacle" as claimed.
    • Technical Questions (’874 Patent): For the method claims of the ’874 patent, the analysis may focus on whether the accused instrumentalities actually perform the claimed steps. The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused systems "generat[e] a deformation value" or "blend[] the modified image frame with a bridge frame" as required by claim 1. (Compl. ¶13; ’874 Patent, col. 8:36-47).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement case for the ’444 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint’s accusation against general "systems, products, and services" (Compl. ¶8) may not align with the patent’s apparent focus on a physical eyewear device.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition that would broaden the term beyond its ordinary meaning.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts the invention as a physical pair of glasses. (e.g., ’444 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 5, Fig. 11). The claim language itself, requiring a "spectacle frame" and "lenses housed in the frame," provides strong intrinsic evidence for a construction limited to a physical eyewear apparatus. (’444 Patent, col. 5:51-53).

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

  • Context and Importance: This term is a key element of the final step of the asserted method claim in the ’874 Patent. The infringement determination will depend on whether any component of the accused process can be identified as a "bridge frame" that is blended with a modified image.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 requires only that the bridge frame be of a "non-solid color" and "different from the modified image frame." (’874 Patent, col. 8:44-46).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, which is substantially similar to that of the ’444 patent, describes a "bridging interval" or "bridging picture" that is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" or even a "timed unlit-screen pause." (’444 Patent, col. 4:43-50). This creates potential tension with the claim 1 requirement of a "non-solid color," which may become a point of contention during claim construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "put the inventions claimed... into service" and that its actions "caused those claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform." (Compl. ¶8, ¶13). These allegations suggest a theory of induced infringement but do not include specific facts regarding knowledge or intent, such as citations to user manuals or marketing materials that instruct users to perform the claimed methods.
  • Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests a declaration that infringement has been willful and seeks treble damages. (Compl. ¶e, p. 6). The complaint does not allege any specific facts, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents, to support this claim.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "electrically controlled spectacle" from the ’444 patent, which the specification depicts as physical eyewear, be construed to cover the defendant's broadly alleged "systems, products, and services"?
  2. A second issue will be one of claim construction and potential invalidity: does the term "bridge frame" in the ’874 patent, which is required by the claim to be of a "non-solid color," encompass embodiments described in the specification as "solid black or other solid-colored picture[s]," and if not, does this raise questions about the claim's written description support?
  3. A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: given the absence of specific factual allegations mapping accused instrumentalities to claim elements, what evidence can the Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that Defendant’s systems perform each step of the method claimed in the ’874 patent, particularly the generation of a "deformation value" and blending with a "bridge frame"?