VDPP LLC v. Rivian Automotive Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Rivian Automotive, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00397, W.D. Tex., 09/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle systems for image capture and display infringe two patents related to generating three-dimensional visual effects from standard two-dimensional video streams.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using electronically controlled variable-tint lenses that dynamically adjust based on lateral motion in a video, creating a 3D stereoscopic illusion for the viewer.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities concerning its patent portfolio.

Case Timeline

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 problem of slow transition times in electronically controlled variable tint materials, such as electrochromic lenses, which can prevent effective synchronization with rapid scene changes in motion pictures to create a 3D effect (’444 Patent, col. 2:27-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multiple layers of optoelectronic materials to fabricate the lenses of viewing spectacles. This multi-layer construction is described as enabling faster transitions between different optical density states than a single layer would allow, thereby improving the performance of 3D-effect generation. (’444 Patent, col. 2:53-60; Fig. 6b).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve the viability of using the Pulfrich stereoscopic illusion for consumer media by addressing the physical limitations of existing variable-tint materials. (’444 Patent, col. 2:27-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-27. Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim directed to the spectacles themselves.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An apparatus for presenting a video comprising an electrically controlled spectacle with a frame and optoelectronic lenses.
  • The lenses include a left and a right lens, each with a plurality of states, where the state of the left lens is independent of the right lens.
  • A control unit housed in the frame is adapted to control the state of each lens independently.
  • Each of the optoelectronic lenses comprises a plurality of layers of optoelectronic material.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of a range of claims (1-27) implies they are included. (Compl. ¶9).

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 challenge of creating a robust 3D illusion from 2D video, which requires precise control over viewing filters to match the specific speed and direction of motion within the video frames. (’874 Patent, col. 3:39-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method for analyzing a 2D video to extract motion vectors, calculating parameters like lateral speed and direction, and using this data to generate a "deformation value." This value is applied to an image frame to create a modified or "altered" frame, which is then blended with a "bridge frame" to produce the final video for viewing. (’874 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:29-45).
• Technical Importance: This invention sought to automate and optimize the generation of 3D effects from 2D source material by computationally processing the video content itself, rather than relying on static filters. (’874 Patent, col. 5:29-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-4. Independent claim 1 is a method claim for generating modified video.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method for generating modified video.
  • Acquiring a source video and obtaining a first image frame.
  • Generating a modified image frame by performing one of several specific actions: expanding the frame, removing a portion of the frame, or stitching the frame with a portion of a second frame.
  • Generating a first "altered" image frame that includes first and second "non-overlapping portions" derived from the original and modified frames.
  • Generating a second "altered" image frame that includes third and fourth "non-overlapping portions."
• The complaint’s assertion of claims 1-4 suggests that dependent claims 2-4 are also at issue. (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not explicitly name any accused products. It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of image image capture, streaming, modification and displaying" that are maintained, operated, and administered by Defendant Rivian Automotive, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). Given the defendant's business, these allegations may be directed at in-vehicle camera, sensor, and display systems.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It alleges that Rivian sells and offers to sell products and services throughout Texas. (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D but does not include these exhibits in the filing. (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). Accordingly, the specific factual basis for the infringement allegations is not detailed in the provided document, and a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory for the ’444 Patent alleges that Defendant’s systems for image capture and display infringe claims directed to electronically controlled spectacles. (Compl. ¶9). For the ’874 Patent, the complaint alleges that Defendant’s systems infringe method claims by capturing, storing, modifying, and blending image frames to generate a combined frame for display. (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory for the ’444 Patent raises the question of how claims reciting an "electrically controlled spectacle" are alleged to read on an integrated vehicle system, which does not appear to include wearable glasses. The case may turn on whether the plaintiff advances a non-literal infringement theory or an unconventional construction of the term "spectacle".
  • Technical Questions: For the ’874 Patent, a central technical question will be what evidence supports the allegation that the accused systems perform the specific video manipulation steps recited in claim 1, such as generating "altered" frames with "first and second non-overlapping portions." The complaint does not describe the actual video processing methods used in the accused systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "electrically controlled spectacle" (’444 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term appears foundational to the infringement allegation for the ’444 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent consistently depicts a wearable device, whereas the accused instrumentality is alleged to be an in-vehicle system. The viability of the infringement claim may depend heavily on the construction of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's broader focus is on the optical effect created by differentially filtering light to each eye to induce the Pulfrich illusion, a principle that could arguably be implemented by systems other than traditional eyewear. (’444 Patent, col. 13:5-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract explicitly defines the invention as including a "spectacle frame and optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame." (’444 Patent, Abstract). Every figure depicting the device, such as Figure 1, illustrates a conventional pair of glasses, which may support a narrower construction limited to wearable apparatuses.
• The Term: "generating a ... modified image frame by performing one of: (i) expanding the first image frame; (ii) removing a first portion...; and (iii) stitching together the first image frame with a second portion..." (’874 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core technical steps of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because it recites specific, seemingly unconventional methods of video processing. The infringement analysis will hinge on whether the accused systems perform one of these exact operations, as opposed to more common video processing techniques.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the general goal of creating a 3D effect through image manipulation, which could suggest the specific listed steps are exemplary, not exhaustive. (’874 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the transitional phrase "performing one of," which typically creates a closed set of options. The patent's detailed description of creating image sequences by blending and combining frames (e.g., frames A, B, and C) provides a specific context that may support a construction limited to these recited techniques. (’874 Patent, col. 5:12-20).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, asserting only that Defendant "put the inventions... into service." (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a contingent allegation of willfulness, stating that infringement will be declared willful if discovery reveals that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "electrically controlled spectacle", rooted in the ’444 patent’s disclosure of wearable glasses, be construed to cover a fixed in-vehicle display system where no such wearable component is provided by the defendant?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the video processing in the accused vehicle systems perform the specific, multi-step method of generating "altered" and "non-overlapping" image portions as required by claim 1 of the ’874 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation?
• A third question relates to pleading sufficiency: given the absence of specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features, the case may face early challenges regarding whether the complaint meets the plausibility standards required for patent infringement claims.