DCT

7:25-cv-00422

VDPP LLC v. TJX Companies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00422, W.D. Tex., 09/12/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant having a "regular and established place of business" in the district, specifically citing a physical address in Odessa, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified image processing systems and services infringe two expired patents related to methods and apparatuses for creating the visual effect of continuous motion from a finite number of image frames.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital image and video processing techniques used to generate looping visual illusions, a technology primarily applicable in digital media, advertising, and user interface design.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that both patents-in-suit have expired, indicating the action is for recovery of past damages only. Plaintiff, a non-practicing entity, also discloses a history of prior settlement licenses with other entities and argues these did not trigger marking requirements because the licensees did not produce a patented article or admit infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Priority Date for '902 and '922 Patents
2006-04-18 '902 Patent Issue Date
2018-04-17 '922 Patent Issue Date
2022-01-22 '922 Patent Expiration Date
2023-09-09 '902 Patent Expiration Date
2025-09-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 - "Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures,"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, "Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures," issued April 18, 2006.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating an appearance of continuous, unending motion using only a small, finite set of images, noting that prior art attempts in live performance were transient and difficult to commercialize for recorded media like film or video (’902 Patent, col. 2:7-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where at least two visually similar images (e.g., frames 'A' and 'B' of a person walking) are repeatedly displayed in a sequence that includes a third, dissimilar "bridging picture" (e.g., a solid black frame 'C') (’902 Patent, col. 2:30-39). By repeating this A-B-C sequence, the method creates a visual illusion of sustained movement without a discernible start or end point, an effect the inventor terms "Eternalism" (’902 Patent, col. 2:39-41). The patent also describes enhancing this effect by blending adjacent frames to create smoother transitions (’902 Patent, col. 2:57-65).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a systematic, reproducible technique for generating sophisticated looping animations and visual effects from minimal source material, applicable to digital media where file size and repetitive motion are common considerations.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • selecting at least two visually similar image pictures;
    • selecting a bridging picture which is dissimilar to the image pictures;
    • arranging the pictures in a sequential order comprising the image pictures and the bridging picture;
    • placing the series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames; and
    • repeating the series of pictures a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames that, when viewed, produce an appearance of continuous movement.

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials,"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922, "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials," issued April 17, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes challenges in viewing 3D content, particularly the slow response times of electronically controlled variable tint lenses used in 3D spectacles, which can detract from the viewing experience (’922 Patent, col. 3:24-40).
  • The Patented Solution: While the patent title and background discuss spectacles, the asserted independent claim is directed to a computer-implemented apparatus for processing image frames (’922 Patent, col. 113:25-114:5). The solution involves a processor that obtains video frames, generates modified versions of those frames by "expanding" them, generates a solid-colored "bridge frame," and then displays the modified frames and the bridge frame (’922 Patent, Abstract; col. 113:25-114:5). This process appears to be a specific apparatus-based implementation of the general "Eternalism" method described in the ’902 Patent.
  • Technical Importance: The invention claims an apparatus that automates a specific technique for creating looping visual effects, potentially for use in generating 3D content or other dynamic visual media.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus with the following essential elements:
    • a storage adapted to store image frames;
    • a processor adapted to:
      • obtain a first and second image frame from a video stream;
      • generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame;
      • generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame;
      • generate a solid color bridge frame that is different from the first and second image frames; and
      • display the first modified image frame, the second modified image frame, and the bridge frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific product, service, or system by name (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" that Defendant allegedly "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). No specific functionality is described, nor are any details provided about the market context or commercial importance of the accused instrumentalities. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts or detailed factual allegations mapping specific features of an accused instrumentality to the patent claims. Instead, it refers to preliminary infringement charts attached as Exhibits B and D, which were not included with the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). The narrative allegations are conclusory, stating that Defendant’s unspecified systems infringe the patents without providing technical details (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). As such, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

  • Identified Points of Contention: The lack of specificity in the complaint suggests that initial litigation may focus on the adequacy of the pleadings under federal rules. Substantively, the analysis will raise several technical and legal questions:
    • Evidentiary Questions: What specific processes or systems used by Defendant are alleged to perform the claimed methods? The complaint’s failure to identify an accused instrumentality creates a fundamental ambiguity.
    • Technical Questions (’902 Patent): What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant’s systems perform the specific sequence of selecting visually similar frames, selecting a "dissimilar" bridging frame, and arranging them in a repeating series as required by the method claim?
    • Scope Questions (’922 Patent): Does any server or computer system used by Defendant constitute the claimed "apparatus"? Further, does the software operating on that system perform the specific function of "expanding" image frames, as opposed to other forms of image manipulation, and does it generate a "solid color" bridge frame for display?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’902 Patent:

    • The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image pictures" (from Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the claim's scope. A broad interpretation could potentially read on any visual interruption or transition between looped images, while a narrow interpretation would require a distinct, separate frame with specific characteristics. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether standard video looping techniques, which might include fades or blank intervals, meet this limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "dissimilar," which does not inherently limit the bridging picture to a specific type, color, or format (’902 Patent, col. 14:55-56).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the bridging picture as "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" and refers to it as a "bridge-interval" that acts as a "neutral or black frame" (’902 Patent, col. 2:30-34, col. 2:54-56). This consistent description of a specific embodiment may be used to argue for a narrower construction.

  • For the ’922 Patent:

    • The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (from Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific image manipulation required by the claimed apparatus. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused systems perform this exact "expanding" operation or a different, non-infringing modification. This term is critical because if "expanding" is construed narrowly, infringement will require specific evidence of image scaling, whereas a broader reading might cover other resizing or reframing operations.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "expanding" is not explicitly defined in the patent, which could support an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering various forms of making an image larger.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent includes separate dependent claims that recite other specific types of modification, such as "stitching," "shrinking," and "reshaping" (’922 Patent, col. 114:6-23, 114:49-55, 115:12-18). The use of these distinct terms in other claims suggests that "expanding" in independent claim 1 was intended to have a specific meaning separate from other types of image manipulation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of fact to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. However, the prayer for relief requests that infringement be declared willful and that damages be trebled should discovery reveal that Defendant knew of the patents prior to the suit and subsequently infringed (Compl. p. 7, ¶e).

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

  1. A primary issue will be one of evidentiary specificity: Can the plaintiff's highly general allegations be substantiated with evidence linking specific functionalities within Defendant's unidentified "image processing systems" to the detailed requirements of the asserted claims, or will the lack of detail in the complaint prove fatal to the case?
  2. A central question of claim scope and technical operation will be dispositive: Does the accused technology, once identified, actually perform the specific operations recited in the claims—namely, the creation of a "dissimilar bridging picture" for the '902 method and the act of "expanding" a frame for the '922 apparatus—or will discovery reveal a fundamental mismatch between the patented invention and the accused functionality?