VDPP LLC v. Victoria's Secret & Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Victoria's Secret & Co. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00524, W.D. Tex., 11/13/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the district and having committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services related to image capture and modification infringe two patents concerning methods for creating visual illusions of sustained motion from a limited number of images.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves generating effects of continuous three-dimensional motion and depth perception using a finite set of two-dimensional images, a technique applicable to digital media and advertising.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors have previously entered into settlement licenses. The complaint proactively argues that these prior licenses do not limit its claim to pre-suit damages under the patent marking statute, asserting that the licenses did not involve the production of a patented article or admissions of infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, entitled “Eternalism, A Method For Creating An Appearance Of Sustained Three-Dimensional Motion-Direction Of Unlimited Duration, Using A Finite Number Of Pictures,” issued on April 18, 2006. (Compl. ¶7).
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of creating an appearance of continuous, sustained motion from a very limited number of images (as few as two). Traditional animation or video requires a long sequence of unique frames; simply repeating a few frames would result in a noticeable and unnatural "visual stutter." (’902 Patent, col. 7:7-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that repetitively presents at least two "substantially similar" image pictures (e.g., frames 'A' and 'B') that are alternated with a "bridging picture" that is "substantially dissimilar" (e.g., a solid black frame 'C'). This repeating sequence, such as A-B-C-A-B-C, is perceived by a viewer as a seamless, continuous motion rather than a simple loop. The patent further discloses blending frames (e.g., creating a transitional A/B frame) to produce a more fluid illusion. (’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-42; Fig. 1c).
  • Technical Importance: This technique allowed for the creation of dynamic visual effects using minimal data, offering an efficient method for generating illusions of motion in digital media where file size and processing power were considerations. (’902 Patent, col. 2:15-21).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts claims 1-11 of the ’902 patent. (Compl. ¶9).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • a) selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and a second).
    • b) selecting a bridging picture that is dissimilar to the image pictures.
    • c) arranging the pictures in a sequential order comprising the first, second, and bridging pictures.
    • d) placing this series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames.
    • e) repeating the series a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of frames that, when viewed, produces an appearance of continuous movement.
  • The complaint states infringement is literal or under the doctrine of equivalents and reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶9).

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922, entitled “Faster State Transitioning For Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials,” issued on April 17, 2018. (Compl. ¶12).
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section addresses technical challenges with spectacles designed to create a 3D effect from 2D motion (the "Pulfrich effect"). It notes that the variable tint materials in such glasses often have transition times that are too slow to synchronize effectively with on-screen motion, which can degrade the resulting 3D illusion. (’922 Patent, col. 3:1-12, 45-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The specification describes using multi-layered variable tint materials for the lenses of the spectacles. This layered approach is disclosed as a way to achieve faster transitions between light and dark states compared to single-layer materials, thereby allowing the spectacles to better synchronize with on-screen content and produce a higher-quality 3D effect. (’922 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:55-61).
  • Technical Importance: Improving the response time of active filter lenses was a key step in making 3D viewing systems based on the Pulfrich effect more practical and immersive for consumers. (’922 Patent, col. 3:13-21).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts claims 1-12 of the ’922 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent Claim 1 is an apparatus claim requiring:
    • A storage and a processor.
    • The processor is adapted to obtain a first and second image frame from a video stream.
    • The processor generates first and second modified image frames by expanding the original frames.
    • The processor generates a solid-color bridge frame.
    • The processor displays the two modified image frames and the bridge frame.
  • The complaint alleges infringement literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, services, websites, or advertisements by name. It broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture devices" and "image capture and modification." (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide any specific detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that perform the claimed inventions and that Defendant derives "monetary and commercial benefit" from these activities. (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references "preliminary exemplary table[s]" in Exhibits B and D to support its infringement allegations but does not include these exhibits. (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). As such, the infringement theory must be summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

For both the ’902 and ’922 patents, the complaint alleges that the Defendant directly infringes by having "put the inventions claimed by the... Patent into service (i.e., used them)." (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The pleading does not provide any specific facts describing how any of Defendant's systems perform the steps recited in the asserted claims, such as selecting and repeating image frames (’902 Patent) or generating modified frames by "expanding" them (’922 Patent).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Specificity: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint's generalized allegations, which lack reference to any specific product or function, meet federal pleading standards that require a plausible claim for relief.
  • Scope Questions: For the ’922 Patent, a dispute may arise over the meaning of generating a modified image frame by "expanding" it. The question is whether this term requires a specific type of image manipulation related to creating a 3D effect, or if it could be read more broadly to cover common digital image resizing.
  • Technical Questions: The central technical question for the case will be to identify what, if any, of Defendant's systems perform the specific methods claimed in the patents. The complaint provides no information to suggest how Defendant's commercial activities in the apparel industry would involve the claimed image modification techniques.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’902 Patent

• The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image picture" (from Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term defines a core component of the claimed method. The scope of "dissimilar" is critical; a broad definition would cover a wide range of content used as a transition, while a narrow one could limit the claim to specific embodiments like a solid-color frame.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "dissimilar" suggests any picture that is not "visually similar" to the primary image pictures would suffice. The specification supports this by noting the bridge picture could be a "strongly contrasting image-picture," not just a blank frame. (’902 Patent, col. 2:30-32).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the preferred embodiment as a "solid black or other solid-colored picture" or a "timed unlit-screen pause." (’902 Patent, col. 2:28-35). Figures 1c, 3c, and 6c all depict the bridging picture as a solid black block, which may be used to argue that the term should be construed more narrowly.

’922 Patent

• The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (from Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the apparatus claim, as it defines the action the processor must perform on the image frames. Its construction will determine what types of image processing systems fall within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term due to a potential disconnect between the asserted claim language and the patent's overall disclosure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not qualify "expanding," suggesting the term could be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which might include any form of digital scaling, resizing, or zooming that makes the image or a portion of it larger.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term must be read in light of the patent's specification. The title, abstract, and detailed description of the ’922 patent focus heavily on "Filter Spectacles" and the Pulfrich 3D effect. However, the asserted apparatus claims appear to recite the "Eternalism" image processing method from the parent ’902 patent. This raises the question of whether the written description provides adequate support for the term "expanding" as used in the claims, an issue that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. It includes a conditional request for a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages should discovery reveal that Defendant knew of the patents prior to the lawsuit and subsequently infringed. (Compl. VI.e.).

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

• A central threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint’s lack of any factual detail identifying an accused product or describing its specific infringing functionality meet the plausibility standard required to state a claim for patent infringement, or is it subject to dismissal?
• A key technical question for the ’922 Patent will be one of written description support: do the apparatus claims, which recite a method of "expanding" image frames, find adequate descriptive support in a specification that is primarily directed to the structure and operation of electronically controlled spectacles?
• A critical issue for damages will be one of statutory marking: will the Plaintiff’s argument that its prior settlement licenses did not trigger the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) succeed, or will its potential damages be limited to the post-filing period?