VDPP LLC v. Starbucks Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Starbucks Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00525, W.D. Tex., 11/13/2025
• 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 and has committed 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 the illusion of three-dimensional motion from a limited number of images.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital image processing techniques for generating an appearance of sustained motion and depth using a small, repeating sequence of images, a field relevant to digital animation, visual effects, and 3D display technology.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities, asserting that these licenses did not grant rights to produce a patented article and did not include admissions of infringement, which may be relevant to potential defenses regarding patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

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" (issued Apr. 18, 2006)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating an appearance of continuous motion, similar to a movie, without needing a long sequence of unique picture frames. Conventional methods require significant data (e.g., 24 frames per second), while prior art attempts to use fewer frames for live performances were described as transient and difficult to commercialize ( ’902 Patent, col. 1:21-44; col. 2:6-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that uses a small, finite number of pictures that are repetitively displayed to create the illusion of sustained, seamless motion. The core technique involves repetitively presenting at least two "substantially similar" image pictures alternating with a third, "substantially dissimilar" picture, referred to as a "bridging picture" (often a solid color frame). This repeating sequence (e.g., Image A, Image B, Bridge C, repeated) is perceived by the viewer as continuous movement without requiring new image data (’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-35). The patent also discloses blending adjacent pictures to create a more fluid visual effect (’902 Patent, col. 2:56-65).
• Technical Importance: This method provides a way to generate sustained motion effects using minimal data, a technique with potential applications in digital media, animation, and other contexts where data storage or transmission bandwidth is a constraint (’902 Patent, col. 2:15-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method comprising the essential elements of:
  • Selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and second image picture).
  • Selecting a bridging picture that is dissimilar to the image pictures.
  • Arranging these pictures in a sequential order (e.g., one or more first images, one or more second images, and one or more bridging pictures) to create a series.
  • Placing this series onto a plurality of picture frames.
  • Repeating the series a plurality of times to create an appearance of continuous movement for a viewer.
• The complaint's reference to claims 1-11 indicates that dependent claims, which add further limitations, may also be asserted.

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - "Faster State Transitioning For Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials" (issued Apr. 17, 2018)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with spectacles designed to create 3D visual effects, particularly those based on the "Pulfrich effect" (where delaying an image to one eye creates a perception of depth from 2D motion). A key problem identified is that the variable tint materials in the spectacle lenses may have slow transition times between clear and dark states, hindering their ability to properly synchronize with on-screen motion and diminishing the 3D effect (’922 Patent, col. 3:25-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims, among other things, systems for image modification and electronically controlled spectacles with multi-layered lenses. These multi-layered materials are designed to enable faster transitions between different levels of tint (optical density) compared to single-layer materials. This allows the spectacles to more effectively and rapidly adjust the light reaching each eye, thereby improving the synchronization of the visual effect with the motion depicted in the media (’922 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:55-4:2; Fig. 6b).
• Technical Importance: By enabling faster and more precise control over lens tinting, the technology aims to provide a more reliable and immersive 3D viewing experience from standard 2D content, potentially broadening the applicability of Pulfrich-based 3D systems (’922 Patent, col. 4:17-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14).
• Independent Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising a storage and a processor adapted to perform the steps of:
  • Obtaining a first and second image frame from a video stream.
  • Generating a first modified image frame by "expanding" the first image frame.
  • Generating a second modified image frame by "expanding" the second image frame.
  • Generating a "bridge frame" that is a solid color and different from the first and second image frames.
  • Displaying the first modified image frame, the second modified image frame, and the bridge frame.
• The complaint's reference to claims 1-12 suggests that dependent claims may also be asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint broadly identifies the accused instrumentalities as "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture devices" and "image capture and modification" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentalities' specific functionality or market positioning. It does not name any specific Starbucks product (e.g., its mobile application, in-store digital menu boards, or marketing content) or describe how such products operate.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D, but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). The complaint's narrative allegations are conclusory, stating only that Defendant's unspecified products and services infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). Without specific factual allegations or claim charts mapping claim elements to features of an accused instrumentality, a detailed infringement analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: A threshold dispute will concern the identification of the accused instrumentalities. The complaint's generic reference to "systems, products, and services" will require clarification to establish what specific technology is at issue.
  • Scope Questions: For the ’902 Patent, a central question will be whether any identified Starbucks product actually implements the claimed method of repeating a fixed series of similar images and a dissimilar "bridging picture" to create an illusion of motion.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’922 Patent, a key question will be whether any accused system performs the specific claimed step of "generating a... modified image frame by expanding" an original frame and displaying it with a "bridge frame," as required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the ’902 Patent:
  • The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of "dissimilar" is fundamental to the claimed method, as it distinguishes the bridging picture from the primary image pictures. A defendant may argue that any intervening frame in its system is not sufficiently "dissimilar" to meet this limitation, while the plaintiff may argue for a broader interpretation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose any specific character on the bridging picture other than that it be "dissimilar" to the visually similar image pictures.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides a specific and consistent example of the bridging picture as being "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" or a "neutral or black frame" (’902 Patent, col. 2:30-31; col. 2:53-54). A party could argue this context limits the scope of "dissimilar."
• For the ’922 Patent:
  • The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: Infringement of this claim hinges on whether an accused system performs an "expanding" operation. The parties may dispute whether this term covers common digital processing like scaling or zooming, or if it is limited to a more specific type of modification for creating the visual effects described in the patent family.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "expanding" is not explicitly defined, which may support an argument that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering various forms of digital image enlargement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is part of a family focused on creating "Eternalism" and 3D visual effects. A defendant could argue that "expanding" should be construed in that specific technical context, rather than reading on general-purpose image resizing that is not used to generate the patented visual illusions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include a standalone count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief makes a conditional request for a finding of willfulness and an award of treble damages, contingent upon discovery revealing 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

This case, in its initial stage, presents several fundamental questions stemming from the complaint's lack of specificity. The resolution of these issues will likely shape the course of the litigation.

• A primary issue will be one of factual sufficiency: which specific Starbucks products or services are accused of infringement, and what evidence will Plaintiff produce to plausibly allege that these identified instrumentalities practice the specific steps recited in the asserted patent claims?
• A key technical question will be one of operational correspondence: assuming specific products are identified, does their method of displaying images align with the patents’ unconventional techniques—namely, the ’902 patent’s repetitive looping of a few images with a “bridging picture” or the ’922 patent’s method of “expanding” and displaying frames with a solid color “bridge frame”?
• A central legal question may be one of pleading standards: does the complaint provide sufficient factual content, beyond conclusory statements, to state a plausible claim for patent infringement under the requirements established by federal court precedent?