VDPP LLC v. Delta Air Lines Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Ohio)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00529, W.D. Tex., 11/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has 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 three-dimensional visual effects from 2D images.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to specialized methods of digital image processing to create illusions of sustained motion and depth, a technology relevant to digital media, entertainment, and virtual reality.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities but alleges that none of these licenses were for producing a patented article or included an admission of infringement, a point raised to preemptively address potential patent marking defenses.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	’902 and ’922 Patents - Earliest Priority Date
2006-04-18	’902 Patent - Issue Date
2018-04-17	’922 Patent - Issue Date
2025-11-14	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 Thre-Dimensional Motion-Direction Of Unlimited Duration, Using A Finite Number Of Pictures" (issued Apr. 18, 2006)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of creating the appearance of continuous, sustained motion from a limited number of images, which could be stored and reproduced on digital media. Prior methods were either transient live performances or required a large number of non-repetitive frames, like traditional movies (’902 Patent, col. 1:15-22, col. 2:6-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of repetitively displaying a short sequence of pictures. This sequence typically includes at least two "substantially similar" image pictures and a third, dissimilar "bridging picture" (such as a solid black frame) that alternates with them (’902 Patent, Abstract). The rapid, continuous looping of this A-B-C sequence is perceived by the viewer as a seamless, ongoing motion, creating an illusion that the patent terms "Eternalism" (’902 Patent, col. 2:20-27, col. 2:38-42). The effect can be enhanced by blending adjacent frames to create smoother transitions (’902 Patent, col. 2:56-65).
• Technical Importance: The method enabled the creation and digital storage of 3D-like motion effects using minimal data (as few as two images), making it suitable for electronic media where prior artistic techniques were not commercially viable (’902 Patent, col. 2:13-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is representative and recites the following essential elements:
  • A method for creating an appearance of continuous movement comprising:
  • a) selecting at least two visually similar image pictures;
  • b) selecting a bridging picture that is dissimilar to the image pictures;
  • c) arranging the pictures in a sequential order (e.g., first image, second image, bridging picture);
  • d) placing this series on a plurality of picture frames; and
  • e) repeating the series multiple times so a viewer perceives continuous movement.

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 aims to improve upon existing methods for viewing 3D content, particularly those that rely on the "Pulfrich effect," where delaying the signal to one eye creates a depth illusion. The patent notes that existing electronically controlled spectacles may have slow transition times between light and dark states, which can compromise the 3D effect (’922 Patent, col. 3:1-15, col. 3:42-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an apparatus and method for modifying image frames to create 3D visual effects. The abstract describes an electrically controlled spectacle with multi-layered lenses and a control unit that independently adjusts the tint of each lens to achieve faster state transitions (’922 Patent, Abstract). However, the asserted independent claim focuses on a specific image modification method rather than the spectacle hardware.
• Technical Importance: By enabling faster and more precise control over lens tinting or image modification, the technology seeks to provide a more effective and responsive 3D viewing experience synchronized with on-screen motion (’922 Patent, col. 3:1-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim with the following essential elements:
  • An apparatus with 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; and
  • Display the first and second modified image frames.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product, method, or service. It generally refers to Defendant’s "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 sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality. It makes no factual allegations connecting the patented technology to any specific aspect of Defendant's business, such as its website, mobile application, or in-flight entertainment systems.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references "preliminary exemplary table[s]" (Exhibits B and D) that purportedly provide support for infringement allegations but does not include these exhibits (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). The body of the complaint does not contain a narrative infringement theory or specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to any accused functionality.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Sufficiency: The primary point of contention appears to be whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard. It lacks specific factual allegations identifying what product or service infringes and how it infringes.
• Scope Questions: A threshold question is what, if any, of Defendant's services could fall within the scope of "modifying images" as claimed in the patents. The complaint raises the question of whether an airline's operations involve technology that performs the specific image processing steps recited in the claims.
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide enough information to frame specific technical questions. If an accused product were identified, a key question for the ’922 Patent would be whether it modifies images by "expanding" them, as strictly required by Claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar" (’902 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

The definition of this term is central to the scope of the ’902 Patent. An infringement dispute may turn on whether an accused system that uses a video transition effect (e.g., a fade-to-black or a cross-dissolve) meets the requirement of a distinct "bridging picture."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term can be interpreted functionally, stating that in electronic media, the bridge-picture "may simply be a timed unlit-screen pause," which is not a traditional "picture" (’902 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment is described as "a solid black or other solid-colored picture" or a "strongly contrasting image-picture" (’902 Patent, col. 2:28-32). A defendant may argue this language limits the term to a discrete, static frame.

Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (’922 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term appears to be a key technical limitation of Claim 1 of the ’922 Patent. Infringement will depend on whether an accused system performs this exact modification. Practitioners may focus on this term because its plain meaning seems narrow and could provide a straightforward basis for a non-infringement argument if the accused system modifies images differently (e.g., by cropping, shifting, or rotating).

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that in the context of creating 3D effects from 2D images, "expanding" should be construed more broadly to cover other geometric transformations that achieve a similar result.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "expanding" has a clear and well-understood meaning in the art. The claim uses this specific verb, while the broader specification discusses other modifications like offsetting or shifting images. This suggests the choice of "expanding" in this particular claim was deliberate and should be given its ordinary, narrower meaning.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead facts to support, nor does it explicitly allege, indirect infringement. The infringement counts are for direct infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Willful Infringement

The complaint includes a boilerplate request for enhanced damages for willful infringement in its prayer for relief, conditioned upon discovery revealing that the Defendant knew of the patents prior to the lawsuit (Compl., p. 6, ¶e). The complaint does not allege any specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge or egregious conduct that would form the basis of a willfulness claim.

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

This case, as currently pled, presents fundamental threshold questions before any substantive technical analysis can occur. The key issues for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint provide sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for patent infringement against an airline, given its failure to identify any specific accused product or service that practices the claimed image-modification technology?
2. Should the case proceed, a central dispute concerning the ’902 patent will be one of definitional scope: does the term "bridging picture," which the patent primarily describes as a solid-colored frame, cover modern digital video transitions or effects that may be used in an accused system?
3. A key evidentiary question for the ’922 patent will be one of technical operation: does any accused system literally perform the claimed step of "expanding" an image frame to create a modified image, or does it rely on other, potentially non-infringing techniques to create visual effects?