VDPP LLC v. Alaska Air Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Alaska Air Group, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00530, 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, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services related to image capture and modification infringe two patents concerning methods for creating visual effects of sustained motion and depth from a limited number of images.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital image processing techniques for creating an illusion of continuous three-dimensional motion by repetitively displaying a small set of images, including a dissimilar "bridging" image, in a specific sequence.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies the plaintiff as a non-practicing entity. It also includes extensive pre-emptive arguments that prior settlement licenses involving the patents-in-suit do not trigger patent marking obligations under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), which may suggest an area of future dispute regarding the availability of pre-suit damages.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	’902 and ’922 Patents Priority Date
2006-04-18	U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Issued
2018-04-17	U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issued
2025-11-14	Complaint Filed

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 April 18, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of creating an appearance of continuous movement from a finite number of pictures (e.g., two or three frames) without the "visual stutter" of simple repetition or the data-intensiveness of traditional filmmaking (ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:20-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method, termed "Eternalism," that uses at least two visually similar images (A, B) and a third, dissimilar "bridging" picture (C) arranged in a repeating sequence (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...) ('902 Patent, col. 2:20-27). This repetition, particularly the insertion of the dissimilar bridging frame (often a solid color), creates an optical illusion of sustained, seamless motion from the limited source images, an event described as "impossible in actual life" ('902 Patent, col. 2:52-53). The method can be enhanced by blending adjacent frames to create a more fluid effect ('902 Patent, col. 2:60-67).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for generating complex and continuous motion effects from minimal source data, which could be valuable in contexts where storage, bandwidth, or content creation resources are limited ('902 Patent, col. 2:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-11, with Claim 1 being the sole independent method claim (Compl. ¶9).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and a second);
  • selecting a bridging picture that is dissimilar to the image pictures;
  • arranging the pictures in a sequential order comprising the first, second, and bridging pictures;
  • placing this series of pictures onto a plurality of picture frames; and
  • repeating the series multiple times to create a viewer perception 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," issued April 17, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background discusses methods for viewing 2D images as 3D, noting that while various "3Deeps Filter Spectacles" exist, they present technical challenges related to optimizing the 3D effect based on motion and achieving fast transition times for the variable-tint lenses ('922 Patent, col. 3:1-15, 20-30).
• The Patented Solution: While the patent title and much of the specification focus on the hardware of electronically controlled spectacles, asserted independent Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for image processing. The claimed solution is an apparatus comprising a processor that obtains two image frames from a video stream, generates modified versions of these frames by "expanding" them, generates a solid-color "bridge frame," and then displays the modified frames and the bridge frame ('922 Patent, col. 113:24–114:8). This claimed system automates a specific technique for manipulating video content.
• Technical Importance: The claimed apparatus provides a specific system for processing a video stream to create visual effects, which could serve as a component within a larger system for generating 3D content from a 2D source.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-12, with Claim 1 being an independent apparatus claim (Compl. ¶14).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • a storage and a processor;
  • the processor is adapted to obtain first and second image frames 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 modified frame, the second modified frame, and the bridge frame.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product, service, or instrumentality by name. It broadly accuses "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 functionality of any accused instrumentality. It makes only conclusory statements that Defendant’s unnamed systems and services infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement support is contained in preliminary claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). As these exhibits were not available for this analysis, the infringement theory must be summarized from the text of the complaint itself.

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement is that Defendant’s operation of unspecified "systems, products, and services" in the area of image capture and modification meets the limitations of the asserted claims of the ’902 and ’922 Patents (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). The complaint does not, however, provide any specific facts mapping the functionality of any particular Alaska Air Group instrumentality to the elements of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A primary issue for the case will be evidentiary. The complaint does not identify which of Defendant’s instrumentalities—such as its mobile application, in-flight entertainment system, or marketing platforms—are accused of infringement. A threshold question will be whether any system operated by an airline performs the specific image processing steps required by the patents.
  • Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused systems perform the specific function of arranging visually similar images with a "dissimilar" bridging picture ('902 Patent) or "expanding" image frames ('922 Patent) as required by the claims? The complaint provides no such evidence.

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 this term is critical to claim scope. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the "bridging picture" can be any different image or must be a non-content frame, like a solid color. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will determine what types of image sequences can be found to infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself simply requires dissimilarity, which could be interpreted broadly to mean any picture that is not "visually similar" to the first two images in the sequence.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly characterizes the bridging picture as "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" and a "neutral or black frame" ('902 Patent, col. 2:31-33, 53-54). Parties may argue these preferred embodiments inform the proper construction of "dissimilar" in this context.

For the ’922 Patent:

• The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This active verb defines the core technical manipulation performed by the claimed processor. As "expanding" is not a standard term of art in video compression or processing (unlike "scaling" or "zooming"), its meaning is open to interpretation and will be central to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that in the absence of a specific definition, the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass a variety of image enlargement or resizing operations.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition or example of the "expanding" operation. This lack of specific support in the intrinsic record for what "expanding" means in the context of the invention may lead a court to find the term indefinite, or it could be an area where extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, becomes critical.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that could be interpreted as pleading indirect infringement, stating that "Defendant's acts complained of herein caused those claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform" (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent for inducement or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is pleaded conditionally in the prayer for relief, contingent on discovery revealing that Defendant knew of the patents prior to the lawsuit and knew or should have known its conduct amounted to infringement (Compl. ¶VI.e).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary linkage: can the plaintiff produce evidence to connect its infringement allegations to a specific product or service operated by the defendant airline? The complaint’s failure to identify any accused instrumentality creates a fundamental initial question of fact.
• A key technical question will be one of operational correspondence: assuming an accused instrumentality is identified, does its actual operation meet the specific and unconventional claim limitations, such as sequencing images with a "dissimilar bridging picture" ('902 Patent) or performing an "expanding" operation on video frames ('922 Patent)?
• A central legal question may involve claim construction: how will the court define ambiguous key terms like "dissimilar" and "expanding" that lack clear definitions in the patent's specification, and will those definitions be broad enough to read on the accused technology?