DCT

7:25-cv-00562

VDPP LLC v. McDonald's Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
    • Defendant: McDonald’s Corporation (Delaware)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00562, W.D. Tex., 12/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services related to image processing and image capture infringe two expired patents concerning methods for creating illusions of three-dimensional or continuous motion from a finite number of images.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to digital image processing techniques for creating novel visual effects, such as the appearance of sustained motion, by manipulating and sequencing a small number of image frames.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses related to its patents, but asserts that none of these licenses were for producing a patented article, which may be relevant to potential disputes over damages limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Earliest Priority Date for ’902 and ’922 Patents
2006-04-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Issued
2018-04-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issued
2022-01-22 ’922 Patent Expiration Date Alleged in Complaint
2023-09-09 ’902 Patent Expiration Date Alleged in Complaint
2025-12-10 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” (Issued Apr. 18, 2006)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating an illusion of continuous, sustained movement using only a finite, and often small, number of pictures (’902 Patent, col. 1:15-19). Traditional methods required a long series of non-repetitive pictures to create motion, and prior artistic attempts to create sustained motion effects in live performances were difficult to capture and reproduce on film or video (’902 Patent, col. 1:21-27, col. 2:6-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that repetitively presents "at least two substantially similar image pictures" that alternate with a third, "substantially dissimilar" picture, referred to as a "bridging picture" (e.g., a solid black frame) (’902 Patent, col. 2:20-27). This repeating sequence (e.g., Image A, Image B, Bridge C, Image A, Image B, Bridge C...) creates a visual illusion of seamless and sustained motion without the need for a large number of unique frames (’902 Patent, col. 2:42-52). The patent also describes enhancing this effect by blending adjacent pictures to create a more fluid transition (’902 Patent, col. 2:56-68).
  • Technical Importance: This technique, which the inventor terms "Eternalism," provided a method to create and permanently store novel visual effects that were previously confined to transient live performances, making them reproducible on standard film or electronic media (’902 Patent, col. 2:13-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-11 (Compl. ¶9).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and a second image picture);
    • selecting a bridging picture which is dissimilar to the image pictures;
    • arranging the pictures in a sequential order (one or more first image pictures, one or more second image pictures, and one or more bridging pictures);
    • placing this first series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames; and
    • repeating the first series of pictures a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames that, when viewed, create 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” (Issued Apr. 17, 2018)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: While the patent title refers to 3D filter spectacles, the background section describes problems associated with creating 3D visual effects from 2D motion pictures. A key problem addressed is that simply repeating image frames can result in a "visual stutter" rather than a fluid sense of motion, and prior art 3D systems had various limitations (’922 Patent, col. 50:65-51:4). The broader problem is how to manipulate and sequence 2D images to generate more advanced visual effects.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an apparatus with a processor adapted to create new visual sequences from existing video streams (’922 Patent, col. 113:25-46). The processor obtains first and second image frames, generates new "modified" frames by altering a portion of the original frames (e.g., by "expanding" a portion), generates a "bridge frame" that is different from the modified frames, and then displays the sequence. This allows for the generation of complex visual effects from a source video stream.
  • Technical Importance: The claimed apparatus provides a specific system for automated image manipulation, enabling the creation of blended or modified video sequences for visual effects without requiring manual, frame-by-frame editing.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-12 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Independent Claim 1: An apparatus comprising:
    • a storage adapted to store one or more image frames;
    • a processor adapted to:
      • obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream;
      • generate a first modified image frame by expanding a portion of the first image frame;
      • generate a second modified image frame by expanding a portion of the second image frame;
      • generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color; 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 accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant's "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" generally (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). It does not provide any specific technical description of how any particular McDonald’s instrumentality (e.g., digital menu boards, mobile application, marketing videos) is alleged to operate. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is contained in Exhibits B and D, which were not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). The body of the complaint itself does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis of either patent-in-suit. The infringement allegations are conclusory, stating that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services" that infringe the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: The primary question is factual: what specific McDonald's system, if any, performs the steps recited in the asserted claims? The complaint provides no basis to identify an accused instrumentality.
    • Scope Questions: Assuming an instrumentality is later identified, a likely point of contention for the ’902 Patent will be the interpretation of "visually similar" image pictures and a "dissimilar" bridging picture. For the ’922 Patent, a key question may be whether any accused image processing constitutes "expanding a portion" of an image frame, as specifically required by claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’902 Patent

  • The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image pictures" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the scope of the claimed method. The infringement analysis depends on what kinds of frames or intervals qualify as a "dissimilar" bridge. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it is limited to the specific embodiments described in the patent or if it can cover a wider range of visual separators.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the broad term "dissimilar" without further limitation, which may support an argument that any visually distinct frame suffices.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides specific examples, stating the bridging picture is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" and a "neutral or black frame" (’902 Patent, col. 2:28-32, col. 2:53-54). These examples may be used to argue that the term should be construed more narrowly to encompass only non-image, solid-color frames.

’922 Patent

  • The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding a portion of the first image frame" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific image manipulation recited in the claim. Infringement will hinge on whether an accused process performs this exact "expanding" function. The defendant may argue that other common image modifications, like cropping, scaling the entire image, or digital zooming, do not meet this specific limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "expanding a portion" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass various forms of digital enlargement or magnification of a part of an image.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Other claims in the patent recite different modification techniques, such as "shrinking," "stitching," and "reshaping" (’922 Patent, claims 3, 5, 7, 9). The explicit claiming of different modification types may support an argument that "expanding" should be narrowly construed as a distinct operation, not a generic term for resizing.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement and lacks specific factual allegations to support it, such as identifying instructions or user manuals that would encourage infringing acts (Compl. ¶2).
  • Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief includes a request for enhanced damages due to willful infringement, but it is pleaded conditionally, stating it applies "provided discovery reveals that Defendant (1) knew of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. p. 6, ¶e). The complaint does not allege any facts indicating that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

  1. A central threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which fails to identify any specific accused product and relies on external exhibits not filed with the court, allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for patent infringement against McDonald's?
  2. A core technical question will be one of operational correspondence: assuming a product is identified, does its functionality map onto the specific methods claimed? For the ’902 patent, this involves the repetitive sequencing of two similar images with a "dissimilar" bridge. For the ’922 patent, this involves the specific processor function of "expanding a portion" of an image frame.
  3. A key legal question may concern damages limitations: Plaintiff has proactively addressed its status as a non-practicing entity and its history of settlement licenses. A dispute may arise over whether Plaintiff's actions satisfy the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), which could impact the timeframe for which damages can be recovered.