DCT

2:25-cv-01318

VDPP LLC v. Alpinion USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01318, W.D. Wash., 07/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services for image capture, modification, and display infringe two patents related to methods for generating stereoscopic 3D video effects from 2D source material.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves digital video processing techniques designed to create the illusion of three-dimensional depth from standard two-dimensional video content, often by manipulating and blending video frames.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses concerning its patent portfolio. Notably, an ex parte reexamination certificate for U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444, issued December 11, 2024, cancelled claims 26-27. The complaint, filed after the certificate’s issuance, asserts infringement of claims 1-27 of this patent, including the two cancelled claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 Earliest Priority Date for ’444 and ’874 Patents
2017-07-04 U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 Issues
2017-07-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874 Issues
2024-12-11 Reexamination Certificate for ’444 Patent Issues, Cancelling Claims 26-27
2025-07-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444 - "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials" (Issued July 4, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the slow transition times of electronically controlled variable tint materials, such as those used in spectacles designed to create 3D effects from 2D movies based on the Pulfrich illusion ('444 Patent, col. 2:36-44). These slow transitions can prevent the spectacles from synchronizing optimally with fast-paced on-screen motion ('444 Patent, col. 2:40-44).
  • The Patented Solution: While the patent title focuses on spectacle hardware, the asserted method claims describe a video processing technique. The invention as claimed involves generating modified video by taking an original image frame, creating several modified versions by removing different portions of it, creating "bridge" frames (e.g., solid color frames), blending the modified frames with the bridge frames, and then overlaying the blended frames to create a final output for display ('444 Patent, Claim 1). This process creates an illusion of continuous motion from a finite number of images ('444 Patent, col. 5:1-4).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed methods provided a way to generate synthetic video effects, such as the illusion of 3D depth or continuous motion, from standard 2D video sources without requiring specialized stereoscopic cameras or recording techniques ('444 Patent, col. 4:31-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 26, though claim 26 has been cancelled by reexamination. Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • Determining a first, second, and third modified image frame by removing a first, second, and third portion of a selected image frame, respectively.
    • Determining a first bridge image frame.
    • Determining a second bridge image frame.
    • Blending the first bridge image frame with the first, second, and third modified image frames to generate first, second, and third blended image frames.
    • Overlaying the first, second, and third blended image frames to generate an overlayed image frame.
    • Displaying the overlayed image frame and the second bridge image frame.
  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-27, which includes dependent claims ('Compl. ¶9).

U.S. Patent No. 9,716,874 - "Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles for Optimized 3Deeps Stereoscopic Viewing, Control Method and Means therefore, and System and Method of Generating and Displaying a Modified Video" (Issued July 25, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background discusses the general challenge of producing a 3D illusion from 2D motion pictures and describes various prior art methods, implicitly framing the need for an improved, optimized method ('874 Patent, col. 1:63-col. 2:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for processing a 2D video to generate a modified video with 3D effects. It involves acquiring a video frame that includes motion vectors, which describe the movement of different regions within the frame. From these vectors, the system calculates parameters for the lateral speed and direction of motion. An algorithm then uses these parameters to generate a "deformation value," which is applied to the image frame to create a modified frame that is subsequently blended with a "bridge frame" for display ('874 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This method automates the generation of 3D effects from 2D video by using embedded motion vector data, which is common in compressed video formats, to drive the image modification process ('874 Patent, col. 46:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • Acquiring a source video comprised of a sequence of 2D image frames.
    • Obtaining an image frame from the video that includes two or more motion vectors describing motion.
    • Calculating a lateral speed and a direction of motion for the image frame using the motion vectors.
    • Generating a deformation value by applying an algorithm that uses both the speed and direction parameters.
    • Applying the deformation value to the image frame to identify a modified image frame.
    • Blending the modified image frame with a bridge frame to generate a blended frame.
    • Displaying the blended frame.
  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-4, which includes dependent claims (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify specific accused products, systems, or services by name.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems, products, and services" in the fields of "image capture, streaming, modification and displaying" that perform infringing methods (Compl. ¶9).
  • For the ’874 Patent, the accused instrumentalities are described as being in the field of "image capture and modification" and performing a method of capturing, storing, modifying, and blending image frames (Compl. ¶¶13-14).
  • Due to the lack of specific product identification, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the market context or commercial importance of any particular instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references "preliminary exemplary table[s] attached as Exhibit B" and "Exhibit D" to support its infringement allegations for the ’444 and ’874 patents, respectively (Compl. ¶¶10, 15). These exhibits were not included with the complaint provided for analysis. Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose based on the narrative allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • ’444 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe one or more of claims 1-27 of the ’444 Patent (Compl. ¶9). The core allegation is that these systems perform methods of "capturing and modifying images," which corresponds to the subject matter of the asserted method claims (Compl. ¶8). The complaint asserts infringement both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶9).
  • ’874 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe one or more of claims 1-4 of the ’874 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The narrative theory is that these systems practice the claimed method of "capturing, storing, modifying, blending, and generating a combined frame for display" (Compl. ¶13). Infringement is alleged both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶14).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold question will be whether the complaint’s failure to identify any specific accused product or provide any factual detail on how Defendant's systems operate meets the plausibility standard for patent infringement pleading.
    • Technical Questions: A central technical dispute, once products are identified, will be whether Defendant’s systems perform the specific multi-step blending, modifying, and overlaying processes required by the asserted claims. For the ’874 Patent, a key question will be whether the accused systems generate and apply a "deformation value" based on both speed and direction of motion as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’444 Patent — Term: "overlayed image frame"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 and defines the final output of the claimed multi-step blending process. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as it defines the structure of the output frame that must be generated and displayed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses terms like "superimposing," "merging," and "blending" interchangeably, which may support a construction that covers any form of digital combination of the blended frames ('444 Patent, col. 5:44-48).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures illustrate a specific sequential process of creating multiple blended frames from a single source frame and then combining them ('444 Patent, col. 5:5-20; Figs. 19A-C). A defendant may argue this context limits "overlayed" to a specific type of combination shown in the embodiments.

’874 Patent — Term: "deformation value"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to independent claim 1, as it is the calculated value that links the on-screen motion analysis (speed and direction) to the modification of the image frame. The definition of this term will determine what kind of algorithmic modification falls within the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract introduces the term but does not provide a precise mathematical definition ('874 Patent, Abstract). This may support a broad construction covering any numerical value that is generated using speed and direction inputs and is then used to alter an image frame.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses generating the 3D effect in relation to the Pulfrich illusion, which is based on creating a specific time delay between images sent to the brain ('874 Patent, col. 47:23-28). A defendant may argue that "deformation value" must be construed as a value that produces a modification specifically intended to achieve this psycho-visual effect, rather than any arbitrary modification.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that Defendant’s infringement is willful, which could lead to treble damages (Compl. ¶VI.e). The complaint, however, does not plead any specific facts to support a finding of willfulness, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patents or egregious conduct.

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

  1. Procedural Viability: A primary issue will be the complaint's assertion of claims 26-27 of the ’444 patent, which were cancelled via reexamination prior to the complaint's filing. This raises a question about the adequacy of the pre-suit investigation and may require an amendment to the pleading.
  2. Pleading Specificity: A core threshold dispute will likely focus on whether the complaint's generalized allegations against unnamed "systems, products, and services," without factual support for how they infringe, are sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief under prevailing federal pleading standards.
  3. Claim Scope and Technical Match: Assuming the case proceeds, a central technical question will be one of algorithmic equivalence: do Defendant’s image processing technologies perform the specific, multi-step methods of frame modification, blending, and overlaying as recited in the claims, or do they operate on fundamentally different principles? The construction of terms like "overlayed image frame" and "deformation value" will be dispositive.