VDPP LLC v. Best Western Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Best Western International, Inc. (Arizona)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Andrew M. Ling, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00640, D. Ariz., 01/29/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Arizona because the Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services for image capture and modification infringe two patents related to methods for creating three-dimensional visual effects and the spectacles used to view them.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to the field of image processing and optical devices for creating the illusion of three-dimensional motion from two-dimensional pictures, a technology often used in entertainment and virtual simulations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors-in-interest have previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities for its patents. The complaint asserts that none of these prior licenses involved the production of a patented article, a point raised in the context of compliance with patent marking statutes.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902

• Patent Identification: 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 difficulty of capturing and commercializing visual phenomena that create an illusion of sustained motion, which had previously been limited to transient live theater performances using specialized projection equipment ’902 Patent, col. 1:19-2:11
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for creating and storing the illusion of continuous movement using a finite number of pictures ’902 Patent, abstract The method involves repetitively presenting a sequence of at least two visually similar image pictures (A, B) that alternate with a third, dissimilar "bridging picture" (C), such as a solid black frame ’902 Patent, col. 2:15-34 This A, B, C sequence, when repeated in a loop, creates the perception of sustained, ongoing motion from a limited set of static images ’902 Patent, col. 2:42-52 The patent also describes creating more fluid motion by blending adjacent pictures to create intermediate frames ’902 Patent, col. 2:56-3:4
• Technical Importance: This method purports to allow complex visual illusions, previously confined to live, non-recordable performances, to be permanently stored, copied, and displayed on standard motion picture film or electronic media ’902 Patent, col. 2:1-11

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-11 Compl. ¶9 Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • selecting at least two image pictures, a first image picture and a second image picture, which are visually similar;
  • selecting a bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image pictures;
  • arranging said pictures in a sequential order to create a first series of pictures, said sequential order being one or more first image pictures, one or more second image pictures, one or more bridging pictures;
  • placing said first series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames wherein each picture of said first series is placed on a single frame; and
  • repeating the first series of pictures a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames having said first series thereon, such that when said plurality of picture frames are viewed, an appearance of continuous movement is perceived by a viewer.

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922

• Patent Identification: 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's background describes issues with prior art "3Deeps Filter Spectacles," which are used to view 2D movies in 3D. The problems include slow transition times for the electronically controlled lenses when changing optical density and a limited "cycle life" for the optoelectronic materials used in the lenses ’922 Patent, col. 3:9-52
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an electrically controlled spectacle that uses multiple layers of variable tint materials (such as electrochromic materials) to fabricate the right and left lenses ’922 Patent, abstract ’922 Patent, col. 3:20-29 Using multiple layers allows the spectacles to achieve faster transition times between different optical densities than a single layer would permit, while also potentially increasing the cycle life of the materials ’922 Patent, col. 3:53-4:2
• Technical Importance: The use of multi-layered lenses enables the creation of more responsive and durable 3D-effect spectacles that can better synchronize with on-screen motion, thereby improving the viewer's experience.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-12 Compl. ¶14 Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • an electrically controlled spectacle comprising: a spectacle frame;
  • optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame, the lenses comprising a left lens and a right lens, each of the optoelectrical lenses having a plurality of states, wherein the state of the left lens is independent of the state of the right lens; and
  • a control unit housed in the frame, the control unit being adapted to control the state of each of the lenses independently.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify a specific accused product, system, or service by name. It generally accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture devices" and "image capture and modification" that Defendant Best Western International, Inc. "maintains, operates, and administers" Compl. ¶¶9, 14

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentality. It alleges that Defendant introduced infringing products and services into the stream of commerce in Arizona Compl. ¶3 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations may be found in preliminary exemplary tables attached as Exhibits B (for the ’902 Patent) and D (for the ’922 Patent) Compl. ¶¶10, 15 However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint.

In the absence of claim charts, the infringement theory must be derived from the complaint's narrative allegations. For both the ’902 and ’922 patents, the complaint makes broad, conclusory statements that the Defendant's unspecified "systems, products, and services" infringe the asserted claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents Compl. ¶¶9, 14 The complaint does not explain how any specific feature of any accused instrumentality maps to any specific claim element of the patents-in-suit.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A primary legal question will be whether the complaint's generalized and conclusory allegations, which fail to identify a specific accused product or map any functionality to the patent claims, meet the plausibility pleading standards required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and the Twombly/Iqbal case law framework.
  • Technical Mismatch (’902 Patent): A key technical question is whether any system or service operated by Best Western, a hotel operator, actually performs the specific method of creating a motion illusion by arranging and repeating sequences of visually similar and dissimilar pictures as claimed by the ’902 Patent.
  • Apparatus vs. Service Mismatch (’922 Patent): A central point of contention for the ’922 Patent will be the apparent mismatch between the claimed invention and the accused instrumentality. The ’922 Patent claims a physical apparatus—an "electrically controlled spectacle" ’922 Patent, claim 1 The complaint accuses Defendant's "systems, products, and services" Compl. ¶14 This raises the question of how a hotel company's services could directly infringe a patent for a physical pair of glasses.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’902 Patent: "bridging picture"

• The Term: "bridging picture" (from claim 1).
• Context and Importance: The "bridging picture" is the essential "dissimilar" element that alternates with the similar image pictures to create the claimed illusion of motion. The scope of infringement will depend heavily on what qualifies as a "bridging picture", as its presence is a prerequisite for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if an alleged infringer's system contains a frame or interval that meets this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term can be interpreted broadly, stating the bridging picture "is preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture, but may also be a strongly contrasting image-picture" or, in electronic media, "simply be a timed unlit-screen pause" ’902 Patent, col. 2:30-35 This could support an argument that a non-image interval or a contrasting-but-not-solid-color image qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment described in detail is a "solid black picture" ’902 Patent, col. 5:58-61 The abstract also refers to the dissimilar picture as "usually a solid color" ’902 Patent, abstract This language could support a narrower construction limited to simple, non-image frames.

’922 Patent: "spectacle"

• The Term: "spectacle" (from claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term defines the physical object of the invention. The infringement analysis for the ’922 Patent hinges on whether the Defendant makes, uses, sells, or offers for sale an apparatus that falls within the definition of a "spectacle".
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "spectacle", which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering a range of eyewear-like devices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes "a spectacle frame and optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame," and the figures consistently depict a conventional pair of glasses ’922 Patent, abstract ’922 Patent, Fig. 1, 5, 11, 14 This evidence strongly suggests a physical device worn by a user, akin to traditional eyeglasses.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a prayer for a finding of willful infringement and treble damages Compl. prayer 'e' The allegation is conditioned on discovery revealing that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents, continued to infringe after acquiring that knowledge, and knew or should have known its conduct constituted infringement Compl. prayer 'e'

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency and Specificity: The central and most immediate issue will be whether the complaint can survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The case raises a significant question of pleading sufficiency: do the vague allegations against unspecified "systems" of a hotel chain, without any detail mapping product features to patent claims, provide plausible grounds for relief, or are they merely conclusory assertions that do not meet the Twombly/Iqbal standard?

2. Instrumentality Mismatch: A key substantive question, particularly for the ’922 Patent, is one of infringement viability: can the plaintiff establish that a hospitality services company like Best Western directly infringes a patent claiming a physical "spectacle"? The resolution will depend on whether discovery uncovers evidence that the Defendant makes, uses, sells, or offers to sell an actual hardware device that embodies the claims, a fact not alleged in the complaint.

3. Technical Applicability: Assuming the case proceeds, an essential evidentiary question will be one of functional reality: does any product or service in Best Western's portfolio—be it a website virtual tour, a booking system, or another technology—actually employ the specific image-sequencing method of the ’902 Patent, which requires arranging and repeating visually similar images with a dissimilar "bridging picture" to create a motion illusion?