VDPP LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Walgreen Co. (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Name: VDPP, LLC v. Walgreen Co.
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01118, E.D. Tex., 03/18/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Marshall, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's systems and services for image processing and modification infringe two expired patents related to creating an illusion of sustained motion from a finite number of image frames.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to methods for digital image processing to create looping visual effects, a technique used in online advertising, user-generated content, and digital photo products.
• Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit expired prior to the filing of the complaint, limiting any potential damages to past infringement. Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it has previously entered into settlement licenses with other entities concerning its patents, though none were for the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

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 addresses the challenge of creating the appearance of continuous, sustained motion for permanent storage and display (e.g., on film or electronic media) using only a very limited number of images, in contrast to traditional video which requires a long sequence of unique frames U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, col. 1:23-28
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of repetitively displaying a sequence of at least three pictures: two that are "substantially similar" to each other, and a third "bridging picture" that is "substantially dissimilar" (e.g., a solid black frame) U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, col. 2:20-33 By arranging these pictures into a repeating loop (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...), the method creates an optical illusion of an action that is continuous and sustained but does not progress, which the inventor terms "Eternalism" U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, col. 1:47-53 U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, col. 2:36-41
• Technical Importance: The method provided a technique for creating lightweight, compelling visual effects that could be stored and transmitted efficiently before the widespread availability of high-bandwidth streaming video.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts claims 1-11 Compl. ¶9 Independent claim 1 is a method claim that requires:

• selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and second image picture);
• selecting a bridging picture that is dissimilar to the image pictures;
• arranging the pictures in a sequential order containing the first, second, and bridging pictures;
• placing this series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames; and
• repeating the series a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames that, when viewed, creates an appearance of continuous movement.

The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims Compl. ¶9

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: While the patent's title and abstract focus on 3D spectacles, the asserted claims are directed to an apparatus for implementing the image processing method described in the '902 patent. The problem addressed by these claims is the creation of a system capable of generating the "Eternalism" effect described above Compl. ¶13
• The Patented Solution: The '922 patent claims an apparatus comprising storage and a processor adapted to implement the core "Eternalism" method U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922, col. 114:1-46 The processor is configured to obtain image frames from a video stream, generate modified frames (e.g., by expanding or shrinking them), generate a solid-color "bridge frame," and then display the modified frames and the bridge frame sequentially Compl. ¶13 U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922, col. 114:1-46
• Technical Importance: The patent claims a specific apparatus (e.g., a software or hardware system) for generating the visual effects taught in the earlier '902 method patent, thereby extending protection to the underlying systems that perform the process.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts claims 1-12 Compl. ¶14 Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim that requires:

• a storage adapted to store image frames;
• a processor adapted to:
  • obtain a first and second image frame from a video stream;
  • generate first and second modified image frames by expanding the originals;
  • generate a solid color bridge frame; and
  • display the first modified image frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified image frame.

The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims Compl. ¶14

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, service, or system by name Compl. ¶¶9, 14 It refers generally to "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" Compl. ¶9 Compl. ¶14

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality. It makes only conclusory allegations that Defendant's unspecified systems perform infringing methods Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶9 Compl. ¶14

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint refers to claim charts in Exhibits B and D, which were not available in the court filing Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶15 The complaint does not otherwise provide a narrative description of how any specific functionality of a Walgreen product or service meets the limitations of the asserted claims. Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The primary issue raised by the complaint's sparse allegations is evidentiary. A court may first need to address whether the complaint sufficiently pleads a plausible claim for infringement without identifying any specific accused product or detailing how it operates. The central question for discovery will be for Plaintiff to identify which, if any, of Defendant's services (e.g., online photo-gift creation tools, marketing advertisements, in-store kiosk software) perform the patented methods.
• Scope Questions: Should an accused instrumentality be identified, a likely point of contention will be the scope of the claimed method. The analysis may question whether a modern looping animation (such as an animated GIF) constitutes the specific patented method of selecting two "visually similar" but distinct images, combining them with a "dissimilar" bridging frame, and repeating the sequence to create the "impossible in actual life" illusion of non-progressive motion described in the '902 patent's specification U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, col. 1:50-53

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image picture" ('902 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the structure of the claimed method. The relationship between the primary images and the "bridging" image defines the patented sequence. Its construction will determine whether a wide range of visual transitions or only specific types, like a blank frame, fall within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the '922 patent, which is part of the same family, explicitly limits the corresponding "bridge frame" in its independent claim 1 to a "solid color," suggesting a potentially narrower scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '902 specification states the bridging picture "may also be a strongly contrasting image-picture" and not just a solid color U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, col. 2:31-32
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the preferred embodiment as a "solid black or other solid-colored picture" or a "neutral or black frame" U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, col. 2:29-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, col. 2:53-54

• The Term: "an appearance of continuous movement" ('902 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the result of the claimed process and is key to distinguishing it from other forms of animation. Whether this term covers any generic looping video or is limited to the specific "running-in-place" illusion described in the patent will be critical to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of the term could arguably encompass any animation that repeats, giving an appearance of movement that is continuous.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the effect as an "evolving yet limited action" that "appears to be happening continually without visible return-and-start-over repetition," a "visual illusion of an event impossible in actual life" U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902, col. 1:50-53 This language may support a narrower construction limited to this specific type of non-progressive, perpetual motion.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. It includes a conditional request for enhanced damages and a finding of willfulness in its prayer for relief, contingent upon discovery revealing such knowledge Compl. ¶VI.e

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

• A core issue will be one of pleading sufficiency and evidence: The complaint's failure to identify a single accused product or describe its functionality raises the immediate question of whether the allegations are sufficient to proceed. The initial phase of the case will likely focus on Plaintiff's ability to identify a specific Walgreen service that plausibly practices the patents' claims.
• A key technical question will be one of definitional scope: Assuming an accused service is identified, the dispute will likely turn on whether modern digital animation techniques, such as creating a simple looping video or animated GIF from a series of frames, meet the specific claim requirements of selecting two "visually similar" images and a "dissimilar bridging picture" and repeating them to create the unique, non-progressive "Eternalism" effect described in the patent specifications.