DCT

2:25-cv-01144

VDPP LLC v. Macy's Corp Services LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
    • Defendant: MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a/ MACY'S (Ohio)
    • Plaintiff's Counsel: Ramey LLP
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01144, E.D. Tex., 05/01/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business in Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's in-store digital signage systems infringe two patents related to methods and apparatuses for creating perceived continuous motion and other visual effects in video displays by manipulating frame sequences.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves processing video frame sequences-such as by inserting black frames or modifying existing frames-to improve the perceptual quality of motion on digital displays, a technique relevant to digital advertising and media presentation.
  • Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint was filed in response to a Rule 12 motion from the Defendant. The complaint also discloses that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has previously entered into settlement licenses with other parties, but contends these licenses do not create a patent marking obligation under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-23 U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Priority Date
2001-01-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Priority Date
2006-04-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 Issued
2018-04-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issued
2026-05-01 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"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,030,902 ("the '902 patent"), entitled "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 Compl. ¶13

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty of capturing and commercializing certain visual effects of perpetual motion, which had previously been limited to live, unrecordable "transient theater" performances using specialized projection equipment '902 Patent, col. 1:24-44 '902 Patent, col. 2:6-12
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method to create an illusion of continuous movement on electronic media by using a finite number of pictures '902 Patent, col. 2:15-22 The core method involves repetitively displaying a sequence comprising at least two visually similar image pictures and one dissimilar "bridging picture," which is preferably a solid black frame or a timed "unlit-screen pause" '902 Patent, abstract '902 Patent, col. 2:27-38 This repetition of a simple frame series (e.g., Image A, Image B, Black Frame C) is intended to create the perception of sustained motion without visible repetition '902 Patent, col. 2:43-56
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a technique for storing and reproducing complex visual illusions on standard motion picture film or electronic media, making them accessible beyond the confines of specialized live performances '902 Patent, col. 2:15-22

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶15
  • Independent claim 1 of the '902 patent recites a method with the following essential steps:
    • selecting at least two visually similar image pictures (a first and a second);
    • selecting a dissimilar bridging picture;
    • arranging the pictures in a sequential order to create a series;
    • placing the series on a plurality of picture frames; and
    • repeating the series a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames, which, when viewed, creates an appearance of continuous movement '902 Patent, col. 4:30-54
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting a reservation of the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶15

U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 - "Faster State Transitioning For Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 ("the '922 patent"), entitled "Faster State Transitioning For Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials," issued April 17, 2018 Compl. ¶24

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The background of the patent discusses issues with 3D-viewing spectacles that use the "Pulfrich effect," noting that slow transition times for the variable-tint lenses can prevent optimal synchronization with on-screen motion and that different 3D methods require different spectacles '922 Patent, col. 3:24-41 '922 Patent, col. 4:1-9 Although the title relates to spectacles, the asserted claims are directed to an image-processing apparatus.
  • The Patented Solution: As recited in the asserted claim, the invention is an apparatus containing storage and a processor adapted to perform specific image-processing operations '922 Patent, col. 14:48-51 The processor obtains image frames from a video stream, generates new "modified" image frames by "stitching" them with other frames, generates a solid-color "bridge frame," and displays the resulting sequence of modified and bridge frames '922 Patent, col. 14:52-68 '922 Patent, col. 15:1-4 This provides a concrete hardware architecture for performing frame modification and insertion.
  • Technical Importance: This technology describes a specific apparatus architecture for real-time video frame modification, which can be used to implement techniques like black frame insertion to improve perceptual motion quality on digital displays Compl. ¶39

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least independent claim 7 Compl. ¶26
  • Independent claim 7 of the '922 patent recites an apparatus with the following essential components:
    • a storage adapted to store one or more image frames; and
    • a processor adapted to:
      • obtain first and second image frames from a video stream;
      • generate first and second "modified" image frames by "stitching" the original frames with third and fourth image frames, respectively;
      • generate a solid-color "bridge frame" different from the image frames; and
      • display the first modified image frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified image frame '922 Patent, col. 14:48-68 '922 Patent, col. 15:1-4
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting a reservation of the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶26

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "digital signage systems, display systems, media-player systems, video-processing systems, content-management systems, advertising systems, and related instrumentalities" used in Macy's retail stores Compl. ¶8

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these systems are used in Macy's stores to display advertising and promotional content Compl. ¶9
  • The accused functionality involves displaying video or image sequences using techniques such as "black-frame insertion, backlight scanning, bridge frames, modified image frames, and/or frame sequences that create perceived continuous movement" Compl. ¶8
  • Plaintiff alleges Macy's directs and controls the operation of these systems and obtains "commercial and monetary benefit" from their use Compl. ¶9 Compl. ¶21 The complaint alleges that a high-speed, 1000-fps video of an advertisement, referenced as part of Exhibit B, shows the use of Black Frame Insertion (BFI) techniques Compl. ¶19

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits B and D, which are not provided in the submitted documents. The infringement allegations are summarized below based on the narrative in the complaint.

  • '902 Patent Infringement Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that Macy's digital signage systems directly infringe at least claim 1 of the '902 patent by performing the claimed method Compl. ¶15 The systems are accused of selecting "visually similar" image pictures from a promotional video sequence that appear before and after a "dissimilar" bridging picture Compl. ¶16 This bridging picture is alleged to be a black frame created by black-frame insertion (BFI) or a backlight-scanning frame Compl. ¶17 The complaint asserts these frames are arranged sequentially, placed on display frames, and repeated to create the perception of continuous movement, thereby meeting all steps of the claimed method Compl. ¶¶18-20

  • '922 Patent Infringement Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that Macy's digital signage apparatuses directly infringe at least claim 7 of the '922 patent by containing the claimed structures Compl. ¶26 The systems are alleged to include "storage" for image frames and a "processor" that obtains frames from a video stream Compl. ¶¶27-28 The processor is accused of generating "modified" image frames by "stitching" the original frames to match the display's resolution, allegedly creating a frame that is "different" Compl. ¶¶29-30 It is also alleged to generate a solid black "bridge frame" via BFI or backlight scanning Compl. ¶31 Finally, the apparatus is accused of displaying the modified image frames and the bridge frame in sequence Compl. ¶32

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • A primary technical question for the '902 patent is whether modern display techniques like "backlight scanning" fall within the scope of the claimed "bridging picture," which the patent describes as a discrete picture (e.g., a solid color frame) or a "timed unlit-screen pause" '902 Patent, col. 2:30-38 Compl. ¶17
    • For the '922 patent, a key dispute may center on the term "stitching." The infringement allegation depends on construing "stitching together the first image frame with a third image frame" to mean adapting the first frame to the display's resolution Compl. ¶29 This raises the question of whether resolution scaling constitutes the claimed "stitching" process for creating a "different" modified frame, or if the claim requires a combination of content from two distinct source images.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'902 Patent

  • The Term: "bridging picture" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement theory for the '902 patent relies on equating modern techniques like "black-frame insertion" and "backlight scanning" with the claimed "bridging picture" Compl. ¶17 The construction of this term is therefore central to determining whether these contemporary technologies, used for purposes like motion blur reduction, practice the claimed method.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the bridging picture as "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture, but may also be a strongly contrasting image-picture" '902 Patent, col. 2:30-32 It further notes that in electronic media, it "may simply be a timed unlit-screen pause" '902 Patent, col. 2:36-38 This language suggests flexibility and may support an interpretation that includes non-image intervals like those created by backlight scanning.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary embodiment, abstract, and figures consistently depict the "bridging picture" as a discrete, third pictorial element (labeled 'C') in a sequence with two other image pictures ('A' and 'B') '902 Patent, abstract '902 Patent, Fig. 1a-1c This could support an argument that the term requires a distinct, generated frame, not merely an interval of darkness created by manipulating a display's backlight.

'922 Patent

  • The Term: "stitching together" (from claim 7)
  • Context and Importance: The infringement case for the '922 patent hinges on this term. Plaintiff alleges that modifying a video frame to match the display's resolution is "stitching" Compl. ¶29 Whether this interpretation is viable will be a critical issue, as it determines if the accused systems create a "modified image frame" as claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint offers a specific technical meaning: "stitching together the first image frame to the resolution of the Macy's Digital Signage" Compl. ¶29 A party could argue that the term should be given a broad meaning in the context of digital image manipulation to include any process of combining image data with other data (such as resolution parameters, construed as a "third image frame") to produce a new frame.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "stitching together the first image frame with a third image frame" '922 Patent, col. 15:1-2 The plain meaning of "stitching together" two "frames" suggests creating a composite image from the content of two distinct source images. This could support a narrower construction that excludes simple resolution scaling, which could be characterized as a transformation of a single frame rather than a combination of two.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on a theory of direct infringement, alleging that Macy's itself performs or controls all steps of the asserted method claims and possesses and operates the accused apparatuses Compl. ¶¶9, 22, 33 The complaint does not set forth a separate count for indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conditional allegation of willfulness. The prayer for relief asks the court to declare the infringement willful and award treble damages, but only if "discovery reveals that Defendant (1) knew of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing date of the lawsuit; (2) after acquiring that knowledge, it infringed the patent; and (3) in doing so, it knew, or should have known, that its conduct amounted to infringement" Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technological evolution: Can claim terms drafted in the context of early 2000s video processing, such as the '902 patent's "bridging picture," be construed to encompass modern display technologies like "backlight scanning," which are implemented for potentially different technical reasons like motion blur reduction?
  • A second key issue will be one of technical interpretation: Does the accused act of scaling a video frame to a display's resolution constitute "stitching together" two image frames to create a "modified image frame," as required by claim 7 of the '922 patent, or is this a mischaracterization of a standard video processing function that falls outside the claim's scope?
  • A third central question, foreshadowed by the complaint's extensive pre-emptive arguments, will be patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Are the asserted claims directed to a specific, concrete improvement in digital display technology and computer functionality, as Plaintiff argues, or are they directed to an abstract idea of manipulating image sequences implemented on generic computer components, which would render them patent-ineligible?
Loading Amended Complaint