VDPP LLC v. Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01213, E.D. Tex., 05/01/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and having committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's in-store digital signage systems infringe two patents related to methods and apparatuses for creating an appearance of continuous motion from a finite number of image frames.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to digital video processing techniques used to create illusions of seamless, ongoing motion, a method particularly relevant for digital advertising and menu boards where content is looped.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was filed within 21 days of Defendant's Rule 12 motion, suggesting an initial challenge to the pleadings. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff has entered into settlement licenses with other entities in prior litigation involving its patents, but asserts these licenses do not trigger marking requirements 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
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, "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 describes prior art methods of creating an illusion of sustained motion using a small number of images, but notes these methods were transient, limited to live performances, and could not be effectively captured by video for commercialization '902 Patent, col. 2:7-12
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method that allows such visual illusions to be "permanently stored and copied and displayed on motion picture film or electronic media" '902 Patent, col. 2:18-21 The core technique involves repetitively presenting a sequence of at least two visually similar image pictures (e.g., A, B) that alternate with a third, "substantially dissimilar" bridging picture (C), which is often a solid black frame '902 Patent, abstract '902 Patent, col. 2:21-35 The repetition of this A, B, C sequence creates the perception of continuous, seamless motion without a visible start or end point '902 Patent, col. 2:49-52
• Technical Importance: This method provided a way to formalize and digitize a niche visual effect, making it applicable to looped electronic displays rather than just specialized live projections.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶9
• The essential elements of Claim 1, as described in the complaint, are:
  • selecting at least two image pictures 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;
  • placing said 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, such that...an appearance of continuous movement is perceived by a viewer Compl. ¶8 '902 Patent, col. 4:36-58
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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, "Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials," issued April 17, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: This patent, which shares a specification with the '902 patent, also addresses the creation of motion illusions. The complaint focuses on the apparatus claims, which are directed to the system architecture for implementing such effects. A technical challenge in this domain is efficiently processing and displaying video sequences that incorporate these specialized frame arrangements '922 Patent, col. 60:40-63
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims an apparatus comprising specific hardware and software components configured to perform the frame processing. This includes storage for image frames, a processor to generate various frame types (including "modified image frames" and a "solid-color bridge frame"), and modules to display them in sequence '922 Patent, Fig. 57 Compl. ¶19 This structure provides a concrete implementation for the method described in the '902 patent.
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific system architecture for generating and displaying video with inserted bridge frames, a technique used in modern displays to manage motion blur and create certain visual effects.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least independent claim 7 Compl. ¶20
• The essential elements of Claim 7, as described in the complaint, are an apparatus including:
  • 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 and a second modified image frame;
  • generate a solid-color bridge frame different from the first and second image frames; and
  • display the first modified image frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified image frame Compl. ¶¶19-20 Compl. ¶33
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Popeyes digital-signage systems" Compl. ¶9 This includes a range of components such as "digital menu boards, media players, processors, storage, display controllers, display panels, video files, display schedules, and associated software and firmware" Compl. ¶9

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these systems are used to display Popeyes' menu items, pricing, promotional materials, and other sales-related content to customers in its restaurants Compl. ¶13 The functionality at issue is the system's operation of generating and displaying video sequences that allegedly create an appearance of continuous motion by inserting "dissimilar" or "solid-color" frames, a technique the complaint identifies as "black frame insertion" ("BFI") or backlight scanning Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶25 Plaintiff alleges that Popeyes directs or controls the operation of these systems, even when components are managed by third parties or franchisees Compl. ¶12

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'902 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
selecting at least two image pictures...which are visually similar	Popeyes' digital signage systems select visually similar image pictures used in menu-board and promotional display sequences.	¶10	col. 4:36-39
selecting a bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image pictures	The systems select a dissimilar bridging picture, which the complaint alleges is a "black-frame-insertion or backlight-scanning frame."	¶10	col. 4:40-41
arranging said pictures in a sequential order	The systems arrange the visually similar image pictures and the bridging picture in a sequential order for display.	¶10	col. 4:42-44
placing said first series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames	The systems place each picture in the series on a corresponding display frame.	¶10	col. 4:49-52
repeating the first series of pictures a plurality of times...such that...an appearance of continuous movement is perceived by a viewer	The systems repeat the series multiple times during operation, which allegedly results in a viewer perceiving continuous movement.	¶10; ¶15	col. 4:53-58

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether modern display techniques like "black frame insertion" or "backlight scanning," which are primarily used for motion blur reduction, fall within the scope of a "dissimilar bridging picture" as contemplated by the patent. The patent describes the bridging picture as a "visual interval" that is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" '902 Patent, col. 2:29-32 The court may need to determine if the function and character of a BFI frame align with this description.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Popeyes "selects" and "arranges" pictures. A factual dispute may arise over whether the automated processing of a video file by a media player constitutes the active steps of "selecting" and "arranging" as required by the method claim, or if these steps are completed earlier during the video's creation.

'922 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
storage adapted to store one or more image frames	The accused digital signage apparatus includes storage to store a sequence of image frames.	¶22	col. 56:29-32
a processor adapted to obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream	The apparatus includes a processor that obtains first and second image frames from a video stream.	¶23	col. 56:29-32
generate a first modified image frame and a second modified image frame	The apparatus allegedly generates modified image frames by "stitching" the original frames to the resolution of the display.	¶24	col. 13:1-5
generate a solid-color bridge frame different from the first and second image frames	The apparatus allegedly generates a "solid black BFI/backlight-scanning bridge frame" that is different from the image frames.	¶25	col. 56:47-49
display the first modified image frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified image frame	The apparatus displays the sequence of modified frames and the bridge frame.	¶26	col. 56:47-49

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The term "modified image frame" will be critical. The complaint alleges modification via "stitching...to the resolution of the Popeyes digital signage" Compl. ¶24 The court will need to determine if this alleged resizing or reformatting constitutes "modification" as claimed. The patent specification discusses modification by removing portions of an image, which raises a question of whether the claim scope is limited to such subtractive modifications '922 Patent, col. 13:1-5
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused system actually "generates" a bridge frame at the time of display, as the claim requires. The defense may argue that any black frames are already encoded in the source video file, and the accused system merely displays them, rather than generating them.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'902 Patent: "bridging picture"

• The Term: "bridging picture"
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the infringement allegation for the '902 patent. Plaintiff's theory hinges on construing this term to cover modern techniques like Black Frame Insertion (BFI). The case's outcome may depend on whether a transient, often imperceptible black frame inserted for motion blur reduction serves the same role as the "bridging picture" described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term broadly as a "visual interval or bridging picture that is substantially dissimilar to the other...pictures" '902 Patent, col. 2:23-26 It also states it can be a "timed unlit-screen pause" in electronic media '902 Patent, col. 2:33-35, which may support reading the term on a black frame.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the bridging picture as one of three essential "picture-units" (A, B, and C) in a repeating sequence arranged to "strike the eyes sequentially" '902 Patent, col. 2:41-45 This could suggest a more substantive visual element than an imperceptible BFI frame, which a viewer might not consciously perceive as a "picture" in a series.

'922 Patent: "generate a...modified image frame"

• The Term: "generate a...modified image frame"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the '922 patent infringement allegation. The complaint alleges the accused system "generat[es] a first modified image frame by stitching the first image frame to the resolution of the Popeyes digital signage" Compl. ¶24 Practitioners may focus on this term because the viability of the infringement claim depends on whether routine video processing, like scaling an image to a display's resolution, qualifies as "generating a modified image frame" under the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "modified" is not explicitly defined, which could support a broad interpretation covering any alteration, including resizing or "stitching." The patent's general purpose is to enable the display of these visual effects on electronic media, a process that inherently involves adapting source images to display hardware.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of modification, such as "removing a first portion of a selected image frame" '922 Patent, col. 13:1-3 and "reshaping a portion of an image frame" '922 Patent, col. 14:2-3 A party could argue these examples limit the scope of "modified" to substantive content alterations rather than simple resolution scaling.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that to the extent any steps are performed by third parties like franchisees or vendors, "that performance is attributable to Popeyes" because "Popeyes directs or controls the accused digital-signage operation" Compl. ¶12 These allegations could potentially support a future claim for induced infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a prayer for a declaration of willful infringement and treble damages, contingent on discovery revealing that the Defendant knew of the patents-in-suit prior to or after the lawsuit filing and continued to infringe Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶e The factual basis for willfulness is not detailed in the body of the complaint and is predicated on future discovery.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "bridging picture," which originates from a method to create a specific perceptual illusion of "eternal" motion, be construed to cover modern Black Frame Insertion (BFI) technology, which is primarily implemented to reduce motion blur on LCD screens? The court must decide if there is a fundamental match or mismatch in the purpose and function of these technologies.

• A second central question will concern claim construction and technical operation: Does the accused digital signage's routine processing of a video file-such as scaling an image to fit a display-constitute "generating" a "modified image frame" as required by the apparatus claim of the '922 patent? This will likely turn on the court's interpretation of "generate" and "modified" in the context of the patent's specific examples.

• An evidentiary question will be one of infringing action: For the '902 method patent, does the accused system perform the claimed active steps of "selecting," "arranging," and "placing" pictures at the point of display, or were these steps completed when the video content was originally created, with the accused system merely acting as a passive player?