VDPP LLC v. Penney OpCo LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00051, E.D. Tex., 05/04/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's operation of regular and established places of business within the district, as well as alleged acts of infringement committed in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's in-store digital signage and payment terminal display systems infringe patents related to methods and apparatuses for creating an appearance of continuous motion by sequencing image frames.
• Technical Context: The technology involves digital video processing techniques, such as black frame insertion, used in modern displays to improve perceived motion quality and create specific visual effects with minimal data.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts two patents, both of which are now expired. The lawsuit seeks only damages for past infringement within the statutory recoverable period. The complaint notes that Plaintiff has previously entered into settlement agreements related to the patents-in-suit but alleges these did not involve admissions of infringement or authorize the making or selling of patented articles.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-23	'902 and '922 Patents Priority Date
2006-04-18	'902 Patent Issue Date
2018-04-17	'922 Patent Issue Date
2019-03-05	High-speed video of accused system recorded
2020-01-22	'902 and '922 Patent damages period begins
2022-01-22	'922 Patent Expiration Date
2023-09-09	'902 Patent Expiration Date
2026-05-04	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" (Issued Apr. 18, 2006)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty of creating an appearance of continuous, sustained motion using only a finite number of pictures (e.g., as few as two), noting that previous methods were often limited to transient live performances and could not be easily recorded or commercialized '902 Patent, col. 1:16-22 '902 Patent, col. 2:5-12
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where at least two visually similar images are alternated with a third, dissimilar "bridging picture," which is preferably a solid color like black '902 Patent, col. 3:15-24 This sequence of pictures is then repeated multiple times in a "loop" to create the illusion of sustained, ongoing motion without a perceptible start-and-stop stutter '902 Patent, abstract '902 Patent, col. 2:42-55 The patent specification, particularly Figure 1c, illustrates this repeating series of two similar pictures (A, B) bridged by a dissimilar picture (C) '902 Patent, Fig. 1c
• Technical Importance: The method provided a computationally efficient way to generate looping or continuous motion effects from a minimal set of image data, a technique valuable for digital displays where data and processing efficiency are important '902 Patent, col. 1:16-22

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶¶19-30
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • a) selecting at least two visually similar image pictures;
  • b) selecting a bridging picture dissimilar to the image pictures;
  • c) arranging the pictures in a sequential order to create a first series of pictures;
  • d) placing the first series of pictures on a plurality of picture frames, with each picture placed on a single frame; and
  • e) repeating the first series of pictures a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames, such that viewers perceive an appearance of continuous movement.
• 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" (Issued Apr. 17, 2018)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: While the patent title refers to spectacles, the asserted claim is directed to a display apparatus. The patent family addresses the general problem of creating an appearance of continuous movement from a finite number of images '902 Patent, col. 1:16-22 The '922 patent itself claims a specific apparatus architecture to implement this concept '922 Patent, claim 7
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims an apparatus comprising storage and a processor that implements a specific image-processing sequence '922 Patent, claim 7 The processor is adapted to obtain image frames from a video stream, generate "modified" image frames by "stitching" them with other frames, generate a separate solid-color "bridge frame," and then display the sequence of modified frames and the bridge frame '922 Patent, claim 7 This apparatus provides a concrete system for executing the frame-sequencing method described in the parent '902 patent '922 Patent, Fig. 31
• Technical Importance: This invention claims a specific system architecture (processor and storage) for generating and displaying video with bridge frames, moving the concept from an abstract method to a tangible apparatus relevant to hardware like display controllers and media players '922 Patent, claim 7

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 7 Compl. ¶¶31-43
• The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
  • An apparatus comprising storage adapted to store image frames and a processor.
  • The processor is adapted to:
    • obtain a first and second image frame from a video stream;
    • generate a first modified image frame by stitching together the first image frame with a third image frame;
    • generate a second modified image frame by stitching together the second image frame with a fourth image frame;
    • generate a solid-color bridge frame different from the first and second image frames;
    • display the first modified image frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified image frame.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Home Depot's in-store digital signage and display systems, including Pro Desk displays, aisle displays, and payment terminals such as Ingenico-branded systems Compl. ¶¶13-14
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these systems display sequential image frames by employing technologies like "black frame insertion, backlight scanning, or materially similar frame-sequencing technology" to insert "black or dark bridge frames" between content frames Compl. ¶14 The complaint describes visual evidence in the form of a high-speed video of an accused Ingenico display, recorded at 1000 frames per second, which allegedly shows the use of this black frame insertion technique Compl. ¶16 These systems are alleged to be commercially important for improving customer engagement, displaying advertising, and facilitating transactions in Home Depot's retail stores Compl. ¶15

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'902 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a) selecting at least two image pictures, a first image picture and a second image picture, which are visually similar;	The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to select "at least two visually similar image pictures, including temporally distinct but visually similar content frames that carry the same or nearly the same displayed content." Compl. ¶23	¶23	col. 4:35-42
b) selecting a bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image pictures;	The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly select a bridging picture, which "includes a black or dark frame, or a solid-color frame, inserted or generated between content frames through black frame insertion, backlight scanning, or materially similar technology." Compl. ¶24	¶24	col. 4:35-42
c) arranging said pictures in a sequential order to create a first series of pictures...;	The systems allegedly "display one or more content frames followed by one or more black or dark bridging frames and then additional content frames, forming a repeating temporal sequence of content frame, bridge frame, and content frame." Compl. ¶25	¶25	col. 4:43-48
d) 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	The content frames and black or dark bridge frames are allegedly "each output and displayed independently for discrete time intervals as separate frames during the display refresh cycle." Compl. ¶26	¶26	col. 4:49-53
e) 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.	Through the alleged "repeated sequential display of content frames and black or dark bridge frames, viewers perceive an appearance of continuous movement or continuous visual presentation." Compl. ¶27	¶27	col. 4:54-59

'922 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an apparatus comprising: storage adapted to store one or more image frames; and a processor adapted to...	The Accused Instrumentalities are described as "apparatuses comprising storage and processors, including memory, media players, display controllers... and/or other processing hardware and software used to store... image frames." Compl. ¶34	¶34	col. 15:7-40
obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream...	The processors allegedly "obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream, including successive frames from the same video, graphical, advertising, transaction, or display-content stream used to drive the display." Compl. ¶36	¶36	col. 15:10-12
generate a first modified image frame by stitching together the first image frame with a third image frame...	The complaint alleges processors "generate composited or modified frames by combining image frames, graphics, overlays, transitions, or other frame data into a modified frame for display." Compl. ¶37	¶37	col. 15:13-17
generate a second modified image frame by stitching together the second image frame with a fourth image frame...	The complaint alleges processors likewise generate successive display frames that are "modified or composited by combining image frames, graphics, overlays, transitions, or other frame data into a modified frame for display." Compl. ¶38	¶38	col. 15:18-22
generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color and is different from the first image frame and different from the second image frame;	The processors allegedly "generate or insert black or dark frames between content frames through black frame insertion, backlight scanning, or materially similar technology." Compl. ¶39	¶39	col. 15:23-27
display the first modified image frame, display the bridge frame, and display the second modified image frame.	The accused display sequence allegedly "includes modified content frames separated by a black or dark solid-color bridge frame, which is physically rendered or visually manifested on the display as part of the sequential display operation." Compl. ¶40	¶40	col. 15:28-31

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • '902 Patent: The patent was filed in 2002 and often describes the invention using terms like "pictures" and "picture frames", which may evoke physical film cells '902 Patent, col. 1:24-33 The infringement allegation centers on digitally generated "content frames" and "black or dark frames" on high-refresh-rate displays Compl. ¶¶22-24 This raises the question of whether the term "picture", as used and described in the patent, can be construed to read on the dynamically generated frames of a modern digital display system.
  • '922 Patent: The claim requires the processor to "generate a first modified image frame by stitching together the first image frame with a third image frame" '922 Patent, claim 7 The complaint alleges this is met by "combining image frames, graphics, overlays, transitions, or other frame data into a modified frame for display" Compl. ¶37 A central technical and legal question will be whether combining a frame with "graphics, overlays, [or] transitions" constitutes "stitching together" that frame with a "third image frame" as required by the specific language of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "bridging picture" ('902 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the claimed method, defining the element that separates the visually similar pictures to create the illusion of continuous motion. The complaint alleges this is met by a "black or dark frame" Compl. ¶24, so its scope is central to infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires only that the bridging picture be "dissimilar to said image pictures" '902 Patent, claim 1 The specification supports this by describing it as potentially being a "strongly contrasting image-picture" or even a "timed unlit-screen pause" in electronic media '902 Patent, col. 2:30-34
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly states a preference, suggesting a more limited scope. It notes the bridging picture is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" and that "black is usually preferred" '902 Patent, col. 2:28-29 '902 Patent, col. 3:20-21 A defendant may argue these statements limit the term to a solid-color frame.

Term: "stitching together" ('922 Patent, Claim 7)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the specific processor action required to generate a "modified image frame." Infringement depends on whether the accused devices' functionality meets this definition. The complaint alleges this is satisfied by "combining image frames, graphics, overlays, [or] transitions" Compl. ¶37 Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if common digital video effects fall within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent family specification mentions that pictures can be "collaged or stitched together from multiple sources" '902 Patent, col. 13:2-3 This may support an interpretation where "stitching" includes general digital composition techniques like adding overlays or graphics.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "stitching" implies joining elements together. More critically, the claim language is highly specific: "stitching together the first image frame with a third image frame." An argument could be made that this requires a combination of two distinct, complete image frames, not merely the application of an overlay, graphic, or transition effect to a single image frame.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conditional allegation of willfulness. It does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. Instead, it seeks a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages contingent on discovery revealing that the defendant acquired knowledge of the patents (e.g., through the lawsuit itself) and continued to infringe with knowledge that its conduct amounted to infringement Compl., prayer e

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

1. A primary issue will be one of technological scope and translation: Can the term "picture" on a "picture frame," originating from a 2001-priority patent, be construed to cover the dynamically generated "black or dark frames" inserted into a high-refresh-rate video stream by modern digital display technology like "black frame insertion" or "backlight scanning"?

2. A second key question will be one of functional and definitional equivalence for the '922 patent: Does the accused systems' generation of frames with "graphics, overlays, [or] transitions" perform the specific claimed function of "stitching together the first image frame with a third image frame" to create a "modified image frame," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claim's specific language and the alleged technical operation?