VDPP LLC v. 7 Eleven Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: 7-Eleven, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-03240, N.D. Tex., 01/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant being a Texas corporation with a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Texas, where acts of infringement are alleged to have occurred.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and services for image processing, capture, and modification infringe two expired patents related to methods for creating illusions of sustained motion and for processing video frames.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to digital video processing techniques for creating specialized visual effects, such as the illusion of perpetual motion, from a limited number of source images.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that both asserted patents have expired, limiting the action to claims for past damages. Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and discloses a history of prior settlement licenses with other parties, arguing these do not trigger patent marking obligations because they did not involve admissions of infringement or authorize the production of patented articles.

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”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty of creating the appearance of continuous motion without using a long, non-repetitive series of pictures, as is typical in filmmaking. Prior artistic methods for achieving such effects with few images were described as transient, limited to live performances, and not readily captured or commercialized on electronic media ’902 Patent, col. 1:21-27; col. 2:6-12
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to create a sustained illusion of motion by repetitively presenting a sequence of at least three picture units: two that are “visually similar” to each other (Pictures A and B) and a third “bridging picture” that is “dissimilar” (Picture C) ’902 Patent, col. 4:30-41 Repeating this sequence (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...) is claimed to create a perceptual illusion of ongoing movement from a finite, small set of images. The patent also discloses blending adjacent pictures (e.g., creating A/B, B/C) to produce a more fluid visual effect ’902 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-65
• Technical Importance: The described method enables the creation and storage of "perpetual motion" visual effects on standard film or digital media, making a niche artistic technique reproducible and distributable ’902 Patent, col. 2:15-21

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-11 Compl. ¶9 Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising the following essential elements:
  • 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 comprising the first, second, and bridging pictures;
  • placing this series onto a plurality of picture frames; and
  • repeating the series a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of frames that, when viewed, produce an appearance of continuous movement.
• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more of claims 1-11, thereby reserving the right to assert 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”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: While the patent title refers to 3D spectacles, the asserted claims are directed to an apparatus for processing image frames. The complaint characterizes the invention as a "method and apparatus adapted to capture and store image frames from different video streams, modify captured image frames, blend modified image frames based on an identified bridge frame, and generate a combined frame for display" Compl. ¶13 The patent background discusses generating 3D effects from 2D motion pictures and the limitations of prior systems ’922 Patent, col. 3:9-12
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims an apparatus, including a storage and a processor, that obtains first and second image frames from a video stream. The processor is adapted to generate modified versions of these frames by "expanding" them, generate a solid-color "bridge frame," and then display the modified frames and the bridge frame in sequence ’922 Patent, col. 114:1-24 (Claim 1)
• Technical Importance: The claimed apparatus provides a system for algorithmically modifying standard 2D video content to create new visual outputs, rather than relying on content originally filmed with specialized equipment ’922 Patent, col. 15:1-7

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-12 Compl. ¶14 Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising the following essential elements:
  • a storage adapted to store one or more 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 original frames;
    • generate a solid color "bridge frame" different from the original frames; and
    • display the first modified frame, the bridge frame, and the second modified image frame.
• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more of claims 1-12, thereby reserving the right to assert dependent claims Compl. ¶14

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name. It broadly accuses Defendant’s "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" of infringing the ’902 Patent and its "systems, products, and services in the field of image capture and modification" of infringing the ’922 Patent Compl. ¶¶9, 14

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused instrumentality. It makes only conclusory allegations that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" infringing systems Compl. ¶¶9, 14
  No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the ’902 and ’922 Patents and references preliminary exemplary claim charts in Exhibits B and D, respectively, which were not included with the filed complaint Compl. ¶¶10, 15 The complaint does not provide a narrative description of how any specific functionality of an accused instrumentality corresponds to the elements of the asserted claims.

• Identified Points of Contention (’902 Patent): Given the lack of specific allegations, a primary point of contention may be whether any of Defendant’s systems (e.g., for in-store digital advertising or mobile applications) employ the specific claimed method. A dispute could center on whether Plaintiff can identify a "first image picture," a "second image picture," and a "dissimilar...bridging picture" that are arranged and repeated in a loop to create a motion effect, as required by the claims Compl. ¶9; ’902 Patent, col. 14:50-65
• Identified Points of Contention (’922 Patent): An analysis of infringement will likely raise the question of whether any accused system performs the specific processing steps recited in the claims. A key technical question may be whether Defendant's systems "generate a...modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" and then display it in sequence with a "bridge frame," or if they use other conventional video processing techniques not covered by the claim language Compl. ¶14; ’922 Patent, col. 114:5-12

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’902 Patent

• The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar to said image picture" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the crucial third element of the repeating sequence that allegedly creates the motion illusion. Its construction will determine the scope of the claim, specifically what qualifies as a "bridging" element. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could either limit the claim to an actual, contrasting image or broaden it to include simple intervals like blank frames.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that in electronic media, "the bridge-picture may simply be a timed unlit-screen pause" and later refers to it as a "neutral or black frame, not consciously noticed by the viewer" ’902 Patent, col. 2:32-34, col. 2:53-54 This language may support a construction that does not require a distinct, viewable "picture."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the bridging element as a "strongly contrasting image-picture" or a "solid black or other solid-colored picture" ’902 Patent, col. 2:28-31 This may support a narrower construction requiring a tangible visual element rather than just a temporal gap between frames.

’922 Patent

• The Term: "generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term recites a specific technical action performed by the claimed processor. The definition of "expanding" is critical to determining whether common video functions like digital zoom or resizing fall within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition for "expanding" in the specification. In the absence of a specific definition, parties may argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art, which could encompass a wide range of digital image enlargement techniques.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments from the shared patent family describe creating motion illusions by making "slight shrinking or enlargement" of an image area or by offsetting images relative to one another ’902 Patent, col. 9:8-9 A party might argue that "expanding" should be construed narrowly in this context, limited to modifications intended to create such specific visual effects, rather than any generic resizing function.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include a formal count for indirect infringement and does not plead specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent for either induced or contributory infringement. The allegations focus on Defendant's direct use of the claimed inventions Compl. ¶¶9, 14
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. However, it includes a contingent request in the prayer for relief for a finding of willfulness and treble damages should discovery reveal that Defendant knew of the patents prior to the lawsuit Compl. p. 7, Prayer for Relief ¶e

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

• A primary threshold issue will be one of specificity and evidence: given the complaint's lack of detail, the initial phase of the case will likely focus on whether the Plaintiff can identify specific accused instrumentalities within Defendant's operations and articulate a plausible, fact-based theory linking their technical functions to the limitations of the asserted claims.
• A central technical question will be one of operational correspondence: assuming specific products are identified, the dispute may turn on whether their functionality represents a fundamental match with the patents' claimed methods. For example, does an accused system create a motion effect using the specific "similar-similar-dissimilar" image looping structure of the ’902 Patent, or does it use conventional animation or video playback techniques that operate differently?
• A core issue of claim scope will be dispositive for the ’922 Patent: can the term "expanding the first image frame" be construed to cover general-purpose digital zoom or scaling functions commonly found in video processing, or is its meaning limited by the patent's context to more specialized modifications for creating motion illusions?