VDPP LLC v. McDonald's Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VDPP, LLC (Oregon)
  • Defendant: McDonald's Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00562, W.D. Tex., 03/26/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's systems, products, and services related to image processing and display infringe two expired patents concerning methods for creating an appearance of continuous or three-dimensional motion from a limited number of image frames.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to digital image processing techniques for generating visual effects, a technology fundamental to digital advertising, user interfaces, and media displays.
• Key Procedural History: Both patents-in-suit have expired. Plaintiff states it is a non-practicing entity and addresses patent marking requirements by noting it has entered into settlement licenses with other entities that did not involve admissions of infringement or authorize the production of patented articles.

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 Issues
2018-04-17	U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issues
2022-01-22	'922 Patent Expires
2023-09-09	'902 Patent Expires
2026-03-26	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 an artistic method used in live performances to create an illusion of continuous movement from only two projected images and a spinning propeller acting as a shutter ʼ902 Patent, col. 1:35-56 The technical problem identified is that attempts to capture this unique visual effect via conventional video recording have been "disappointingly compromised," making the transient effect difficult to store, copy, and commercialize ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:7-11
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to create and permanently store this illusion of "continuous, seamless and sustained directional movement" using a finite set of digital pictures ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:23-27 The core of the method involves repetitively displaying a sequence of at least three picture units: two "image pictures" that are visually similar to each other (e.g., frames A and B) and one "bridging picture" that is substantially dissimilar (e.g., a solid black frame C) ʼ902 Patent, abstract By looping this sequence (e.g., A, B, C, A, B, C...), the method creates the perception of ongoing motion without a visible start-over point ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:43-52 The solution can be enhanced by blending adjacent frames to create smoother transitions ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:56-67
• Technical Importance: This method provides a computationally efficient way to generate the appearance of complex, sustained motion from minimal source data (as few as two images), a concept relevant to early digital animation and creating effects for display on low-power devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-11 Compl. ¶9
• Independent Claim 1:
  • selecting at least two image pictures, a first image picture and a second image picture, 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, said sequential order being one or more first image pictures, one or more second image pictures, and one or more bridging pictures;
  • 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
  • repeating the first series of pictures a plurality of times to create a continuous plurality of picture frames having said first series thereon, such that when said plurality of picture frames are viewed an appearance of continuous movement is perceived by a viewer.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of claims 1-11 generally 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 Apr. 17, 2018)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background discusses electronically controlled spectacles that create a 3D effect (the "Pulfrich effect") by adjusting the tint of the lenses to synchronize with motion on a screen ʼ922 Patent, col. 3:9-16 A specified problem is that the electrochromic materials used in these spectacles often have slow transition times between clear and dark states, which can create a "barely perceptible, but nonetheless irritating tradeoff between the desired time to darken and the desired time to clear" ʼ922 Patent, col. 3:49-54
• The Patented Solution: While the patent title and background focus heavily on the physical spectacles, the asserted claims and the complaint's allegations describe a system and method for image processing Compl. ¶13 The solution, as claimed in claim 1, is an apparatus with storage and a processor adapted to obtain image frames from a video stream, generate modified frames by "expanding" the original frames, generate a separate "bridge frame," and display them all ʼ922 Patent, claim 1 This process of modifying and sequencing frames is similar to that described in the ʼ902 patent and is presented as a way to create and display content suitable for 3D viewing.
• Technical Importance: The claimed apparatus provides a specific method for manipulating video frames (e.g., by expansion) to create content, which could be used to generate visual effects or prepare standard 2D video for 3D display systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-12 Compl. ¶14
• Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus Claim):
  • An apparatus comprising: a 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, wherein the first image frame is different from the second image frame;
  • generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame, wherein the first modified image frame is different from the first image frame;
  • generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame, wherein the second modified image frame is different from the second image frame;
  • generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color, wherein the bridge frame is different from the first image frame and different from the second image frame; and
  • display the first modified image frame; display the second modified image frame; and display the bridge frame.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of claims 1-12 generally Compl. ¶14

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name Compl. ¶¶9, 14

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint broadly accuses "systems, products, and services in the field of image processing" and "image capture and modification" that are "maintain[ed], operate[d], and administer[ed]" by Defendant McDonald's Compl. ¶9 Compl. ¶14 It alleges Defendant "put the inventions claimed... into service (i.e., used them)" Compl. ¶9 Compl. ¶14 The complaint does not provide any specific details about the technical functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts attached as Exhibits B and D but does not include these exhibits in the filing Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶15 The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the general allegations in the complaint's body.

The narrative theory for the '902 Patent is that Defendant's unidentified systems perform the patented method for image processing, creating an appearance of sustained motion from a finite number of pictures Compl. ¶¶8-9 The theory for the '922 Patent is that Defendant's unidentified systems constitute an apparatus or perform a method to "capture and store image frames... modify captured image frames, blend modified image frames... and generate a combined frame for display" Compl. ¶13

Because the complaint provides no specific details about an accused product or its operation, and the referenced claim charts are not included, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The central issue raised by the complaint is the lack of specificity. A primary point of contention will be identifying which, if any, of Defendant's "systems, products, and services" perform the steps of the asserted method claims or contain the components of the asserted apparatus claim. What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant's systems perform the specific step of selecting a "dissimilar" "bridging picture" as required by claim 1 of the '902 Patent?
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the term "pictures," as used in the context of the '902 patent's artistic film background, can be construed to cover modern digital assets used in commercial displays.
  • Technical Questions (Claim Mismatch): For the '922 Patent, the complaint asserts infringement of an apparatus claim (Claim 1) against Defendant's "systems, products, and services" which it "used" Compl. ¶14 This raises the question of how a "service" or "system" operated by McDonald's meets the limitations of a tangible apparatus requiring "a storage" and "a processor" configured in a specific way.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the patent language, practitioners may focus on the following terms:

For the '902 Patent:

• The Term: "bridging picture which is dissimilar" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's mechanism for creating the illusion of continuous motion. The definition of what constitutes a "dissimilar" picture will determine the scope of infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, not limiting "dissimilar" to any particular characteristic. The specification states the bridge-picture "may also be a strongly contrasting image-picture" instead of just a solid color, suggesting dissimilarity can take multiple forms ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:29-32
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly states the bridging picture is "preferably a solid black or other solid-colored picture" and can be a "timed unlit-screen pause" ʼ902 Patent, col. 2:27-29 '902 Patent, col. 2:32-35 An accused infringer might argue that "dissimilar" should be limited to these preferred, non-image-based embodiments.

For the '922 Patent:

• The Term: "expanding the first image frame" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This is the specific "modification" of an image frame recited in the independent apparatus claim. Proving that an accused system "expand[s]" frames will be essential to proving infringement of this claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition for "expanding." In the absence of a specific definition, a party might argue for the term's plain and ordinary meaning, which could cover various forms of scaling or zooming an image.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Other claims in the patent recite distinct modification actions such as "shrinking," "stitching," or "reshaping" ʼ922 Patent, claims 3, 5, 11 A party could argue that "expanding" must be construed as a distinct operation, separate from general resizing or other modifications, to preserve the distinct scope of these other claims.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain explicit allegations of induced or contributory infringement. It alleges that Defendant "directly infringed" the patents-in-suit Compl. ¶9
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge. It makes a conditional allegation of willfulness, requesting a finding of willfulness and treble damages only if "discovery reveals that Defendant (1) knew of the patent-in-suit prior to the filing date of the lawsuit" Compl. Prayer ¶e

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

This dispute, in its early stage, appears to center on fundamental pleading and scope issues rather than nuanced technical disagreements. The key questions for the case are likely to be:

• An Evidentiary Question of Specificity: Can the plaintiff identify, with sufficient particularity, an accused instrumentality within McDonald's vast commercial operations that practices the specific, multi-step image processing methods claimed in the patents? The current complaint's failure to name any accused product or service may be a central focus of early motion practice.
• A Question of Claim-Type Mismatch: For the '922 Patent, a core legal issue will be whether Plaintiff can establish that Defendant's "systems" or "services" constitute the tangible "apparatus" required by the asserted independent claim, or if there is a fundamental mismatch between the claim type and the accused infringement.
• A Definitional Question of Scope: Should the case proceed, a key issue will be whether the patented methods, which arise from the context of creating artistic visual illusions, can be construed broadly enough to read on the technologies used in modern, large-scale commercial digital displays and advertising.