VDPP LLC

Ford (2:24-cv-12904) and Subaru (2:24-cv-00909) are the latest defendants to be added to the sole litigation campaign of VDPP LLC, which has seen over 70 defendants sued since its launch in August 2019. The three patents-in-suit, asserted in overlapping sets, are broadly directed to generating and/or displaying a modified video. The defendants are accused of infringement through the provision of their respective backup camera systems. Meanwhile, prior defendant TP-Link has filed a declaratory judgment (DJ) action (8:24-cv-02456) against VDPP, seeking a judgment of noninfringement as to one of those three asserted patents. Despite a recent judgment holding VDPP and its counsel, Ramey LLP, jointly and severally liable for more than $207K in shifted attorney fees, VDPP has once again selected Ramey LLP to represent it in its new affirmative infringement complaints.

VDPP LLC has filed two new complaints, one in the Southern District of New York against TATA Motors (Jaguar Land Rover North America) (2:24-cv-10029), targeting the provision of the Jaguar Surround View System, and another in the Southern District of New York against Savant Systems (1:24-cv-08139), targeting the provision of certain surveillance cameras. Two different patents are asserted, both from a family broadly directed to modified images and/or videos. New counsel for VDPP has filed the complaints in each forum, as former mainstay Ramey LLP moves on an emergency basis to protect the retirement account of its principal, in light of an earlier order holding him jointly and severally liable for $207K in shifted attorney fees.

VDPP LLC has filed an Eastern District of Texas complaint against Canon (AXIS Communications) (2:24-cv-00727), targeting the provision of the Axis P1375 Network Camera for its alleged support for electronic image stabilization. Apparently expired, the asserted patent generally relates to generating and/or displaying a modified video. Southern District of Texas Judge Lee H. Rosenthal recently ruled a VDPP case against Volkswagen exceptional, holding the plaintiff and its counsel, Ramey LLP, jointly and severally liable for more than $207K in shifted attorney fees. As has become its recent practice, VDPP pleads extensively that its prior licensees are not required to mark any product as practicing this or any other patent asserted in this campaign.

On July 11, 2024, Southern District of Texas Judge Lee H. Rosenthal ruled a case against Volkswagen exceptional, holding plaintiff VDPP LLC and its counsel, Ramey LLP, jointly and severally liable for reasonable attorney fees incurred in defending it. This past week, the court quantified that award, shifting a total of $207,543.60. In doing so, the court declined VDPP’s invitation to “allocate the fees between the frivolous and nonfrivolous aspects of the case” because “[i]t was all frivolous”. Undeterred since that July 11 order, VDPP has filed new complaints in various districts, one against each of Casio, Dell, Digital Projection, GeoVision (USA Vision Systems), Giga-Byte Technology, Hon Hai Precision Industry (Belkin), Lenovo, Leyard Optoelectronic (Planar Systems), MediaTek, Pioneer (Pioneer Electronics), Qualcomm, Resideo Technologies, Roku, Senao Networks (EnGenius Technologies), STMicro, and TP-Link.

VDPP LLC has expanded its sole litigation campaign with suits against Dell (7:24-cv-00180), GeoVision (USA Vision Systems) (7:24-cv-00181), Lenovo (7:24-cv-00182), MediaTek (MediaTek USA) (7:24-cv-00187), Qualcomm (7:24-cv-00183), Resideo Technologies (7:24-cv-00184), and STMicro (7:24-cv-00188) in the Western District of Texas; Delta Electronics (2:24-cv-00625) in the Eastern District of Texas; Hon Hai Precision Industry (Belkin) (2:24-cv-06330), Pioneer (Pioneer Electronics) (2:24-cv-06443), and TP-Link (8:24-cv-01663) in the Central District of California; and Leyard Optoelectronic (Planar Systems) (4:24-cv-02880) in the Southern District of Texas. The sole asserted patent generally relates to “generating a modified video”, with the defendants accused of infringement through the provision of various camera devices (e.g., image sensors, IP cameras, network cameras, projectors, smartphones, and video cameras) and displays. At issue is the support for certain image modification features including 3D Digital Noise Reduction (3DNR), Digital Image Stabilization (DIS), Electronic Image Stabilization (EIS), Night Mode, and Wide Dynamic Range (WDR). Since launching this, its sole litigation campaign, in August 2019, VDPP has sued a total of 60 defendants in myriad districts.

Southern District of Texas Judge Lee H. Rosenthal has ruled that a case filed last August by VDPP LLC is exceptional, justifying a shift of attorney fees incurred by defendant Volkswagen in defending it. VDPP and its counsel Ramey LLP have been held jointly and severally liable for those shifted fees as both engaged in “repeated misconduct” that “underscores the need for meaningful deterrence”. Central to the outlined misconduct is VDPP’s request for relief, which sought “future damages and a permanent injunction on a patent that had expired a year before” and “past damages despite an inability to allege patent marking”. In the weeks before this July 11 order came down, VDPP filed new complaints in various districts, one against each of Advanced Technology Video, CostarHD, Digital Projection, Kaltec Electronics, Sceptre, Skyworth, and Snap One Holdings (SunBriteTV).

VDPP LLC added separate late March cases against Delta Electronics (Vivitek) (3:24-cv-01781), FinSim (SIM2 USA) (0:24-cv-60463), Lenovo (Motorola Mobility) (3:24-cv-01672), Mazda (8:24-cv-00571), Mercedes Benz (3:24-cv-00664), ViewSonic (8:24-cv-00616), and Xiaomi (5:24-cv-01783) to the suits that the plaintiff filed earlier in the month against Best Buy, Boxlight, Canon, Honeywell, HP, JVCKenwood, NEC, Qisda (BenQ), Razer, and Ushio (Christie Digital Systems USA). The inventor-controlled plaintiff targets the provision of image processing features in a wide array of devices, ranging from projectors to smartphones, baby monitors to in-vehicle surround view camera systems.

Last month, the number of defendants in inventor-controlled plaintiff VDPP LLC’s sole litigation campaign ticked past 30, but since—with new suits against Best Buy (2:24-cv-00164), Boxlight (7:24-cv-00069), Canon (3:24-cv-00570), Honeywell (4:24-cv-00798), HP (7:24-cv-00068), JVCKenwood (2:24-cv-01881), NEC (3:24-cv-00566), Qisda (BenQ) (2:24-cv-00171), Razer (7:24-cv-00070), and Ushio (Christie Digital Systems USA) (2:24-cv-00156)—that number has pushed above 40. This growing campaign targets the support for image processing features across a wide array of products.

Last month, inventor-controlled plaintiff VDPP LLC added suits against Funai Electric (Funai) (5:24-cv-00435) and Honda (in a third complaint) (2:24-cv-01501) in the Central District of California and Optoma Technology (5:24-cv-01118) in the Northern District of California. The five patents-in-suit, asserted in overlapping sets, are described by the plaintiff in its complaints as “relate[d] to an electronically controlled spectacle frame and optoelectronmic [sic] lenses housed in the frame”. The defendants are accused of infringement over the support of image processing features in a wide array of products: Funai, over the provision of certain TVs; Honda, over automobiles that incorporate surround view camera systems; and Optoma, over certain projectors.

The pattern of refiling established earlier this year by VDPP LLC has continued, with the plaintiff hitting Hon Hai (Sharp Electronics) (7:23-cv-00191) and Philips (Philips North America) (7:23-cv-00177) again, this time in the Midland/Odessa Division of the Western District of Texas, rather than in the Waco Division. Reasserted are up to two video modification patents, Sharp accused over the provision of certain displays, laptops, and projectors; Philips, of the IntelliVue Patient Monitor. In the oldest active case in this campaign, filed against Ford in June 2023 over three different patents from the same family, Ford has moved to dismiss the amended complaint for, among other things, failing to plausibly allege that “an in-vehicle display that provides a real-time, two-dimensional view around a vehicle, allowing for blind-spot mitigation as the driver reverses” could infringe “VDPP’s 3D-movie eyeglasses patents”.

VDPP LLC has refiled cases against prior defendants Panasonic (1:23-cv-02750) and Seiko (Epson) (8:23-cv-01968). The plaintiff again asserts up to two patents described as generally “relate[d] to a system called 3Deeps that will allow almost any motion picture filmed in 2D (single image) to be viewed with the visual effect of 3-dimensions”, targeting the provision of features related to image frame modification and combination within certain projectors. VDPP moved its litigation against Panasonic from the Northern District of Texas to the District of Colorado; against Seiko, from the Eastern District of Texas to the Central District of California.

So far in August, VDPP LLC has sued BMW (2:23-cv-00365), KIA (2:23-cv-00367), and ZTE (2:23-cv-00373) in the Eastern District of Texas; Bullitt Mobile (1:23-cv-00971), General Motors (1:23-cv-00956), Nissan (1:23-cv-00957), and Toyota (1:23-cv-00958) in the Western District of Texas; Honda (4:23-cv-00843), and OnePlus (3:23-cv-01864) in the Northern District of Texas; HMD (1:23-cv-23159) in the Southern District of Florida; Vivo (4:23-cv-04241) in the Northern District of California; and Volkswagen (4:23-cv-02961) in the Southern District of Texas. The automaker defendants are each accused of infringing a single patent, described in the complaint as “relate[d] to an electronically controlled spectacle frame and optoelectronmic [sic] lenses housed in the frame”, through the provision of automobiles having surround view camera systems. Against the remaining defendants, the plaintiff asserts two patents described as “related to modifying an image”, with infringement allegations trained on the provision of smartphones that support digital zoom.

Ford (2:23-cv-11462) and Seiko (Epson America) (2:23-cv-00307) are the latest defendants to be added to the sole litigation campaign of VDPP LLC, launched in August 2019 with suits against Acer and Meta Platforms (f/k/a Facebook) and expanding to hit over a dozen defendants since. The four patents-in-suit, asserted in overlapping sets, are broadly directed to modifying video content using the Pulfrich effect. Ford is accused of infringement through the provision of automobiles incorporating the Ford Surround View tool, while Epson is targeted over projectors that incorporate the Epson 3-chip 3LCD technology. At issue is Epson’s resolution scaling system and Ford’s “parking guidelines” tool. 

VDPP LLC has filed another round of complaints in its sole litigation campaign—launched in August 2019 with suits against Acer and Meta Platforms (f/k/a Facebook)—suing Panasonic (3:22-cv-02831) in the Northern District of Texas and Philips (Philips North America) (6:22-cv-01284) and Roku (6:22-cv-01285) in the Western District of Texas. The sole asserted patent generally relates to taking two chronologically distinct frames from a video; “expanding”, “reshap[ing]”, or “blend[ing]” those frames; combining the two modified images into a single frame; combining that modified frame with a solid-color bridge frame; and then displaying them. The defendants are accused of infringement through the provision of certain TVs (Panasonic and Philips) and software (Roku) that support a variety of picture modification tools, such as frame rate conversion, local dimming, and black frame insertion.

VDPP LLC last sued Microsoft and Lenovo (Motorola Mobility) in December 2020, both cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois and both dismissed without prejudice in March 2021 after Central District of California Judge James V. Selna invalidated claims from three patents asserted against VIZIO for indefiniteness. However, in March 2022, the Federal Circuit reversed that ruling, remanding for further proceedings, in response to which VDPP sued Microsoft, in April 2022 in the Western District of Texas, and now Motorola Mobility (1:22-cv-03280), again in the Northern District of Illinois. The Microsoft case was dismissed earlier this month, while the new Motorola Mobility suit has been assigned to District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow.

For the latest suits in its video image processing campaign, filed against Lenovo (1:20-cv-07694) and Microsoft (1:20-cv-07694), VDPP LLC has turned to a new venue: the Northern District of Illinois. Its prior cases—closed matters against Acer, Facebook, Hisense, and TCL (TTE Technology) and separate ongoing suits against ASUSTek and VIZIO—were all filed in either the Northern or Central District of California. The accused products throughout the campaign have included smartphones, tablets, televisions, and virtual reality headsets, with its newest cases targeting laptops (i.e., Lenovo’s ThinkPad A275 and Microsoft’s Surface).

Various data and news sources are reporting that the US litigation finance sector will finish this year awash in capital. Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence that a growing number of NPEs are looking to third-party litigation funders to back new and existing campaigns. These investors include familiar players in the litigation funding and IP industries, as well as lesser known firms, a few of which are featured in this article.

Inventor-backed VDPP LLC has added a third case to the campaign that it began in early August, suing TCL (TTE Technology) (5:19-cv-02019) in the Central District of California. Those earlier cases accused Acer and Facebook of infringing several video image processing patents through certain features within a variety of devices, including smartphones, tablets, and virtual reality headsets; the new suit adds televisions to the accused product mix, accusing TCL’s  “Class 3-Series,” “Class 4-Series,” “Class 5-Series,” and “Class 6-Series” televisions (as well as certain Alcatel-branded smartphones) of infringing patents from the same single-family portfolio.

The last couple of years have seen Texas monetization firm Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC shift away from the acquisition of smaller families of patents from various sources toward the acquisition of large portfolios of assets—of former Kodak patents in March 2017, of former NEC patents in February 2018, and of former American Express patents in March 2018, all from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV), as well as a large portfolio of assets acquired directly from Panasonic beginning in October 2018. Dominion (through subsidiaries of its litigation arm Monument Patent Holdings, LLC) has asserted patents from those large-portfolio acquisitions in litigation, and while it has continued litigating assets acquired prior to this strategy shift, that activity has dropped off. Assignment records recently made public by the USPTO suggest that, in addition, Dominion has begun to shed some of the smaller families that it had acquired under its earlier model.

Video image processing patents asserted by a plaintiff associated with monetization firm Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC through January 2019 have now been returned both to their named inventors and to litigation. VDPP LLC, an entity that those named inventors formed in Oregon, has filed suit in the Northern District of California over certain assets from the returned portfolio, accusing Acer (3:19-cv-04571) and Facebook (3:19-cv-04597) of infringement through the use of certain image processing features within a variety of devices, including smartphones, tablets, and virtual reality headsets. In the new campaign, the plaintiff discloses Dynamic IP Deals, LLC (d/b/a DynaIP) as a nonparty having an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, at least the third NPE to do so this year.