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”.