Ford Shouldn’t Get to Avoid a 3D IP Suit

Ford shouldnt get to avoid a 3D IP suit

In a legal arena reminiscent of David versus Goliath, VDPP LLC, a pioneering eyewear firm, has thrown down the gauntlet to the automotive giant Ford Motor Co. The crux of the matter lies in a Michigan court where VDPP insists on pursuing its allegations that Ford has overstepped bounds by using its patented 3D glasses technology. The battle lines are drawn as VDPP asserts that it has adequately notified Ford of these infringement claims, backing them up with a plethora of evidence sufficient for this litigation phase.

VDPP’s Arsenal: Charts, Photos, and Allegations

VDPP, hailing from Oregon, stands its ground with a formidable array of charts and photographs supplementing its complaint. The company argues that Ford’s surround view system is an unauthorized utilization of its patented 3D glasses technology. Contrary to Ford’s dismissal efforts, VDPP emphasizes the sufficiency of its provided evidence for the case to proceed.

The Essence of Pleading Standards: VDPP’s Legal Strategy

According to VDPP, the early stages of a lawsuit are not a proving ground. The company cites legal standards, underscoring that while they must showcase facts that hint at an intent to cause infringement, an exhaustive proof of these facts isn’t a requirement at this juncture. VDPP stresses that its notification to Ford about the infringement and clear identification of the patents in question should suffice to keep their lawsuit buoyant.

Ford Shouldn’t Get to Avoid a 3D IP Suit: A Challenge to Evidence

In a strategic maneuver in August, Ford sought to quash VDPP’s claims, asserting that the backup camera system in question does not infringe upon VDPP’s patents. Ford challenges the lack of concrete evidence supporting VDPP’s claims and criticizes the eyewear company for what it deems as vague and unspecific allegations.

The Intricacies of Patent Infringement: VDPP’s Bold Claim

VDPP counters Ford’s arguments with confidence, stating that it has provided sufficient facts to plausibly suggest Ford’s infringement of the 3D glasses patents. The company points to Ford’s backup camera system, offering a vivid, two-dimensional surround view for enhanced blind-spot detection as a prime example of this infringement.

VDPP’s Legal Precedents: Strengthening Their Case

In its legal arsenal, VDPP references similar cases like Disc Disease Solutions Inc. v. VGH Solutions Inc., where sufficient pleading of infringement was recognized. The company highlights its meticulous approach: attaching the patents, specifying the accused Ford products, and including illustrative photographs in its complaint.

Ford Shouldn’t Get to Avoid a 3D IP Suit: Unveiling Further Evidence

VDPP acknowledges that further discovery may be necessary to unravel the nuances of how Ford’s product operates. The company anticipates providing more detailed information in the upcoming stages of the lawsuit.

Ford Shouldn’t Get to Avoid a 3D IP Suit: VDPP’s Counter

Refuting Ford’s assertion of lacking pre-suit knowledge of the patents, VDPP argues that such knowledge is not a prerequisite for establishing induced infringement. The company draws parallels with the KIPB LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. case to bolster its position.

The Broader Implications: VDPP’s Wider Legal Crusade

VDPP’s legal endeavors extend beyond Ford. The company has launched at least 10 patent infringement cases involving its LCD system, targeting major automakers like Volkswagen, General Motors, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, Kia, and auto parts manufacturer Barco Inc.

Ford Shouldn’t Get to Avoid a 3D IP Suit : No Comments from the Contenders

As the legal drama unfolds, representatives from both VDPP and Ford remain tight-lipped, offering no comments on the ongoing dispute.

The Legal Teams: Who Represents Whom

VDPP’s legal representation is spearheaded by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP. Ford, on the other hand, is represented by Stephanie A. Douglas of Bush Seyferth PLLC, alongside Justin E. Pierce, Charles J. Monterio, Jr, and J. Daniel Kang of Venable LLP.