VDPP, LLC v. CostarHD LLC: Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice in 3D Eyewear Patent Dispute
VDPP, LLC sued CostarHD LLC in the Northern District of Texas alleging infringement of US10021380B1, a patent covering faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The case closed in 161 days via voluntary dismissal without prejudice, leaving VDPP free to refile and the patent’s enforceability unresolved.
Pre-Answer Dismissal Leaves 3D Eyewear Patent Dispute Unresolved
On 1 July 2024, VDPP, LLC — a patent holding entity — filed suit against CostarHD LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:24-cv-01666) before Judge Brantley Starr. The sole patent asserted was US10021380B1 (application no. US15/907614), which covers faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials — a technology relevant to active 3D eyewear and adaptive optical filtering.
The action ended on 9 December 2024 via a notice of voluntary dismissal filed by VDPP pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). That rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right, without court order, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Critically, VDPP specified the dismissal is without prejudice as to the asserted patent, meaning no merits determination was made and VDPP retains the legal right to bring the same infringement claims in a future action. Each party was left to bear its own costs and fees.
At 161 days from filing to closure, the case resolved well before any substantive litigation milestones — no claim construction, no invalidity challenge, and no adjudicated infringement finding. The early exit is consistent with several common litigation dynamics: pre-suit settlement, a licensing agreement reached post-filing, or a strategic decision to refile in a different venue or against a different defendant. The public record does not disclose whether any commercial resolution accompanied the dismissal, leaving the underlying patent’s enforceability an open question for the market.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 161 days
161 days — resolved before defendant answered or filed for summary judgment
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss without court order
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action as of right — without seeking court approval — so long as the defendant has not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. CostarHD had done neither, so VDPP could and did exit unilaterally. This is among the most procedurally straightforward exits available in U.S. federal litigation and carries no merits adjudication.
No court order requiredVDPP preserves full right to refile on US10021380B1
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the plaintiff’s claims — it restores the parties to the pre-suit position. VDPP explicitly stated the dismissal is without prejudice as to the asserted patent, meaning it can reassert US10021380B1 against CostarHD or any other party in the future, subject only to the applicable statute of limitations. This is distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar refiling on the same claims.
Refile right preservedCostarHD escapes this action — but faces continued exposure
CostarHD secures a clean exit from Case 3:24-cv-01666 with no adverse judgment, no injunction, and no damages award. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, however, CostarHD receives no legal bar against a future suit on the same patent. The absence of a merits ruling also means CostarHD cannot argue res judicata or claim preclusion if VDPP refiles. Continued monitoring of US10021380B1 and VDPP’s licensing activity is advisable.
No merits protection gainedPatent remains live: ongoing risk for 3D eyewear and variable tint sector
US10021380B1 survives this litigation entirely intact — no invalidity finding, no narrowing claim construction, and no disclaimer on record. Companies developing or commercialising multi-layered variable tint materials for 3D eyewear or adaptive optical filtering face continued exposure from this patent. The early dismissal without prejudice suggests VDPP may be actively licensing or preparing further enforcement actions, and the patent’s enforceability remains untested.
Patent enforceability unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Patent holding entity — holder of US10021380B1, 3Deeps filter spectacles technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | CostarHD LLC | Company | CostarHD LLC — accused infringer in 3D eyewear variable tint patent disputeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey E. Kubiak | Attorney | Counsel for VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Strapp | Attorney | Counsel for CostarHD LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Taylor Olivia Reed | Attorney | Counsel for CostarHD LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing CostarHD LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper, LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing CostarHD LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Brantley Starr | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
VDPP’s dismissal notice expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and confirms CostarHD had neither answered nor moved for summary judgment at the time of filing. The notice’s explicit ‘without prejudice as to the asserted patent’ language is legally significant: it forecloses any argument that the dismissal constitutes an adjudication on the merits. The mutual fee-bearing term, while standard under Rule 41, also signals no financial concession was made on the record — any commercial resolution, if one occurred, remains entirely undisclosed.
US10021380B1 — 3Deeps Filter Spectacles, Multi-Layered Variable Tint State Transitioning
US10021380B1 (application US15/907614) protects technology for achieving faster state transitioning in continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles through multi-layered variable tint materials. This patent sits within the active 3D display and adaptive optical filtering domain — a space covering the electronic and material science methods used to control light transmission states in eyewear designed for 3D content viewing. The application date context suggests development aligned with a period of renewed commercial interest in consumer and professional 3D display technology.
Strategically, US10021380B1 is notable because it targets the performance layer of 3D eyewear systems — specifically the speed and fidelity of optical state switching — which is a competitive differentiator in display hardware. Any manufacturer or distributor of 3D eyewear products incorporating variable tint or electrochromic lens technology is a potential enforcement target. The fact that this patent has now passed through a full litigation cycle without any invalidity challenge on the record makes it a more formidable asset for future enforcement or licensing leverage.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US10021380B1?
If your company designs, manufactures, or distributes 3D filter eyewear, adaptive tint lenses, or multi-layered variable tint optical systems — or if you supply components to companies in those categories — US10021380B1 warrants direct attention. VDPP has now demonstrated willingness to litigate in the Northern District of Texas, and the without-prejudice dismissal in this case means the patent remains fully enforceable. Product teams evaluating next-generation 3D display accessories or electrochromic eyewear should assess design freedom before commercialisation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US10021380B1’s claim scope against your product specifications, surface prior art that could support an IPR petition, and identify design-around opportunities in the variable tint materials space. Given the absence of any public claim construction record from this case, Eureka’s AI-driven claim analysis provides the most current picture of the patent’s enforceable scope — helping R&D and legal teams make informed go/no-go decisions quickly.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10021380B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 3D Eyewear and Adaptive Optics Patent Cases in Texas Federal Courts
Cases involving 3D filter eyewear and variable tint optical patents filed in the Northern District of Texas and related Texas federal venues, with comparable NPE enforcement profiles.
What this case signals for the 3D eyewear and adaptive optics IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal without prejudice rarely closes the book on a patent. For competitors in 3D eyewear and variable tint materials, the risk calculus has not changed.
Without-prejudice dismissals are a common licensing negotiation tool
When a plaintiff files under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) this early — before the defendant has even answered — it strongly suggests the litigation was a mechanism to initiate licensing discussions rather than pursue a full trial. The absence of a settlement disclosure is consistent with confidential resolution. Companies in the 3D eyewear space should treat VDPP’s filing history as a signal of active enforcement intent.
No invalidity record means the patent remains at full strength
Because no answer, IPR petition, or claim construction ruling was filed, US10021380B1 exits this case without any public record of validity challenge. There is no prosecution history estoppel, no narrowing disclaimer, and no printed prior art on record from this case. Any future defendant will need to build an invalidity defence from scratch against a patent that has now survived at least one litigation cycle unchallenged.
VDPP v CostarHD — key questions answered
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice means no merits determination was made on US10021380B1. VDPP retains the full legal right to refile infringement claims against CostarHD or any other party in the future. The patent’s validity and enforceability were never adjudicated, leaving it at full legal strength.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without court approval — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. CostarHD had done neither by the time VDPP filed the dismissal notice on 9 December 2024, so the dismissal was procedurally available as a matter of right.
The dismissal notice expressly states that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No fee award was made to either side. This mutual fee-bearing arrangement is standard in Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals and does not indicate any financial concession by either party on the public record.
US10021380B1 covers faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The patent sits in the active 3D eyewear and adaptive optical filtering domain, addressing the speed and performance of optical state switching in 3D display eyewear. Application number US15/907614 corresponds to this granted patent.
Yes. Because the dismissal was expressly entered without prejudice, VDPP is not legally barred from refiling the same patent infringement claims against CostarHD, subject to the applicable statute of limitations for patent infringement (generally six years under 35 U.S.C. § 286). CostarHD received no res judicata protection and no merits-based bar from this dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.