VDPP LLC v. Ford Motor Co.: 3Deeps Spectacles Patents Dismissed in 73 Days
VDPP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Ford Motor Company in Michigan’s Eastern District, asserting two patents covering continuous adjustable 3Deeps stereoscopic filter spectacles technology. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal in just 73 days — with plaintiff’s claims dropped with prejudice and Ford’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
Stipulated Exit: VDPP and Ford Settle Into Silence on 3D Spectacles IP
On November 1, 2024, VDPP, LLC — holder of patents covering continuous adjustable 3Deeps stereoscopic filter spectacles — filed an infringement action against Ford Motor Company in the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 2:24-cv-12904). The two asserted patents, US9716874B2 and US10021380B1, cover adjustable 3D filter eyewear technology and methods for faster state transitioning using multi-layered variable tint materials, technologies with potential application in advanced automotive display and driver-assistance environments.
The case closed on January 13, 2025, via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal — a procedural mechanism requiring agreement from all parties who have appeared. Under its specific terms, all of VDPP’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, extinguishing any further right to re-file those same infringement claims against Ford. Ford’s counterclaims, by contrast, were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Ford’s ability to reassert them in future proceedings. Each party agreed to bear its own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.
At 73 days from filing to closure, the resolution is notably rapid and suggests the parties likely reached a private commercial agreement — though no settlement terms are disclosed in the public record. The asymmetric dismissal structure (plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without) is a pattern consistent with a negotiated resolution where the plaintiff obtains some consideration in exchange for abandoning claims permanently. What drove VDPP’s decision to walk away permanently, and whether any licence or payment was exchanged, remains unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 73 days
73 days — notably swift resolution, well below the median district court patent case lifecycle
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the terms mean for each party
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared — it is not a unilateral move by the plaintiff. The ‘with prejudice’ designation on VDPP’s claims is legally final: VDPP cannot re-file the same infringement action against Ford on these patents. This is the procedural hallmark of a negotiated exit rather than a plaintiff simply walking away.
Bilateral, court-approved exitAsymmetric prejudice terms: a strategic signal
VDPP’s claims go out with prejudice; Ford’s counterclaims go out without prejudice. This asymmetry is legally significant. Ford retains the right to revive its counterclaims — potentially including invalidity arguments — in future proceedings. The public record does not specify whether a licence, payment, or covenant-not-to-sue was exchanged, but the structure is consistent with VDPP receiving some consideration for its permanent relinquishment of claims.
Plaintiff claims: final; Defendant counterclaims: preservedEach party bears its own fees — no prevailing party declared
The stipulation explicitly states each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, exceptional patent cases can trigger fee-shifting to the losing side. The mutual cost-bearing agreement here forecloses that risk for both parties and avoids any judicial finding on exceptionality — a pragmatic outcome that suggests neither side wanted continued litigation exposure.
No § 285 fee exposure for either partyVDPP’s 3Deeps patents remain live against other potential defendants
A with-prejudice dismissal bars VDPP from suing Ford again on US9716874B2 and US10021380B1, but the patents themselves remain in force and fully assertable against other automotive OEMs or technology companies deploying comparable stereoscopic display or variable-tint eyewear systems. Competitors operating in adjacent 3D display or automotive HMI spaces should note that VDPP’s patent portfolio retains enforcement capacity beyond this case.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9716874B2 and US10021380B1, 3Deeps stereoscopic filter spectaclesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ford Motor Co. | Company | Ford Motor Company — global automotive OEM headquartered in Dearborn, MichiganSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Laurila | Attorney | Counsel for VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Giroux Pappas Trial Attorneys | Law Firm | Representing VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles J. Monterio , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jongchan Daniel Kang | Attorney | Counsel for Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mahde Y. Abdallah | Attorney | Counsel for Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie A. Douglas | Attorney | Counsel for Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bush Seyferth PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Venable LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ford Motor Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Michigan Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s precise language — plaintiff’s claims dismissed ‘with prejudice’ and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed ‘without prejudice’ — reflects a deliberately structured bilateral agreement rather than a simple abandonment. The with-prejudice designation on VDPP’s claims carries full res judicata effect for the specific patents and parties. Ford’s counterclaims, left without-prejudice, were never adjudicated on the merits, meaning no judicial finding on invalidity, non-infringement, or unenforceability was recorded. The mutual cost-bearing clause eliminates § 285 exceptional-case fee exposure for both sides.
US9716874B2 & US10021380B1 — Continuous Adjustable 3Deeps Filter Spectacles
US9716874B2 (application No. US15/212114) covers continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles optimised for stereoscopic viewing, encompassing the control method and system for generating and displaying modified video content. US10021380B1 (application No. US15/907614) addresses faster state transitioning in the same spectacles family, utilising multi-layered variable tint materials to improve the speed and precision of lens state changes. Together the patents protect both the core eyewear architecture and a key performance improvement for real-time display applications.
The strategic relevance of these patents to automotive contexts — such as heads-up displays, in-vehicle entertainment systems, or advanced driver-assistance visualisation — makes them potentially threatening to any OEM or tier-1 supplier deploying variable-opacity optics or 3D display interfaces. VDPP’s decision to target Ford specifically, a major integrated vehicle technology developer, suggests the patent holder views automotive HMI and display systems as a commercially viable enforcement territory for the 3Deeps portfolio.
Should your team run an FTO against US9716874B2 and US10021380B1?
Any company developing variable-tint eyewear, 3D stereoscopic display systems, or in-vehicle optical interfaces should treat VDPP’s 3Deeps portfolio as a live freedom-to-operate risk. The with-prejudice dismissal protects Ford only — all other market participants remain exposed. Automotive OEMs, AR/VR hardware developers, and suppliers of adaptive optical systems should assess whether their product roadmaps intersect with the claims of either patent before commercialisation or deployment at scale.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9716874B2 and US10021380B1 against your product architecture, flag prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and identify the full VDPP portfolio for ongoing monitoring. R&D and IP teams can use Eureka’s citation network analysis to understand prosecution history and assess claim scope — reducing the risk of an assertion from a party that has already demonstrated willingness to litigate against a major automotive OEM.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9716874B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 3D display and stereoscopic optics patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving 3D display, variable-tint optics, and stereoscopic eyewear technology litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the 3D display and automotive HMI IP landscape
A 73-day exit with asymmetric prejudice terms suggests a private deal — and leaves VDPP’s patents fully armed against the broader market.
With-prejudice dismissal is a permanent bar — Ford is insulated from these patents
Ford secured a with-prejudice dismissal of VDPP’s infringement claims on both asserted patents. Absent successful appeal or claim of fraud, Ford cannot face re-litigation by VDPP on US9716874B2 or US10021380B1. This is the strongest available exit for an accused infringer short of invalidity adjudication.
Rapid closure at 73 days suggests pre-negotiated commercial resolution
The case closed before any substantive motions practice or claim construction proceedings were docketed. This timeline is consistent with parties who entered litigation with a settlement framework already in progress. Competitors monitoring VDPP’s enforcement strategy should treat this as a data point suggesting VDPP is willing to resolve quickly under the right commercial terms.
VDPP v Ford — key questions answered
VDPP’s patent infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), meaning VDPP is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Ford on US9716874B2 and US10021380B1. Ford’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice and can be reasserted in future proceedings. No prevailing party was declared and each party bears its own costs.
No. The case was resolved by stipulated dismissal before any substantive merits adjudication. No court made findings on validity, infringement, or enforceability of either patent. Both patents remain in force and are assertable against third parties other than Ford.
US9716874B2 covers continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles for stereoscopic viewing, including the control method and system for generating modified video. US10021380B1 covers faster state transitioning in the same spectacles platform using multi-layered variable tint materials. Together they protect the core eyewear architecture and a key performance optimisation for real-time 3D display.
The public record does not disclose VDPP’s specific infringement theory against Ford’s products. The filing of the suit in Michigan’s Eastern District — Ford’s home jurisdiction — and the rapid 73-day closure suggest the action may have been primarily oriented toward reaching a licensing agreement. The specific Ford products or systems alleged to infringe were not adjudicated in public filings before dismissal.
The stipulated dismissal explicitly provides that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This mutual cost-bearing structure means neither party sought or was awarded fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and no exceptional-case finding was made. This arrangement is common in negotiated patent case exits and avoids judicial scrutiny of litigation conduct by either side.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.