VDPP LLC v. Funai Corporation: 3D Eyewear Patent Dispute Settled in 191 Days
VDPP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Funai Corporation in the Central District of California, asserting three patents covering faster state-transitioning technology for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The case settled within 191 days of filing, before any substantive merits rulings were issued.
Three-Patent 3D Eyewear Infringement Suit Resolves Quietly in Under Six Months
On February 26, 2024, VDPP, LLC — a patent assertion entity holding a portfolio of patents related to adjustable 3D filter spectacles — filed suit against Funai Corporation, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 5:24-cv-00435). The complaint alleged infringement of three patents: US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2, all directed at faster state-transitioning mechanisms for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles employing multi-layered variable tint materials.
On September 4, 2024 — just 191 days after filing — the parties submitted a Notice of Settlement, prompting Judge John W. Holcomb to place the action in inactive status. The court ordered the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal or motion to reopen by October 7, 2024, with the action deemed automatically dismissed if no filing was made. The settlement terms are not publicly disclosed, which is consistent with confidential licensing arrangements that commonly resolve multi-patent assertion actions at this stage.
The speed of resolution — before any claim construction hearing or substantive motion practice — suggests either an early licensing agreement was reached or Funai elected to settle rather than incur the costs of defending against three asserted patents. Ramey LLP, a firm well known for prosecuting patent assertion cases, represented VDPP. No defendant counsel of record appears in the public docket, which may indicate Funai engaged counsel informally or negotiated directly. The precise financial and licensing terms remain unknown from the public record.
Filing to Case Settled in 191 days
191 days — faster than the median patent case in C.D. California, suggesting early settlement pressure
Case settled: what the resolution means for both parties
Settlement via Notice under Rule 41 framework
The case ended when the parties filed a Notice of Settlement on September 4, 2024. Judge Holcomb placed the action in inactive status and issued a scheduling order requiring a formal stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (a)(2) by October 7, 2024. No merits rulings — including claim construction or summary judgment — were issued, meaning the patents’ validity and scope were never adjudicated.
Pre-merits settlementPublic record is silent on with/without prejudice
The Notice of Settlement does not specify whether dismissal was with or without prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice bars VDPP from re-filing the same claims against Funai; without prejudice preserves that option. The court’s order explicitly states it ‘shall not prejudice any party,’ but this refers to procedural rights during the inactive period, not the final dismissal terms. The distinction matters significantly for Funai’s future exposure and for VDPP’s ability to reassert these patents.
Prejudice status unknownVDPP likely secured a licensing arrangement
Pre-merits settlements in PAE-driven multi-patent cases typically reflect a licensing payment rather than a capitulation by the patent holder. VDPP’s three patents remain valid and enforceable — no adverse ruling was issued. This outcome is consistent with VDPP’s broader assertion strategy: resolve quickly through licensing rather than litigate to judgment. The patents can continue to be asserted against other parties in the consumer electronics and 3D display sectors.
Patents remain enforceable3D eyewear IP risk persists for consumer electronics OEMs
With no invalidity finding or claim construction order on the public record, VDPP’s three variable-tint 3D spectacles patents retain full presumptive validity. Other consumer electronics companies — particularly those manufacturing or distributing 3D eyewear products — face the same assertion risk. The absence of any substantive defence on the merits means the claim scope of US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2 remains untested and potentially broad.
Ongoing third-party riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Funai Corporation, Inc. | Company | Funai Corporation, Inc. — consumer electronics company accused of infringing 3D eyewear patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Susan S. Q. Kalra | Attorney | Counsel for VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s scheduling notice confirms settlement was reached before any substantive ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The order’s language — placing the case in ‘inactive status’ and retaining ‘full jurisdiction’ — is a standard C.D. California procedure pending formal dismissal paperwork. No merits findings were made. The statement that the order ‘shall not prejudice any party’ addresses procedural rights during the inactive period only, and does not resolve whether the final dismissal will be with or without prejudice.
US9699444B2, US10021380B1 & US9948922B2 — Variable-Tint 3D Filter Spectacles
The three asserted patents — US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2 — are directed at technology for achieving faster and more precise state transitions in 3D filter spectacles that use multiple layers of variable tint materials. The underlying applications (US15/217612, US15/907614, and US15/683623) were filed in the mid-2010s, a period of active development in consumer 3D display technology. The patents sit within the ‘continuous adjustable 3Deeps’ technology family, which relates to dynamically controlling the optical state of multi-layered eyewear to enhance 3D visual experiences.
From a competitive standpoint, these patents occupy a niche but strategically relevant position as 3D eyewear technology converges with augmented and virtual reality hardware. Consumer electronics OEMs and component suppliers working with liquid crystal shutters, electrochromic films, or multi-layer tinting in any eyewear context — including next-generation AR/VR headsets — should assess whether their designs intersect with the claim scope of these patents. The fact that all three survived this litigation without any validity challenge on the record strengthens VDPP’s position for future assertions.
Should your team run an FTO against US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2?
Any R&D team or product manager developing variable-tint eyewear, multi-layer optical filter systems, or state-transitioning display eyewear — including components for 3D cinema glasses, AR visors, or smart eyewear — should treat these three patents as active assertion risks. The Funai settlement confirms VDPP is willing to litigate in C.D. California, and the lack of any merits ruling means claim scope is undefined and potentially expansive. An FTO analysis is especially urgent for companies sourcing or integrating electrochromic or liquid crystal tint layers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the independent and dependent claims of all three patents simultaneously, flagging overlap risk and identifying prior art that could support a design-around or IPR petition. Eureka also tracks the full VDPP patent family — including any pending continuations — so your legal and engineering teams are working from a complete picture, not just the patents asserted in this case.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9699444B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 3D Eyewear & Display Patent Infringement Cases in C.D. California
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving variable-tint eyewear, 3D display technology, and PAE assertions filed in the Central District of California.
What this case signals for the 3D display and eyewear IP landscape
A rapid pre-merits settlement by a known PAE asserting three untested patents signals continued risk for consumer electronics firms in the 3D eyewear space.
Ramey LLP’s involvement signals a volume assertion strategy
Ramey LLP is a Texas-based firm with a track record of filing high volumes of patent infringement suits on behalf of assertion entities. Their involvement here — combined with three patents asserted and a sub-200-day resolution — is consistent with a licensing-focused strategy that targets early settlements before defendants engage substantive counsel. Companies receiving demand letters from this firm in adjacent technology areas should assume litigation is the default next step.
Three asserted patents with no prior art challenge increases assertion leverage
Because the case settled before any IPR petitions were filed or claim construction was briefed, all three patents — US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2 — retain their presumption of validity. Defendant Funai appears to have made a commercial decision to settle rather than invest in an IPR or district court invalidity defence, which suggests the cost-benefit analysis favoured licensing. This outcome may embolden further assertions against other 3D eyewear OEMs.
VDPP v Funai — key questions answered
VDPP LLC asserted three patents: US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2. All three relate to faster state-transitioning technology for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The case was filed in C.D. California on February 26, 2024.
The parties filed a Notice of Settlement on September 4, 2024, after 191 days of litigation. Judge Holcomb placed the case in inactive status pending a formal dismissal stipulation. The settlement terms are confidential and not disclosed in the public docket. No merits rulings — including claim construction or validity determinations — were issued prior to settlement.
No validity determination was made. The case settled before any claim construction briefing or IPR petition was filed. All three patents — US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2 — retain their statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. This means no public prior art finding or invalidity ruling constrains future assertions of these patents.
The public record does not specify. The Notice of Settlement triggered a court order for the parties to file a stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or 41(a)(2) by October 7, 2024. The court’s statement that the order ‘shall not prejudice any party’ refers to procedural rights during the inactive period, not the final dismissal terms. The prejudice status of the eventual dismissal is not confirmed in publicly available filings.
The settlement confirms VDPP’s willingness to litigate its 3D eyewear patent portfolio in C.D. California and to pursue pre-merits resolutions consistent with a licensing strategy. Other consumer electronics companies manufacturing or distributing 3D filter spectacles, multi-layer tint eyewear, or related display accessories face similar assertion exposure. The absence of any claim construction or invalidity ruling leaves the scope of all three patents undefined, increasing uncertainty for potential defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.