VDPP LLC v. Hewlett-Packard: 3D Spectacles Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 115 Days
VDPP, LLC asserted US9426452B2 — covering faster state-transitioning technology for adjustable 3D filter spectacles — against Hewlett-Packard in the Western District of Texas. Before HP served an answer, VDPP voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice, permanently closing the case just 115 days after filing.
Early voluntary exit: VDPP drops 3D spectacles patent suit before HP responds
On March 4, 2024, VDPP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Hewlett-Packard Co. in the Western District of Texas, asserting US9426452B2, which covers faster state-transitioning methods for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. VDPP was represented by Ramey LLP, a firm with a well-documented history of filing patent assertion actions in Texas federal courts. HP retained Norton Rose Fulbright LLP to defend.
On June 26, 2024 — before HP had filed an answer or any motion for summary judgment — VDPP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court confirmed the notice was self-effectuating, requiring no judicial order to take effect. The dismissal with prejudice permanently extinguishes VDPP’s ability to reassert these specific claims against HP on the same patent, a materially more consequential outcome than a dismissal without prejudice.
At 115 days, the case resolved extremely early in the litigation lifecycle, well before any substantive merits briefing. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, commercial negotiation, or other arrangement preceded the dismissal — a common feature of pre-answer patent assertion settlements that remain confidential. The with-prejudice designation, however, suggests the parties reached a definitive resolution rather than simply pausing hostilities.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 115 days
115 days — resolved before defendant filed any answer or summary judgment motion
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Because HP had not responded, VDPP’s notice was self-effectuating — the case terminated automatically upon filing. The court’s order was confirmatory only. The ‘with prejudice’ designation was VDPP’s own choice, elevating the dismissal’s finality beyond what Rule 41 strictly requires.
Self-effectuating under Rule 41With prejudice forecloses reassertion — a permanent bar
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring the plaintiff from refiling the same claims against the same defendant on the same patent. VDPP explicitly chose this designation. By contrast, a dismissal without prejudice would have preserved VDPP’s option to refile. The with-prejudice election strongly suggests the parties reached a definitive resolution — whether through settlement or otherwise — rather than a temporary strategic retreat.
Claims permanently extinguished vs. HPHP exits without admitting liability or incurring a fee award
Hewlett-Packard secured dismissal of all infringement claims without serving an answer, without any finding of liability, and without a fee-shifting order against either party. The cost-neutral resolution avoids the expense and reputational risk of full patent litigation. HP cannot recover its defence costs, but given the early stage, those costs were likely limited. The with-prejudice bar provides HP with permanent protection from VDPP on this patent.
No liability, no fee awardPre-answer resolution typical of PAE licensing strategies
Cases filed by patent assertion entities through Ramey LLP in the Western District of Texas frequently settle or dismiss before substantive merits proceedings. The pattern — file, assert, resolve early — is consistent with a licensing-oriented enforcement model. For technology companies in the display and optical hardware space, this case is a reminder that pre-answer resolution does not indicate patent weakness; US9426452B2 remains active and can be asserted against other defendants.
PAE licensing model signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9426452B2 (adjustable 3D filter spectacles)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | Company | Hewlett-Packard Co. — global technology hardware and computing products manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Eugene 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 | Erik Janitens | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie N. DeBrow | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was self-effectuating under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), requiring no judicial merits determination. The with-prejudice designation — chosen by VDPP, not imposed by the court — carries res judicata effect as to HP specifically, permanently foreclosing reassertion of these claims on US9426452B2. The cost-neutrality order reflects standard practice where no prevailing party is adjudicated; neither side can pursue fee recovery under 35 U.S.C. § 285 absent an exceptional case finding, which was never reached.
US9426452B2 — Faster state transitioning for adjustable 3D filter spectacles
US9426452B2 (application US14/850750) protects methods and apparatus for faster state transitioning in continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles employing multi-layered variable tint materials. The invention addresses a core technical challenge in active 3D eyewear: reducing latency in lens state switching to maintain perceptual synchronisation with display refresh cycles. The application date context suggests development in the mid-2010s peak period for consumer 3D display commercialisation.
Strategically, US9426452B2 sits at the intersection of display synchronisation, electrochromic or liquid-crystal lens technology, and stereoscopic imaging — a space now expanding into AR/VR headsets, smart eyewear, and advanced HUD systems. Any company developing variable-opacity eyewear, adaptive lens modules, or 3D-capable display accessories should treat this patent as a credible enforcement vector. VDPP’s willingness to assert against a major OEM like HP signals active monetisation intent.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US9426452B2?
If your R&D or product team is developing variable tint eyewear, active 3D filter glasses, electrochromic lens systems, or display-synchronised optical accessories, US9426452B2 presents a concrete FTO consideration. The patent’s claims — covering state-transitioning speed improvements using multi-layered tint materials — may reach beyond consumer 3D glasses into medical imaging eyewear, automotive adaptive visors, and AR lens assemblies. The patent holder has demonstrated enforcement intent against a major technology OEM.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical architecture against the claim scope of US9426452B2, identify relevant prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related family members or continuation applications that could extend coverage. For companies in the display optics or smart eyewear space, an automated FTO screen against this patent family is a low-cost, high-value first step before committing to product development or market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9426452B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 3D display and optical hardware patent suits in Texas federal courts
Cases involving 3D filter, variable tint lens, and display synchronisation patents litigated in the Western District of Texas and comparable PAE assertion venues.
What this case signals for the 3D display and optical hardware IP landscape
Early dismissal with prejudice in a PAE-driven assertion often signals a confidential licensing resolution — here is what that means for the sector.
US9426452B2 remains live and assertable against other defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal only bars VDPP from reasserting against HP. The patent itself is unaffected and VDPP retains full rights to enforce it against other parties in the display, optics, and 3D imaging space. Companies commercialising variable tint or 3D filter eyewear technology should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk.
Pre-answer dismissals by Ramey LLP warrant early FTO diligence
Ramey LLP’s portfolio of Western District of Texas filings frequently resolves at the pre-answer stage. This pattern suggests licensing leverage rather than full trial intent. For in-house counsel, the strategic response is early FTO analysis — ideally before a demand letter arrives — rather than waiting for an answer deadline to assess exposure.
VDPP v Hewlett-Parkard — key questions answered
VDPP, LLC voluntarily dismissed all claims against Hewlett-Packard with prejudice on June 26, 2024, under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was self-effectuating, required no court order, and permanently bars VDPP from reasserting the same patent claims against HP. Each party bore its own costs.
VDPP asserted US9426452B2 (application number US14/850750), which covers faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The case was filed on March 4, 2024 and closed 115 days later without any merits determination.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring the plaintiff from refiling the same claims against the same defendant on the same patent. VDPP cannot reassert US9426452B2 against HP. However, the patent remains active and VDPP retains the right to assert it against other defendants.
The public record does not disclose the specific reason. Pre-answer dismissals in PAE-driven patent litigation are frequently associated with confidential licensing agreements or settlements reached before substantive proceedings begin. The with-prejudice designation suggests a definitive resolution rather than a tactical pause, but no settlement terms have been publicly confirmed.
VDPP was represented by Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak and William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP. Hewlett-Packard was represented by Erik Janitens and Stephanie N. DeBrow of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.