Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Vdpp v. Inter IKEA Systems, B.V. | Patent Lawsuit 4:25-cv-05900

Vdpp, LLC v. Inter IKEA Systems, B.V.

4:25-cv-05900 S.D. Tex. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 9 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and closed 22 Jun 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US7030902B2US9948922B2
Case no.
4:25-cv-05900
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Alfred H Bennett
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
9 Dec 2025 – 22 Jun 2026
Duration
195 days
Basis of termination
Case Dismissed
Products & marks
Field of image capture and modification
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 4:25-cv-05900, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US7030902B2 Inactive App. US10/054607

Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures

The method uses three pictures, A, B and C, two of which are substantially similar pictures having images, A, B, and one that is dissimilar, usually a solid color, C. Continuous movement is created by repetitively viewing the series A, B, C. Additionally, each picture can be blended or superimposed to create a blended A/B, C/A and B/C and then the blend put together with the others, in a series, C/A, A, A/B, B, B/C, C. This series is then repeated a plurality of times to create an illusion of sustained, ongoing motion with a degree of three-dimensionality, with synchronous Pulfrich light-filtering available to enhance the effect.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
18 Apr 2006
Earliest priority
23 Jan 2001
Est. expiry
9 Sep 2023
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04N13/00H04N9/74
Prosecution counsel
Ascenda Law Group, PC
Examiner
LEE, MICHAEL
US7030902B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7030902B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US9948922B2 Inactive App. US15/683623

Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials

An electrically controlled spectacle includes a spectacle frame and optoelectronic lenses housed in the frame. The lenses include a left lens and a right lens, each of the optoelectrical lenses having a plurality of states, wherein the state of the left lens is independent of the state of the right lens. The electrically controlled spectacle also includes a control unit housed in the frame, the control unit being adapted to control the state of each of the lenses independently.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
17 Apr 2018
Earliest priority
15 Mar 2005
Est. expiry
22 Jan 2022
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G02C1/00G02B27/01G02B26/02G02C11/00G02B27/22G02C7/00G02C7/10H04N13/00
Prosecution counsel
Ascenda Law Group, PC
Examiner
DANG, HUNG
US9948922B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9948922B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
William P. Ramey IIIVdpp, LLCPlaintiff
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“ORDEROF DISMISSAL (Signed by Judge Alfred HBennett) Parties notified”

Case 4:25-cv-05900 · S.D. Tex. · closed 22 June 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 4:25-cv-05900?

4:25-cv-05900 is a patent infringement action brought by Vdpp, LLC against Inter IKEA Systems, B.V., filed on 9 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case closed on 22 June 2026.

Which patents were asserted in 4:25-cv-05900?

US7030902B2 (“Eternalism, a method for creating an appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion-direction of unlimited duration, using a finite number of pictures”), assigned to JACOBS, KENNETH, currently inactive; US9948922B2 (“Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials”), assigned to VDPP, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Field of image capture and modification.

How was case 4:25-cv-05900 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “ORDEROF DISMISSAL (Signed by Judge Alfred HBennett) Parties notified”

How long did case 4:25-cv-05900 take?

195 calendar days, from filing on 9 Dec 2025 to closure on 22 June 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:25-cv-05900?

Chief Judge Alfred H Bennett presided. William P. Ramey III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Vdpp.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 4:25-cv-05900 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:25-cv-05900 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.