VDPP LLC v. Razer USA: Variable Tint Display Patents Dismissed Without Prejudice
VDPP, LLC asserted two patents covering adjustable 3D spectacle filter technology against gaming peripheral maker Razer USA in the Western District of Texas. After 372 days of litigation, VDPP filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice before Razer had served an answer — leaving the door open for refiling.
A pre-answer exit: VDPP retreats but preserves its claims against Razer
Filed on March 4, 2024, in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00070), this action saw VDPP, LLC — represented by Ramey LLP — assert US9426452B2 and US10021380B1 against Razer USA, Ltd. Both patents relate to continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles employing multi-layered variable tint materials, a technology with direct relevance to Razer’s display and visual accessory product lines.
On March 10, 2025, VDPP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which is self-effectuating when filed before the defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Razer had not done either, the court confirmed the dismissal the following day without requiring an order, and directed each party to bear its own costs.
The case ran for 372 days before reaching this pre-answer exit — a duration that is notably long for a dismissal that required no judicial intervention. The public record does not disclose whether settlement negotiations, licensing discussions, or parallel proceedings influenced the timing. The without-prejudice designation is strategically significant: VDPP retains the full right to refile against Razer or other defendants on the same patents.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 372 days
372 days — longer than average for a pre-answer voluntary dismissal, suggesting extended pre-litigation negotiation or parallel proceedings.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a self-effectuating dismissal
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order simply by filing a notice — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Razer had served neither, VDPP’s notice terminated the case automatically. The court’s order was confirmatory, not constitutive. This mechanism requires no judicial approval and imposes no merits ruling.
No merits adjudicatedWithout prejudice: the distinction matters significantly
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means VDPP’s claims are not extinguished — they may be refiled in a different court, at a different time, or against additional defendants. A ‘with prejudice’ dismissal would bar refiling on the same claims. The public record confirms this is a without-prejudice exit, preserving VDPP’s full enforcement posture on both asserted patents.
Refiling rights intactRazer exits without a ruling — but exposure persists
Razer USA avoids any adverse judgment and incurs no court-ordered costs. However, the without-prejudice dismissal provides no legal shield against a future action on the same patents. Razer’s product lines remain potentially exposed to re-assertion by VDPP, and the absence of an answer or summary judgment motion means no invalidity defenses were adjudicated on the record.
No preclusive effectVariable tint display patents remain live enforcement assets
US9426452B2 and US10021380B1 survive this litigation fully intact. For other gaming peripheral or display accessory makers whose products may practice adjustable multi-layered variable tint technologies, the outcome is a signal rather than a resolution. VDPP’s willingness to exit and preserve optionality is consistent with a licensing-first enforcement strategy targeting multiple defendants sequentially.
Continued infringement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9426452B2 and US10021380B1 covering variable tint 3D spectacle technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Razer USA, Ltd. d/b/a Razer, Inc. | Company | Razer USA, Ltd. d/b/a Razer, Inc. — global gaming hardware and peripherals 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 | Christopher Kao | Attorney | Counsel for Razer USA, Ltd. d/b/a Razer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Razer USA, Ltd. d/b/a Razer, Inc.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 Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no judicial determination of infringement, validity, or claim scope was made. The explicit finding that Razer had served neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment is legally significant: it is the factual predicate that permitted the unilateral exit. The ‘without prejudice’ designation, combined with a cost-neutrality order, leaves both parties’ substantive positions entirely unresolved, and VDPP’s patents remain fully enforceable assets.
US9426452B2 & US10021380B1 — Adjustable 3D Spectacle Variable Tint Technology
US9426452B2 (application US14/850750) and US10021380B1 (application US15/907614) both address continuous adjustable filter spectacles — specifically, the technology enabling faster state transitions in multi-layered variable tint materials used in 3D display eyewear. The patents cover the mechanisms by which such spectacles dynamically shift optical states, a capability relevant to active-shutter or passive-filter 3D viewing products and potentially to wider adaptive display accessory applications.
For the gaming and display peripheral sector, these patents are strategically notable. Razer’s product portfolio includes display-adjacent accessories, and the asserted technology sits at the intersection of gaming hardware and adaptive optical systems — a space attracting growing R&D investment from consumer electronics and AR/VR companies. The survival of both patents with no adverse ruling means VDPP retains a credible enforcement position against any company commercialising adjustable multi-layered tint spectacle technology.
Should your team run an FTO against US9426452B2 and US10021380B1?
Any product team developing adjustable optical filter eyewear, active-shutter 3D glasses, or multi-layered variable tint display accessories should treat these patents as live risk assets following this without-prejudice dismissal. The absence of any invalidity ruling means VDPP’s claims have not been stress-tested in court. Companies in the gaming peripheral, AR/VR headset, and adaptive eyewear sectors face the highest exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claim scope of US9426452B2 and US10021380B1, identify relevant prior art that was not raised in this litigation, and flag related continuation or family patents that could extend VDPP’s enforcement reach. Running this analysis now — before a new complaint is filed — is substantially less costly than reactive defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9426452B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Variable Tint & Display Tech in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving display filter and adaptive optics technology filed in the Western District of Texas, including cases by NPEs using Ramey LLP.
What this case signals for the display technology and gaming IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal after nearly a year of litigation raises questions any IP team in the display or gaming peripherals sector should examine.
Pre-answer exits after extended litigation often signal parallel tracks
When a plaintiff waits 372 days to file a pre-answer voluntary dismissal, it typically suggests ongoing negotiations, licensing discussions, or related proceedings that were not resolved in favour of immediate settlement. IP teams at Razer competitors should monitor VDPP’s filing activity across all districts for signals of re-assertion.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve maximum plaintiff optionality
VDPP retains the ability to refile against Razer, file against other gaming or display companies, or license under the threat of renewed litigation. Companies whose products involve multi-layered variable tint display components — including AR/VR headset makers — should conduct FTO analysis against US9426452B2 and US10021380B1 now, not after a new filing.
VDPP v Razer — key questions answered
VDPP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Razer USA in the Western District of Texas on March 4, 2024, asserting US9426452B2 and US10021380B1 covering adjustable 3D filter spectacle technology. After 372 days, VDPP voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on March 10, 2025, before Razer had filed an answer or summary judgment motion.
A dismissal without prejudice means VDPP’s infringement claims were not decided on the merits and the patents remain fully enforceable. VDPP may refile the same claims against Razer or other defendants in the future. No res judicata or collateral estoppel effect attaches to the dismissed claims.
VDPP asserted US9426452B2 (application US14/850750) and US10021380B1 (application US15/907614). Both patents cover continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials, specifically addressing faster state transitions in such optical filter systems — technology relevant to 3D display eyewear and adaptive optics accessories.
The public record does not disclose a specific reason for the 372-day duration prior to VDPP’s voluntary dismissal. This length is notable given that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals require no judicial intervention and can be filed at any time before the defendant answers. Extended timelines in comparable cases often suggest ongoing licensing negotiations, claim mapping discussions, or related proceedings in other forums.
VDPP, LLC was represented by Ramey LLP, with attorneys Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak and William P. Ramey III listed as agents. Razer USA was represented by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, with Christopher Kao listed as defendant’s agent. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.