VDPP LLC v. Resideo Technologies: Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 69 Days
VDPP LLC asserted US10021380B1 — covering faster state transitioning for variable tint 3D spectacles — against Resideo Technologies in the Western District of Texas. The case closed just 69 days after filing when VDPP voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice, before Resideo had filed any answer or summary judgment motion.
A swift exit: VDPP’s 3D spectacles patent suit ends before Resideo responds
On July 31, 2024, VDPP LLC filed suit against Resideo Technologies Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00184), asserting infringement of US10021380B1. The patent relates to faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials — a technology enabling dynamic optical control in 3D viewing devices. Resideo Technologies, a home comfort and security technology company, was named as the sole defendant. Plaintiff was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP.
The case terminated on October 8, 2024, just 69 days after filing, when VDPP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Resideo had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-effectuating under Fifth Circuit precedent — no court order was required to end the case. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: VDPP is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Resideo on this patent.
The 69-day lifespan and pre-answer timing are consistent with a negotiated resolution or a unilateral decision by the plaintiff to withdraw, though the public record does not disclose the underlying reason. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement — each party responsible for its own fees — suggests the dismissal may reflect a settlement or strategic recalibration rather than a concession of weakness. Whether licensing discussions occurred or whether claim scope concerns emerged post-filing remains unknown from the available record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 69 days
69 days — well below the median time-to-termination for patent cases in W.D. Texas
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal before any responsive pleading
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Because Resideo had filed neither, VDPP’s notice was self-effectuating — the case terminated automatically upon filing. The Fifth Circuit has confirmed such dismissals require no judicial action. The ‘with prejudice’ designation was VDPP’s own choice, making the bar against re-litigation permanent.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no court order neededWith prejudice: VDPP permanently forfeits its claims against Resideo
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. VDPP cannot refile infringement claims against Resideo based on US10021380B1 for the same accused products or conduct. This is a meaningful legal concession — Rule 41 dismissals are ‘without prejudice’ by default unless the plaintiff specifies otherwise or has previously dismissed the same claim. VDPP’s affirmative choice of ‘with prejudice’ is notable and may reflect an agreed resolution.
Permanent bar on refiling against ResideoResideo exits cleanly — no answer filed, no fee exposure, no merits ruling
Resideo achieved a complete exit without filing an answer, incurring significant litigation costs, or obtaining a merits ruling. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means Resideo recovers no attorney fees, but equally faces no fee exposure. Critically, no court has ruled on the validity or infringement of US10021380B1, leaving those questions open for any future litigation Resideo may face from other parties asserting the same patent.
No merits adjudication — patent validity intactUS10021380B1 remains live IP: other market participants stay exposed
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves VDPP’s claims against Resideo only. US10021380B1 remains an active, enforceable patent against all other parties. Companies developing or selling variable tint optical devices or 3D display spectacles technology should note that no invalidity finding was made. The early pre-answer dismissal suggests either a licensing arrangement or a strategic withdrawal — either scenario leaves the patent’s enforceability fully intact against the broader market.
Patent enforceable against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10021380B1 covering variable tint 3D spectacles techSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Resideo Technologies, Inc. | Company | Resideo Technologies Inc. — home comfort and security technology solutions providerSearch 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms VDPP’s dismissal was self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no judicial ruling on the merits was made. The with-prejudice designation, chosen by plaintiff rather than imposed by the court, permanently bars VDPP from reasserting these claims against Resideo. The mutual cost-bearing outcome and the absence of any responsive pleading from Resideo are consistent with a pre-litigation resolution. No finding on validity, claim scope, or infringement of US10021380B1 appears in the record.
US10021380B1 — Faster State Transitioning for Variable Tint 3D Filter Spectacles
US10021380B1 protects technology for faster state transitioning in continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The patent covers the optical and control mechanisms enabling these spectacles to change tint states more rapidly — a capability central to smooth 3D viewing experiences. Filed under application US15/907614, the patent sits at the intersection of adaptive optics, display hardware, and eyewear technology. Its claims likely encompass material configurations and switching architectures for variable-transparency lens systems.
The strategic significance of this patent extends to any manufacturer or developer working on electronically controlled eyewear, 3D cinema systems, augmented reality optics, or variable-tint lens platforms. The 3Deeps filter technology referenced in the title has historically been associated with passive and active 3D display ecosystems. With no invalidity ruling emerging from this case, the patent retains full presumption of validity. Companies with products in adaptive eyewear or multi-layer optical filter technology face potential assertion risk and should assess their exposure proactively.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10021380B1?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or selling electronically switchable eyewear, variable tint lens systems, 3D filter spectacles, or multi-layer optical tint materials should treat US10021380B1 as a live risk. This case closed without any invalidity finding or claim construction ruling — the patent’s scope remains legally untested in court. The with-prejudice dismissal protects only Resideo; all other market participants remain fully exposed to assertion by VDPP or any future assignee.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US10021380B1’s claim scope against your product architecture, identify the full patent family including any continuations under application US15/907614, and flag blocking claims requiring design-around or licensing attention. Eureka’s litigation monitoring layer will also alert you to any new VDPP filings asserting related patents — giving your legal and R&D teams the lead time to respond strategically rather than reactively.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10021380B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: variable tint optics and 3D display technology in W.D. Texas
Browse related patent infringement actions in the adaptive optics and 3D display technology space filed in the Western District of Texas, including other Ramey LLP-led assertions.
What this case signals for the variable tint optics and 3D display IP landscape
A 69-day lifecycle and with-prejudice exit by the plaintiff raises pointed questions about assertion strategy and patent value in the 3D spectacles space.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often signal a quiet settlement
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has even filed an answer, the most commercially logical explanation is a confidential licensing agreement or lump-sum payment. The mutual cost-bearing clause reinforces this reading. IP teams monitoring VDPP’s assertion activity should track whether licensing revenue is reported or whether similar suits are filed against Resideo’s competitors.
US10021380B1 remains fully enforceable — no validity challenge survived
No IPR, no invalidity counterclaim, and no court ruling on claim scope emerged from this case. For any company in the variable tint display or adaptive optics space, the patent exits this litigation in the same legal posture it entered. An FTO analysis against US10021380B1 is warranted for product teams developing multi-layered variable tint materials for eyewear or 3D systems.
VDPP v Resideo — key questions answered
The voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars VDPP from reasserting the same patent claims against Resideo Technologies. It operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. However, the patent US10021380B1 remains enforceable against all other parties — no invalidity finding was made.
US10021380B1 covers faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The patent relates to the optical switching and material architecture enabling variable-tint 3D eyewear to change states more rapidly. It was filed under application number US15/907614.
The public record does not disclose the underlying reason. The 69-day lifespan, pre-answer timing, and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing agreement, or a strategic decision by the plaintiff to withdraw. No terms of any resolution were made public.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows 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 Resideo had not served either, VDPP’s dismissal notice was self-effectuating — the case terminated automatically. The Fifth Circuit confirmed this principle in In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., which the court cited in its order.
No. The dismissal was procedural and made no determination on the merits, validity, or claim scope of US10021380B1. The patent retains its full presumption of validity and remains enforceable against third parties. Companies in the variable tint optics or 3D display space should not treat this dismissal as any form of invalidity ruling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.