VDPP LLC v. STMicroelectronics: Variable Tint Spectacles Patent Suit Dismissed
VDPP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against STMicroelectronics, Inc. in the Western District of Texas asserting US10021380B1, covering faster state transitioning for adjustable 3D filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The case closed after just 103 days when VDPP voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before STMicroelectronics filed any responsive pleading.
Early voluntary exit before STMicro filed any answer
On August 2, 2024, VDPP, LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed suit against STMicroelectronics, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00188), asserting infringement of US10021380B1. The patent relates to faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials, a niche but commercially relevant domain intersecting display technology and active-eyewear systems.
On November 8, 2024, VDPP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because STMicroelectronics had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating and required no court order to terminate the action. The court formally ordered the case closed on November 13, 2024, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees.
The 103-day lifespan and pre-answer dismissal are consistent with a case that did not reach substantive merits engagement. The public record is silent on whether a settlement was reached privately, whether claim construction concerns or prior art identified by STMicroelectronics influenced VDPP’s decision, or whether VDPP intends to refile against this or other defendants. The without-prejudice designation leaves all options formally open for VDPP.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 103 days
103 days — resolved before defendant filed any answer or summary judgment motion
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal before any answer
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action as of right by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. No court order is required — the filing itself terminates the case. Because STMicroelectronics had not yet responded, VDPP’s November 8 notice was immediately operative, making the court’s subsequent order administrative rather than substantive.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the door stays open for VDPP
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims are not resolved on the merits and VDPP retains the right to refile the same patent assertions against STMicroelectronics or other parties in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The public record does not specify whether a private settlement accompanied this dismissal, nor whether VDPP intends to refile. The court made no finding as to validity, infringement, or enforceability of US10021380B1.
Refiling remains possibleSTMicroelectronics exits without prejudice finding — but risk persists
STMicroelectronics avoids any adverse infringement ruling and incurs no court-imposed costs. However, the without-prejudice dismissal provides no formal protection against future assertion of US10021380B1. The defendant may wish to consider whether to pursue inter partes review or other post-grant proceedings to obtain a merits-based invalidity determination and reduce long-term exposure to the asserted patent.
No preclusion on future claimsVariable tint display technology remains an active enforcement target
The dismissal without prejudice leaves US10021380B1 in full force with no validity or infringement determination on record. Companies operating in active eyewear, 3D display, or variable tint optical systems — including semiconductor suppliers to those sectors — remain exposed to future assertion. The pre-answer exit suggests either early resolution or a strategic pause, not abandonment of the patent’s commercial enforcement potential.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10021380B1 covering adjustable 3D filter spectaclesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | STMicroelectronics, Inc. | Company | STMicroelectronics, Inc. — global semiconductor and microelectronics manufacturerSearch 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 | Jeffery S. Becker | Attorney | Counsel for STMicroelectronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kurt Pankratz | Attorney | Counsel for STMicroelectronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nolan Edward Sullivan McQueen | Attorney | Counsel for STMicroelectronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing STMicroelectronics, 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 procedurally clean under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — self-effectuating and requiring no judicial merits engagement. The instruction that each party bear its own costs is standard for pre-answer voluntary dismissals and does not reflect any judicial assessment of the strength or weakness of either party’s position. No finding was made on validity, infringement, or enforceability of US10021380B1. The without-prejudice designation is the operative term: STMicroelectronics holds no preclusive judgment, and VDPP retains full rights to reassert.
US10021380B1 — Adjustable 3D Filter Spectacles with Variable Tint Materials
US10021380B1 covers faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The invention addresses the switching speed and optical performance of active eyewear systems that modulate light transmission across multiple layers — a core engineering challenge in 3D display and augmented-reality-adjacent optical systems. The application number US15/907614 places the filing in a period of accelerating commercial interest in active eyewear and variable-opacity lens technology.
The strategic value of US10021380B1 lies in its position at the intersection of semiconductor control circuitry and optical materials engineering. Semiconductor companies supplying drivers, controllers, or timing ICs to active eyewear manufacturers may face direct infringement exposure if their components enable the claimed state-transition performance. With no invalidity finding on record following this dismissal, the patent retains full presumption of validity and represents a credible enforcement asset for VDPP in future actions.
Should you run an FTO against US10021380B1?
Any company designing, supplying, or integrating components that control optical state transitions in variable tint or active-shutter eyewear systems should assess freedom-to-operate against US10021380B1. This includes semiconductor suppliers of display drivers, timing controllers, and MEMS actuators used in 3D spectacles or adaptive lens products. The patent’s claim scope — centred on multi-layered variable tint switching speed — may extend to component-level implementations, not only finished eyewear products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map US10021380B1 claim elements against product architectures, surface prior art that may support design-arounds, and identify related family members or continuations that could extend the enforcement footprint. Given VDPP’s without-prejudice dismissal and Ramey LLP’s documented serial enforcement activity, running a structured FTO now — before any refiling — is the lower-cost, lower-risk approach.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10021380B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: variable tint and active eyewear IP in WDTX
Cases involving active eyewear and display optics patents in the Western District of Texas, including pre-answer dismissals and semiconductor-supplier infringement theories.
What this case signals for the active eyewear and display IP landscape
A fast, pre-answer exit in the Western District of Texas rarely signals the end of a patent campaign — especially when the dismissal is without prejudice.
Pre-answer dismissals in WDTX often precede refiling or lateral enforcement
When a plaintiff in the Western District of Texas voluntarily dismisses before the defendant answers, it frequently indicates one of three scenarios: a private settlement, a strategic reassessment of claim scope, or preparation to refile with refined theories. The without-prejudice designation here means STMicroelectronics cannot treat this as a clean exit from US10021380B1 exposure.
Semiconductor suppliers to 3D eyewear OEMs should monitor US10021380B1
STMicroelectronics’ role as a semiconductor supplier — rather than a spectacles OEM — suggests VDPP may be pursuing a component-level infringement theory. Other chip or MEMS suppliers whose products enable variable tint state transitioning in active eyewear systems may face similar assertions. Proactive FTO analysis against US10021380B1 is advisable before this patent re-enters litigation.
VDPP v STMicroelectronics — key questions answered
VDPP LLC asserted US10021380B1, which covers faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas on August 2, 2024.
VDPP filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice on November 8, 2024, under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because STMicroelectronics had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating. The court formally closed the case on November 13, 2024. The public record does not disclose the reason for VDPP’s decision to dismiss.
The dismissal was without prejudice. This means no merits determination was made regarding validity or infringement of US10021380B1, and VDPP retains the right to refile patent infringement claims against STMicroelectronics or other parties in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
Yes. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not bar VDPP from refiling the same claims. STMicroelectronics received no preclusive judgment on infringement or invalidity. If VDPP refiles, the standard one-year IPR bar period would reset from the date of service of the new complaint, giving STMicroelectronics a fresh window to file an inter partes review petition.
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees. This is the standard outcome for a pre-answer voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and does not reflect any judicial finding on the merits or on the conduct of either party. Neither side is entitled to fee recovery from the other based on this dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.