VDPP LLC v. SunBriteTV LLC: Display Filter Patent Dispute Settled in 158 Days
VDPP, LLC asserted US10021380B1 — covering faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3D filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials — against SunBriteTV, LLC in California’s Central District. The parties reached an agreement in principle before any substantive court rulings, resolving the dispute in under six months.
Early Settlement in Adjustable Display Filter Patent Dispute
VDPP, LLC filed suit against SunBriteTV, LLC on 21 June 2024 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting infringement of US10021380B1. The patent covers faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials — technology relevant to display and visual processing systems. SunBriteTV, LLC is a manufacturer known for outdoor and commercial-grade display products.
The case closed on 26 November 2024 following a stipulated stay of all deadlines, with both parties confirming they had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter. The joint stipulation requested a 30-day stay to finalise terms and file a formal dismissal. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Settled,’ indicating a negotiated resolution rather than any court-imposed outcome.
At 158 days, the resolution is notably swift for patent infringement litigation in the Central District of California, suggesting the parties may have identified common ground early or that pre-litigation licensing discussions had already narrowed the dispute. The precise financial and licensing terms are not disclosed in the public record, leaving the scope of any ongoing IP rights or future product restrictions unknown.
Filing to Case Settled in 158 days
158 days — resolved well before the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial timeline
Case settled: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Stipulated stay followed by settlement termination
Rather than litigating to judgment, both parties filed a joint stipulation to stay all court deadlines, citing an agreement in principle. This procedural posture — where parties pause the case clock to finalise terms — is a standard precursor to formal dismissal. The court accepted the stipulation, and the case closed as ‘settled’ on 26 November 2024, with no substantive rulings on validity or infringement.
Pre-ruling settlementPublic record is silent on with or without prejudice
The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Settled,’ but the public docket does not specify whether the eventual dismissal was filed with or without prejudice. A with-prejudice dismissal would bar VDPP from re-asserting the same claims against SunBriteTV on the same patent. A without-prejudice dismissal would preserve that option. Until the formal dismissal order is docketed, that distinction remains unconfirmed from publicly available records.
Prejudice terms undisclosedVDPP avoids validity scrutiny; patent remains intact
Settlement before any claim construction or invalidity briefing means US10021380B1 was never subjected to judicial scrutiny in this proceeding. The patent’s validity and scope remain formally untested, which may preserve VDPP’s ability to assert it against other defendants in the display and visual processing sector. Whether a licence, royalty stream, or covenant-not-to-sue was part of the settlement terms is not publicly known.
Patent validity untestedSunBriteTV resolves exposure without admitting infringement
For SunBriteTV, settlement typically avoids the reputational and financial risk of an adverse infringement finding. The company did not file any publicly visible invalidity counterclaims before resolution, suggesting a strategic preference to resolve rather than challenge the patent’s merits. Display manufacturers with similar variable-tint or multi-layered optical filter technologies should note that US10021380B1 remains an active enforcement asset for VDPP.
No infringement admissionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US10021380B1 covering adjustable 3D filter display technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SunBriteTV, LLC | Company | SunBriteTV, LLC — manufacturer of outdoor and commercial-grade display and television productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Susan S. Q. Kalra | 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 | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated verdict text records a joint request to stay all deadlines based on an agreement in principle — it does not constitute a merits ruling on infringement or validity. The language ‘agreement in principle’ indicates binding resolution had not yet been formally documented at the time of filing, consistent with a structured settlement process. No admissions of liability appear in the public record, and the patent’s enforceability against third parties is unaffected by this resolution.
US10021380B1 — Multi-Layered Variable Tint 3D Filter Spectacle Technology
US10021380B1 (application no. US15/907614) protects faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The invention addresses the technical challenge of reducing switching latency in active optical filter systems — particularly relevant to 3D display glasses that must synchronise precise tint changes with frame-rate signals. The multi-layered variable tint architecture distinguishes this claim set from single-layer electrochromic or liquid crystal shutter designs.
For display hardware manufacturers and optical component developers, this patent represents a meaningful claim position in the intersection of active eyewear and display synchronisation technology. As the market for AR/VR headsets, 3D cinema systems, and adaptive optical devices expands, patents covering tint-state switching speed and layered material constructions become increasingly relevant to competitive product design. VDPP’s willingness to enforce the patent through litigation reinforces its commercial value as a licensing asset.
Should you run an FTO against US10021380B1?
Any company developing products involving multi-layered variable tint optical filters, active shutter eyewear, synchronised display glasses, or electro-optic switching systems for 3D or adaptive display applications should treat US10021380B1 as a priority FTO target. The patent’s assertion against a commercial display manufacturer demonstrates that VDPP actively monitors the market and pursues licensing — making pre-launch clearance analysis commercially prudent.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claim language of US10021380B1 against your product specifications, identify cited prior art that could support design-around options, and surface related patents in VDPP’s or related assignees’ portfolios. This gives R&D and legal teams a structured, evidence-based picture of clearance risk before product launch or market entry in the optical filter and display technology space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10021380B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Variable Tint & Display Filter Technology Disputes
Explore related patent infringement cases involving adjustable optical filter and display synchronisation technology filed in the Central District of California and similar venues.
What this case signals for the display and optical filter IP landscape
VDPP’s rapid settlement with SunBriteTV suggests an assertive licensing posture around adjustable 3D display filter patents.
Early settlement signals an active licensing programme around US10021380B1
Cases that settle within 158 days — before claim construction — often reflect either a willing-licensee posture from the defendant or pre-existing licensing discussions. For companies in the display, AR/VR optics, or variable-tint materials space, this outcome suggests VDPP may be running a broader assertion campaign and is willing to resolve cases efficiently.
US10021380B1 has not been invalidated — FTO analysis remains critical
Because no invalidity defences were tested in this proceeding, the patent’s claims survived without judicial scrutiny. R&D and product teams working on multi-layered optical filters, variable-tint lenses, or 3D display switching systems should conduct a targeted freedom-to-operate analysis against US10021380B1 before commercialising related technology.
VDPP v SunBriteTV — key questions answered
VDPP, LLC asserted US10021380B1 (application no. US15/907614), which covers faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The case was filed in the Central District of California on 21 June 2024.
The case settled after 158 days. Both parties filed a joint stipulation to stay all deadlines, citing an agreement in principle. The public record does not disclose financial terms, licence scope, or whether the dismissal was filed with or without prejudice.
No. The case settled before any substantive ruling on validity or infringement. US10021380B1 was not subjected to claim construction, summary judgment, or trial in this proceeding, meaning its validity remains formally untested by the court.
Resolution within 158 days — before any substantive court rulings — is consistent with a licensing-focused assertion strategy. Plaintiff counsel Ramey LLP is associated with high-volume patent enforcement practices. This outcome suggests VDPP may be pursuing similar claims against other display hardware manufacturers, though no additional co-pending cases are confirmed in the public record provided.
Companies developing active shutter eyewear, multi-layered variable tint optical products, 3D display synchronisation systems, adaptive smart glass, or electro-optic switching devices should prioritise FTO analysis against US10021380B1. VDPP’s demonstrated willingness to litigate makes this patent an active commercial risk for manufacturers and component suppliers in adjacent display technology markets.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.