VDPP LLC v. TP-Link Systems: Infringement Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice in 100 Days
VDPP, LLC brought a patent infringement action against TP-Link Systems Inc. in the Central District of California, asserting US10021380B1 covering faster state transitioning for adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal without prejudice just 100 days after filing, before the defendant had answered or filed any dispositive motion.
Early voluntary exit before TP-Link could mount a defence
On 31 July 2024, VDPP, LLC — a patent assertion entity represented by Ramey LLP — filed suit against TP-Link Systems Inc. in the Central District of California, 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 optical display technology. TP-Link was represented by Holland & Knight, LLP.
On 8 November 2024, VDPP filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), terminating all of its claims against TP-Link. Critically, the dismissal was expressly stated to be WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent, meaning VDPP retains the legal right to bring the same infringement claims again in the future. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The case resolved in just 100 days, which is consistent with early tactical withdrawal rather than a negotiated settlement. Because TP-Link had not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permitted VDPP to dismiss unilaterally as of right — no court order was required. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing discussions occurred or what prompted the withdrawal, leaving the ultimate commercial resolution, if any, unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 100 days
100 days — resolved before defendant answer or summary judgment motion
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because TP-Link had done neither, VDPP could file a unilateral notice of dismissal. This is the most straightforward exit route available to a plaintiff and requires no judicial involvement — the dismissal takes effect automatically upon filing.
Procedural exit — no merits rulingWithout prejudice: VDPP keeps its powder dry on US10021380B1
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the action is terminated but the underlying claims are not extinguished. VDPP explicitly preserved its rights against the asserted patent, meaning it could refile the same infringement action against TP-Link — or any other party — in the future. A ‘with prejudice’ dismissal would have permanently barred refiling. The public record does not disclose whether the parties reached any private agreement; the notice is silent on that point.
Refiling rights preservedTP-Link exits without liability — but faces ongoing patent risk
TP-Link obtains a clean exit from this specific action with no finding of infringement, no injunction, and no damages award. Each party bearing its own costs means TP-Link cannot recover its legal fees incurred during the 100-day dispute. However, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means TP-Link has no preclusive protection against a future refiling by VDPP on the same patent — the risk is suspended, not eliminated.
No liability — risk not eliminatedEarly dismissal pattern raises licensing and forum strategy questions
Early voluntary dismissals without prejudice — particularly before the defendant answers — are commonly associated with parallel licensing negotiations, forum shopping, or tactical regrouping by asserting entities. VDPP’s use of Ramey LLP, a firm known for volume patent assertion, is consistent with a structured licensing programme. Companies in the consumer electronics and optical display sectors developing products that may intersect with variable tint or display filtering technology should monitor US10021380B1 for future assertion activity.
Monitor for refiling riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10021380B1 covering 3Deeps filter spectacles technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | TP-Link Systems Inc. | Company | TP-Link Systems Inc. — networking and consumer electronics manufacturerSearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kristopher L. Reed | Attorney | Counsel for TP-Link Systems Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Holland & Knight, LLP | Law Firm | Representing TP-Link Systems Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with explicit without-prejudice language tied specifically to the asserted patent, US10021380B1. This phrasing is deliberate: by naming the patent rather than the defendant alone, VDPP signals it is preserving the broadest possible re-assertion rights. No merits determination was made, so TP-Link carries no estoppel protection. The each-party-bears-own-costs term is standard for Rule 41 exits and does not indicate a settlement payment in either direction — though private arrangements outside the record cannot be excluded.
US10021380B1 — faster state transitioning for adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles
US10021380B1 (application number US15/907614) claims technology relating to faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. The patent sits in the optical display and eyewear technology domain, specifically addressing the speed and control of tint adjustment in filter-based spectacles — a class of device used in 3D viewing and adaptive optical applications. The ‘380 patent is a granted US utility patent with the B1 designation indicating a first publication without prior publication of the underlying application.
The strategic significance of US10021380B1 lies in its potential applicability to any product incorporating electronically or optically controlled variable tint lens systems — a category that extends beyond specialised 3D spectacles into broader consumer optics and display accessory markets. As augmented reality, smart eyewear, and adaptive display filtering continue to develop commercially, patents covering variable tint state transitions may gain relevance beyond their original filing context. Competitors and product developers operating in these adjacent spaces should assess whether their implementations fall within the claim scope.
Should your product team run an FTO check against US10021380B1?
Any R&D team developing products that incorporate multi-layered variable tint materials, electronically adjustable optical filters, or state-transitioning lens systems should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US10021380B1. The patent’s assertion against a consumer electronics company like TP-Link suggests VDPP may interpret the claims broadly. The without-prejudice dismissal means the patent remains live and enforceable against any party — not just TP-Link.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US10021380B1 against your product architecture, identify design-around opportunities, and flag related continuation or family patents that may extend the enforcement perimeter. Given that VDPP has already demonstrated willingness to assert this patent in federal court, a proactive FTO review before product launch or market entry in the variable tint or adaptive optics category is a commercially prudent step.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10021380B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in optical display and consumer electronics
Cases involving variable tint, adaptive optics, and display filter patents asserted in the Central District of California by patent assertion entities against consumer electronics manufacturers.
What this case signals for the optical display and consumer electronics IP landscape
A 100-day voluntary exit before answer suggests tactical flexibility — and a live patent that remains fully enforceable.
Without-prejudice dismissals are not endings — they are pauses
VDPP’s explicit preservation of rights against US10021380B1 signals that this patent remains an active enforcement asset. Companies whose products involve variable tint materials, display filtering, or state-transitioning optics should treat this dismissal as a temporary reprieve rather than a resolution. Monitoring VDPP’s filing activity across jurisdictions is advisable.
Rule 41 timing reveals how early in litigation defendants can still incur real costs
Even though TP-Link had not yet answered, it had already engaged Holland & Knight — a substantial engagement. The cost-sharing order means TP-Link absorbs its own defence spend with no recovery. This pattern is a common feature of high-volume patent assertion: even early withdrawals impose costs on defendants, reinforcing licensing pressure in subsequent targets.
VDPP v TP-Link — key questions answered
The without-prejudice dismissal means TP-Link faces no finding of infringement and no damages award from this action. However, VDPP explicitly preserved its rights against US10021380B1, meaning it can refile the same claims against TP-Link in the future. TP-Link has no preclusive or estoppel protection from this termination.
US10021380B1 (application US15/907614) is a granted US utility patent covering faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. It relates to optical display technology, specifically the speed and control mechanisms for adjusting lens tint in filter-based spectacle devices used in 3D and adaptive viewing applications.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because TP-Link had not yet filed either in the 100 days since suit was filed, VDPP was entitled to file a unilateral dismissal notice as of right, which took effect automatically upon filing.
Yes. The dismissal is expressly without prejudice as to the asserted patent, US10021380B1. VDPP retains the right to bring a new infringement action against TP-Link — or other parties — based on the same patent. The public record does not disclose any private agreement that might limit this right.
The dismissal notice specifies that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This means TP-Link cannot recover its legal costs from the 100-day dispute despite the case ending in its favour procedurally. Similarly, VDPP cannot seek cost reimbursement. No fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was invoked or awarded.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.