VDPP, LLC v. Ubiquiti, Inc. — 3Deeps Stereoscopic Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
VDPP, LLC asserted two patents covering continuously adjustable 3Deeps stereoscopic filter spectacles against networking hardware maker Ubiquiti, Inc. in New York’s Southern District. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all of VDPP’s claims with prejudice — and Ubiquiti’s counterclaims without prejudice as moot — just 88 days after filing, with each side bearing its own legal costs.
A rapid mutual exit: VDPP and Ubiquiti settle terms in under 90 days
On 24 April 2025, VDPP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Ubiquiti, Inc. — a major manufacturer of networking and wireless infrastructure equipment — before Judge Edgardo Ramos in the Southern District of New York. VDPP asserted two patents, US9699444B2 and US9716874B2, which cover continuously adjustable 3Deeps stereoscopic filter spectacles and multi-layered variable tint materials for faster state transitioning in such devices, respectively. The complaint alleged that Ubiquiti’s products infringed these display-technology patents.
The case closed on 21 July 2025 — just 88 days after filing — via a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal. Crucially, the dismissal is asymmetric: VDPP’s affirmative infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice, meaning VDPP is permanently barred from re-filing those specific claims against Ubiquiti on these patents in this action. Ubiquiti’s counterclaims and defenses are dismissed without prejudice as moot, leaving them theoretically available should new litigation arise. Neither party receives an award of attorney fees or costs.
A resolution in under 90 days — before any substantive motion practice or claim construction — strongly suggests the parties reached a private agreement, most likely a license, covenant not to sue, or negotiated exit, although the public record is silent on specific terms. The asymmetric dismissal structure, with prejudice for plaintiff and without prejudice for defendant, is a classic settlement signature under Rule 41. What drove Ubiquiti’s exposure calculation — whether related to claim scope, portfolio breadth, or commercial considerations — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 88 days
88 days — resolved well under the median district court patent case lifecycle of 2–3 years
Asymmetric Rule 41 dismissal: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal — what it means
A Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a court-accepted stipulation signed by all parties. No judicial merits ruling is issued. Because VDPP’s claims are dismissed with prejudice, res judicata bars VDPP from asserting the same infringement claims against Ubiquiti on US9699444B2 and US9716874B2 arising from the same conduct. The case ends without any finding of infringement or validity.
Voluntary — no merits adjudicationVDPP loses its right to re-litigate these claims against Ubiquiti
Dismissal with prejudice of VDPP’s claims is the most significant plaintiff concession in a Rule 41 exit. VDPP cannot refile the same infringement allegations against Ubiquiti under US9699444B2 or US9716874B2. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other potential infringers. The outcome suggests VDPP secured something of value — likely a commercial resolution — in exchange for that permanent bar.
Claims permanently closed vs. UbiquitiUbiquiti’s counterclaims survive without prejudice — a meaningful reservation
Ubiquiti’s counterclaims — which may have included invalidity or non-infringement defenses — are dismissed without prejudice as moot. This means Ubiquiti preserves the theoretical right to raise those arguments if future litigation involving these patents occurs in a different context. Ubiquiti avoids any admission of infringement and faces no fee award, a commercially clean exit for the defendant.
Counterclaims preserved without prejudice3Deeps patent portfolio remains live — other market players should take note
The dismissal leaves both asserted patents in force with no invalidity ruling. Companies operating in stereoscopic display, adjustable eyewear optics, or multi-layered variable tint technology adjacent to Ubiquiti’s product lines should note that VDPP’s portfolio retains full enforceability. The rapid, confidential resolution suggests VDPP is an active licensing entity — the speed of settlement may reflect either a low-cost licence fee or a hard-nosed commercial calculation by Ubiquiti.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | 3Deeps stereoscopic display technology licensor — holder of US9699444B2 and US9716874B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ubiquiti, Inc. | Company | Ubiquiti, Inc. — publicly traded networking and wireless infrastructure hardware manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David John Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office David J. Hoffman | Law Firm | Representing VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Excylyn Janaize Hardin-Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Ubiquiti, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Ubiquiti, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ubiquiti, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Ubiquiti, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Edgardo Ramos | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation is carefully drafted to produce asymmetric finality: VDPP’s offensive claims die permanently under the with-prejudice bar, while Ubiquiti’s counterclaims are extinguished only as moot — preserving Ubiquiti’s invalidity and non-infringement arguments should these patents resurface in future proceedings. The express fee-bearing clause, allocating costs to each party individually, indicates neither side extracted a fee award, consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than either party conceding liability or invalidity on the merits.
US9699444B2 & US9716874B2 — 3Deeps Adjustable Stereoscopic Filter Spectacles
US9699444B2 covers continuously adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles for optimized stereoscopic viewing, including the control method and means for generating and displaying a modified video signal in conjunction with those spectacles. US9716874B2 addresses a specific engineering challenge: faster state transitioning using multi-layered variable tint materials, which improves the optical switching speed critical to stereoscopic depth perception. Both patents were filed under application numbers US15/217612 and US15/212114 respectively, placing them in the generation of active eyewear technology following the consumer 3D display wave.
For the stereoscopic display and optical eyewear sector, these patents represent potentially broad claims over adjustable tint-based depth filtering — a technology mechanism applicable beyond traditional 3D cinema into augmented reality, heads-up displays, and adaptive optics. The fact that VDPP targeted Ubiquiti — primarily known for networking hardware rather than display devices — suggests either a broad product claim interpretation or a specific product line overlap that has not been made public. Companies developing variable opacity eyewear, electronic tint control, or stereoscopic imaging hardware should treat this portfolio as active enforcement risk.
Should your team run an FTO against US9699444B2 and US9716874B2?
Any company developing or commercialising products involving adjustable stereoscopic spectacles, variable tint lens materials, electronic opacity control for eyewear, or 3D display filter systems should prioritise freedom-to-operate analysis against this two-patent family. The rapid settlement with Ubiquiti — a hardware company not primarily associated with display technology — suggests VDPP is prepared to assert broadly. R&D teams working on AR/VR eyewear, adaptive optics, or multi-layer liquid crystal display filters are directly in scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9699444B2 and US9716874B2 against your product specifications in minutes, identifying the independent claims most likely to read on your implementation and surfacing prior art that could support design-around strategies or IPR petitions. Given that Ubiquiti’s invalidity counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice rather than on the merits, the prior art landscape for these patents may be more contested than the docket suggests — Eureka can surface those signals before you receive a demand letter.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9699444B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar stereoscopic display and optical patent cases in the Southern District of New York
Browse comparable patent infringement actions involving stereoscopic display, adjustable optics, and eyewear technology litigated in the S.D.N.Y. and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the stereoscopic display and optical IP landscape
VDPP’s rapid exit against a hardware giant suggests a calculated licensing strategy. The 3Deeps portfolio is still live.
Sub-90-day resolutions against hardware defendants typically signal licensing, not defeat
When a patent plaintiff dismisses with prejudice this quickly — before claim construction or any substantive ruling — it almost always reflects a private commercial resolution rather than an inability to proceed. VDPP retains the patents and can continue asserting them against the broader market. Other companies using adjustable stereoscopic or variable tint display technology should treat this as a licensing signal.
The asymmetric dismissal structure is a key strategic marker
Plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without prejudice as moot — this precise structure is the standard fingerprint of a negotiated exit where the plaintiff receives consideration. It is not a concession of weakness. IP teams at companies with products touching 3Deeps filter spectacle or variable tint optical technology should assess their exposure to US9699444B2 and US9716874B2 now, before a demand letter arrives.
VDPP v Ubiquiti — key questions answered
The case was dismissed on 21 July 2025 via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal. VDPP’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-filing. Ubiquiti’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice as moot. Each party bears its own attorney fees and costs. No merits ruling was issued.
VDPP asserted two patents: US9699444B2 (application US15/217612), covering continuously adjustable 3Deeps stereoscopic filter spectacles and associated video display methods, and US9716874B2 (application US15/212114), covering faster state transitioning for those spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials.
Dismissal with prejudice creates a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. VDPP cannot refile the same infringement claims against Ubiquiti based on US9699444B2 and US9716874B2 for the same accused conduct. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against all other parties — only VDPP’s claims against Ubiquiti specifically are permanently closed.
The stipulation characterises Ubiquiti’s counterclaims as dismissed ‘without prejudice as moot,’ meaning their dismissal follows from the resolution of the underlying action rather than a concession of their merits. This structure preserves Ubiquiti’s invalidity and non-infringement arguments, which could theoretically be raised again if these patents are asserted against Ubiquiti in a different context in the future.
At 88 days from filing to dismissal, the case resolved before any substantive motion practice or claim construction. This timeline is consistent with a private commercial resolution — most likely a licence, covenant not to sue, or negotiated settlement — reached shortly after filing. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, and the specific commercial consideration, if any, exchanged between the parties is unknown.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.