VDPP v. Panasonic: 3Deeps Spectacles Patent Case Voluntarily Dismissed
VDPP, LLC filed suit against Panasonic Corporation of North America in the Northern District of Texas asserting three patents covering multi-layered variable tint 3Deeps filter spectacles technology. The case closed after 193 days when VDPP voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Early voluntary dismissal before Panasonic even answered the complaint
VDPP, LLC filed this patent infringement action against Panasonic Corporation of North America on December 16, 2022 in the Northern District of Texas before Judge Sam A. Lindsay. VDPP asserted three patents — US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2 — all directed to faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials. Plaintiff was represented by Ramey & Schwaller LLP, a Texas-based firm frequently active in patent assertion matters.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that VDPP filed a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), explicitly noting that Panasonic had not yet answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The notice states that dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims shall be without prejudice as to the asserted patents, and that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
The case closed on June 27, 2023, just 193 days after filing — well before substantive litigation milestones such as claim construction or discovery. The early exit, before any responsive pleading from Panasonic, is consistent with a range of pre-litigation dynamics but the specific reasons for VDPP's decision to withdraw are not disclosed in the available public record. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means the three asserted patents remain available for future enforcement.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 193 days
193 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — resolved before Panasonic answered or filed for summary judgment
US9699444B2, US10021380B1 & US9948922B2 — 3Deeps Variable Tint Spectacles
Any company designing, manufacturing, or commercialising products in the variable tint eyewear, 3Deeps spectacles, adaptive optics, or multi-layered filter lens space should treat this three-patent family as an active FTO concern. The without-prejudice dismissal means VDPP has not relinquished these patents, and no invalidity or non-infringement finding was made. Consumer electronics OEMs, component suppliers, and smart eyewear startups are the most directly exposed categories.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and expressly states it is without prejudice as to each of the three asserted patents, with each party bearing its own costs. The explicit without-prejudice designation is the operative legal term: it preserves VDPP's right to assert the same patents in future proceedings against Panasonic or any other party, and no merits ruling was made on infringement, validity, or enforceability.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): plaintiff-driven dismissal before responsive pleading
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Panasonic had not yet done either, VDPP was entitled to dismiss unilaterally. The notice expressly states the dismissal is without prejudice, preserving VDPP's right to refile on the same patents.
Plaintiff-initiated, no court order requiredWithout prejudice: the public record is silent on whether this is permanent
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying claims — VDPP retains the right to refile infringement actions based on US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2 against Panasonic or any other party. Whether this dismissal reflects a negotiated resolution, a strategic retreat, or an intent to refile is not disclosed in the available public record. The distinction from a with-prejudice dismissal is material for any future defendant monitoring these patents.
Claims may be refiledPanasonic exits without a judgment — but faces no preclusion bar
Panasonic avoided any adverse judgment and incurred no court-awarded costs or fees, as the parties agreed to bear their own. However, a without-prejudice dismissal provides Panasonic no formal preclusion against future infringement claims on the same three patents. Any future VDPP action on these patents would require Panasonic to defend afresh. The specific terms of any arrangement between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
No judgment entered against defendantThree active patents remain enforceable in the 3Deeps spectacles space
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2 fully enforceable. Companies operating in the variable tint eyewear, adjustable filter spectacles, or related display-optics hardware segments should treat these patents as active enforcement risk. The Ramey & Schwaller representation of VDPP is consistent with a patent assertion model in which portfolios are actively monetised across multiple defendants.
Patents remain live enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VDPP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Panasonic Corporation of North America | Company | Panasonic Corporation of North America — consumer electronics and display technology companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey E. Kubiak | Attorney | Counsel for VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey & Schwaller LLP | Law Firm | Representing VDPP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John R. Emerson | Attorney | Counsel for Panasonic Corporation of North AmericaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Haynes & Boone, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Panasonic Corporation of North AmericaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sam A. Lindsay | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the adjustable optics and variable tint eyewear space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from VDPP's assertion of three 3Deeps variable tint spectacles patents against Panasonic in N.D. Texas.
VDPP's 3Deeps patent family: continuation depth and claim coverage
VDPP asserted three patents from what appears to be a related family covering multi-layered variable tint state transitioning. Mapping the full continuation tree from application numbers US15/217612, US15/907614, and US15/683623 will reveal whether additional granted or pending claims extend coverage to adjacent architectures — a critical input for any competitor or licensee in the adaptive optics space.
Active patent familyFiling trends in electronically adjustable eyewear and variable tint lenses
The 3Deeps spectacles domain intersects with smart eyewear, AR optics, and electronically controlled lens technologies — all areas attracting increasing patent filings from consumer electronics OEMs, optical materials companies, and AR/VR hardware startups. Monitoring filing trends in multi-layered variable tint and faster state transitioning lens technologies can surface competitive threats and white-space opportunities before they mature into enforcement risk.
Adaptive optics filing trendPanasonic's patent position in display optics and adaptive eyewear
Panasonic Corporation of North America operates across consumer electronics, display technology, and optical systems. Assessing Panasonic's own patent portfolio in variable tint materials, display-integrated optics, and filter lens technology reveals both their defensive IP depth and any potential cross-licensing leverage in future disputes involving adjustable spectacles or related display hardware.
Panasonic display optics IPDesign-around and adjacent innovation opportunities near the 3Deeps claims
VDPP's claims focus on faster state transitioning and multi-layered variable tint materials in filter spectacles. Adjacent white-space areas — such as single-layer electro-optic switching, holographic filter architectures, or software-driven tint control without multi-layer material stacks — may offer design-around pathways. Mapping claim boundaries against current development trajectories in smart lens R&D can identify freedom-to-operate corridors.
Design-around opportunitySimilar patent cases: variable tint optics and 3Deeps spectacles in N.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving adjustable filter eyewear and variable tint display optics filed in the Northern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the variable tint spectacles IP landscape
An early Rule 41 exit before answer preserves all options — for VDPP and for the broader market monitoring these patents.
Without-prejudice exit keeps three patents in active play
VDPP's decision to dismiss without prejudice means US9699444B2, US10021380B1, and US9948922B2 are available for future enforcement. Companies in adjustable optics, smart eyewear, and variable tint display technology should monitor VDPP's filing activity and treat these patents as live FTO risks.
Pre-answer dismissal limits public record — terms undisclosed
Because the case ended before Panasonic filed any responsive pleading, no claim construction, invalidity arguments, or licensing terms entered the public record. This information vacuum increases uncertainty for third parties seeking to assess the patents' validity or enforceability scope.
VDPP v Panasonic — key questions answered
VDPP, LLC asserted three patents: US9699444B2 (App. No. US15/217612), US10021380B1 (App. No. US15/907614), and US9948922B2 (App. No. US15/683623). All three relate to faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials.
VDPP filed a voluntary dismissal notice under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), available because Panasonic had not yet answered or filed for summary judgment. The dismissal is expressly without prejudice, meaning VDPP retains the right to refile claims on the same patents. The specific reasons for the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not constitute a validity or enforceability determination. No court ruled on the merits of VDPP's infringement claims or Panasonic's potential defences. US9699444B2, along with US10021380B1 and US9948922B2, remains a granted, enforceable patent subject to future assertion.
VDPP was represented by Jeffrey E. Kubiak and William P. Ramey III of Ramey & Schwaller LLP. Panasonic Corporation of North America was represented by John R. Emerson of Haynes & Boone, LLP. The case was presided over by Judge Sam A. Lindsay in the Northern District of Texas.
Yes. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, VDPP is not barred from filing a new infringement action based on US9699444B2, US10021380B1, or US9948922B2 against Panasonic or any other defendant. Any future defendant would need to defend the action on its merits. There is no preclusion, no covenant not to sue, and no judgment in the public record limiting VDPP's future enforcement options.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.