21 cases on record
- Cases on record
- 21
- Classification
- G02C1/00 · G02B27/01 · G02B27/22 · G02B26/02 · H04N13/04 · G02C7/10 · H04N13/00 · G02C7/00 · G02C11/00 · H04N13/02 · G02C5/14 · G02C11/06 · H02J7/00 · G02C7/08 · G06F3/01 · G02C7/04 · G02C7/02 · G02C13/00 · B24B9/14 · B24D5/00 · G02C1/06 · G02C7/14 · H04N13/324 · H04N13/332 · G02B30/24 · G02B30/34 · G02B30/40 · H04N13/334 · H04N13/341 · H04N13/359 · H04N13/398 · H04N13/144 · H04N13/337 · H04N13/327 · G02B30/23 · H04N13/261 · F16M11/04 · G02C5/02 · G02C7/16 · G02C11/04 · G02C5/22
- Courts involved
- N.D. Tex. · W.D. Tex. · E.D. Tex. · N.D. Cal. · United States International Trade Commission · Fed. Cir. · C.D. Cal. · S.D. Tex. · E.D. Wis.
| Case no. | Parties | Court | Filed | Duration | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3:26-cv-00526 | Vdpp, LLC v. Costar Technologies, Inc. | N.D. Tex. | 18 Feb 2026 | 90 d | Voluntary dismissal |
| 1:25-cv-01101 | Ingeniospec, LLC v. Apple, Inc. | W.D. Tex. | 15 Jul 2025 | 36 d | Voluntary dismissal |
| 2:25-cv-00663 | Flick Intelligence, LLC v. Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | E.D. Tex. | 26 Jun 2025 | 97 d | Dismissed with Prejudice |
| 4:24-cv-07915 | Meta Platforms, Inc v. Ingeniospec, LLC | N.D. Cal. | 12 Nov 2024 | 241 d | Voluntary dismissal |
| 337-TA-1423 | Ingeniospec, LLC v. ByteDance, Inc. | United States International Trade Commission | 10 Oct 2024 | 347 d | Case Settled |
| 24-1560 | Cherry Optical, Inc. v. Inland Diamond Products, Co. | Fed. Cir. | 12 Mar 2024 | 582 d | Appeal Dismissed |
| 3:24-cv-00566 | Vdpp, LLC v. Nec | N.D. Tex. | 7 Mar 2024 | 82 d | Voluntary dismissal |
| 7:24-cv-00068 | Vdpp, LLC v. Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | W.D. Tex. | 4 Mar 2024 | 115 d | Voluntary dismissal |
| 7:24-cv-00069 | Vdpp, LLC v. Boxlight Corporation | W.D. Tex. | 4 Mar 2024 | 358 d | Voluntary dismissal |
| 5:24-cv-01118 | Vdpp, LLC v. Optoma Technology, Inc. | N.D. Cal. | 23 Feb 2024 | 300 d | Voluntary dismissal |
| 8:23-cv-01858 | E Vision, LLC v. Seiko Epson, Corp. | C.D. Cal. | 3 Oct 2023 | 574 d | Dismissed with Prejudice |
| 8:23-cv-01860 | E-Vision, LLC v. Lenovo, Inc. | C.D. Cal. | 3 Oct 2023 | 477 d | Dismissed without Prejudice |
| 4:23-cv-03210 | Vdpp, LLC v. Ricoh Company, Ltd. | S.D. Tex. | 30 Aug 2023 | 299 d | Case Dismissed |
| 1:23-cv-00957 | Vdpp, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. | W.D. Tex. | 14 Aug 2023 | 120 d | Case Dismissed |
| 1:23-cv-00958 | Vdpp, LLC v. Toyota Motor, Corp. | W.D. Tex. | 14 Aug 2023 | 318 d | Dismissed with Prejudice |
| 2:23-cv-00367 | Vdpp, LLC v. KIA America, Inc. | E.D. Tex. | 11 Aug 2023 | 157 d | Dismissed with Prejudice |
| 4:23-cv-00843 | Vdpp, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. | N.D. Tex. | 11 Aug 2023 | 27 d | Dismissed without Prejudice |
| 6:23-cv-00183 | Vdpp, LLC v. Sharp Electronics Corporation | W.D. Tex. | 10 Mar 2023 | 130 d | Voluntary dismissal |
| 6:22-cv-01284 | Vdpp, LLC v. Philips North America, LLC | W.D. Tex. | 16 Dec 2022 | 138 d | Case Dismissed |
| 6:22-cv-01285 | Vdpp, LLC v. Roku, Inc. | W.D. Tex. | 16 Dec 2022 | 150 d | Case Dismissed |
| 1:20-cv-00352 | Inland Diamond Products, Co. v. Cherry Optical, Inc. | E.D. Wis. | 3 Mar 2020 | 1304 d | Case Dismissed |
Where the claim space is crowded
Which patents are asserted most in this field, and which branches are still open.
Map this field- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.
Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.
Report an incorrect record
Tell us what is wrong on this page. The page address is included automatically.
Privacy request
For requests about your personal information on this page. The page address is included automatically.