Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: VDPP, LLC v. Subway IP LLC

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-24399, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 24, 2025. The plaintiff, VDPP, LLC, asserted two patents, US7030902B2 and US9948922B2, against the defendant, Subway IP LLC. US9948922B2 relates to faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials, while US7030902B2 covers a method for creating the appearance of sustained three-dimensional motion of unlimited duration using a finite number of pictures, referred to as "Eternalism." The nature of VDPP, LLC, as an operating company or a non-practicing entity (NPE), is not explicitly stated in the available information, but the assertion of patents against a well-known brand like Subway IP LLC often suggests a patent assertion entity or a licensing-focused strategy. The litigation was overseen by Judge Jacqueline Becerra.

The core of the dispute revolved around alleged infringement of VDPP's 3D visual technology patents. While the specific accused product or service offered by Subway IP LLC is not detailed in the public records beyond a "niche 3D imaging patent dispute," the patents' descriptions suggest that the alleged infringement might involve 3D display technologies or visual effects used in advertising, in-store displays, or other digital customer interfaces by Subway. The choice of the Southern District of Florida as the venue is a standard federal court jurisdiction for patent infringement claims, and no particular notable venue-specific factors have been highlighted beyond the court's general role in such disputes.

This case is particularly notable for its exceptionally rapid resolution. The litigation concluded on December 22, 2025, just 89 days after its filing, when the parties submitted a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement. This quick pre-trial settlement, well under the typical duration for patent cases, indicates an early agreement between the parties, possibly avoiding extensive discovery and substantive court rulings on the merits. The terms of the settlement, including any financial arrangements or licensing agreements, have not been publicly disclosed.

This patent infringement case, VDPP, LLC v. Subway IP LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24399, in the Southern District of Florida, involved alleged infringement of US Patents 7,030,902 and 9,948,922. The litigation was notably brief, concluding in a pre-trial settlement just 89 days after it was filed.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: VDPP, LLC filed the initial complaint and demanded a jury trial on September 24, 2025, in the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. The lawsuit accused Subway IP LLC of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,030,902 ("Eternalism") and 9,948,922 (related to "3Deeps filter spectacles").

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement: On December 19, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay all deadlines, including Subway's deadline to respond to the complaint, for 30 days to finalize a settlement agreement.
• Order Requiring Stipulation of Dismissal and Administratively Closing Case: On December 22, 2025, Judge Jacqueline Becerra signed an order requiring a stipulation of dismissal and administratively closing the case, noting the joint notice of settlement. The court retained jurisdiction to reopen proceedings if the settlement completion failed.

3. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• The case settled very early, resulting in no public record of significant discovery milestones, claim construction, or substantive court rulings on the merits.

4. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Settlement: A rapid pre-trial settlement was reached by December 22, 2025, a mere 89 days after the initial filing. The terms of the settlement, including any financial arrangements or licensing agreements, were not publicly disclosed.
• Notice of Voluntary Dismissal: On January 21, 2026, VDPP, LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice.
• Order of Dismissal: On January 22, 2026, Judge Jacqueline Becerra signed an order dismissing the case and directing the Clerk to close it, with all pending motions denied as moot.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for US Patent 9,948,922 and US Patent 7,030,902 did not reveal any active or concluded IPR or PGR proceedings directly related to these patents.
• It is worth noting that VDPP, LLC has been involved in other patent litigation where a patent asserted by VDPP (US Patent No. 9,426,452) was subject to an ex parte reexamination proceeding filed by Unified Patents in March 2024, in a separate case against Volkswagen. However, this does not directly pertain to the patents asserted against Subway IP LLC.

VDPP, LLC, the plaintiff in VDPP, LLC v. Subway IP LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24399, was represented by Ramey LLP. While the specific attorneys who appeared in this particular case are not explicitly listed in the provided snippets for the Southern District of Florida case, Ramey LLP has consistently represented VDPP, LLC in numerous other patent infringement lawsuits.

Based on VDPP's litigation history, the following insights can be drawn about their counsel:

• Firm: Ramey LLP, with an office in Houston, Texas.
• Notable Experience: Ramey LLP is a full-service litigation law firm that works with a national client base on intellectual property rights matters. They have filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits on behalf of VDPP, LLC, asserting patents related to 3D display technology and visual systems against various companies.
• Potential Lead Counsel: William P. Ramey (Ramey LLP) has been identified as VDPP's attorney in other patent infringement cases, where he has faced sanctions for litigation misconduct. This suggests he is likely a key attorney in VDPP's patent assertion campaigns.

Given the rapid settlement of VDPP, LLC v. Subway IP LLC (89 days), it's possible that extensive individual attorney appearances were not recorded on the public docket beyond the firm's initial representation. The case concluded with a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement.

While the case concluded quickly with a settlement, public records from the Southern District of Florida docket for VDPP, LLC v. Subway IP LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24399, reveal that Robert S. Hill of Holland & Knight LLP was granted a motion to appear pro hac vice on November 14, 2025. This indicates he was involved as counsel for Subway IP LLC.

At this early stage of the litigation, before extensive discovery or substantive rulings, specific roles like "lead counsel" or "of counsel" are not always explicitly delineated in initial appearance filings. However, the pro hac vice admission suggests a significant role in representing the defendant.

As the case settled swiftly, additional attorneys from other firms or in-house counsel for Subway IP LLC may not have formally entered appearances on the public docket. Further details on Subway IP LLC's broader patent litigation counsel or specific experience for Robert S. Hill beyond his firm affiliation would typically require access to sealed settlement documents or more extensive private legal databases, which are not available through public web search.

Known Counsel for Subway IP LLC:

• Name: Robert S. Hill
• Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
• Firm: Holland & Knight LLP. The specific office location is not readily available from the pro hac vice order, but Holland & Knight has numerous offices, including a significant presence in Florida.
• Note: Holland & Knight LLP has an intellectual property practice that handles patent litigation.