Altair Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me verify the opinion citations, counsel, and the downstream Zenni litigation.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. The caption's alignment is misleading: on the merits, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc. were the plaintiffs below and the appellants at the Federal Circuit (No. 07‑1380), while Altair Eyewear, Inc. was the defendant and cross‑appellant (No. 07‑1407) — consistent with the case summary's notation of an Altair cross‑appeal. Aspex is a Delaware corporation that distributes magnetic clip‑on eyewear and enforces the patents; it was owned by the Ifergan family trust, alongside Chic Optic, Inc., a Canadian company that had taken a license from inventor Richard Chao. Contour Optik is the record assignee/owner of the three patents (the Chao brothers assigned their interests to Contour in July 1999) and was joined as co‑plaintiff to cure any standing defect in Aspex's rights. Both Aspex and Chic are family‑controlled commercial entities — Stanford's NPE litigation database categorizes Aspex as a "product company," not an NPE/PAE. Altair is a California eyewear distributor and a subsidiary of VSP (Vision Service Plan), a large vision‑benefits and eyewear group; VSP was targeted, unsuccessfully, as a would‑be co‑defendant. (Fed. Cir. opinion via Finnegan; 361 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Stanford NPE DB, '896).

Accused technology. The suit accused Altair's magnetic clip‑on sunglasses — the Diamontite Magnetics, Joseph Abboud, and Sunlites lines — of infringing. The patented concept is a pair of eyeglasses with an auxiliary (sunglass) frame whose bridge carries a magnet that couples to a magnet in the primary frame's bridge, allowing one‑handed attachment and resistance to downward slippage. The decisive technical fact was that Altair's accused products were rimless in the auxiliary/sunglass portion: holes were drilled in the lenses and pins or screws (not encircling rims) attached them to the bridge, whereas the patents' disclosed structure used rims. That rimmed‑vs‑rimless distinction controlled the entire case.

Patents asserted. Three related Chao patents, all asserted against Altair (via claim 1 of the '054, numerous claims of the '811, and claims 13‑22 of the '896): (1) U.S. 5,737,054, "Auxiliary lenses for eyeglasses" (filed Dec. 13, 1996; issued Apr. 7, 1998) — primary frame with a magnetic member in its bridge and an auxiliary frame with a projecting bridge portion carrying a mating magnet for one‑handed attachment; (2) U.S. 6,012,811, "Eyeglass frames with magnets at bridges for attachment" (issued Jan. 11, 2000), a continuation‑in‑part of the '054 — claims a first frame with two "retaining mechanisms," a bridge, a bridge magnet, and a coupling surface not parallel to the frontal plane so that one frame resists downward movement; (3) U.S. 6,092,896, "Eye‑wear with magnets" (issued July 25, 2000), a continuation of the '811 and CIP of the '054 — bridge‑mounted magnet coupling with comparable disclosure. The patents' terms have since expired (the '811 family, priority Dec. 1996, ran to approximately December 2016).

Procedural Posture and Why It Matters

The case was filed in August 2002 in the Southern District of New York, No. 02 Civ. 6195 (SCR) — originally assigned to Judge John G. Koeltl and reassigned in September 2003 to Judge Stephen C. Robinson. The district court issued three key rulings: (a) a March 7, 2005 order denying Altair's motion for partial summary judgment that Aspex lacked standing and denying Aspex's motion to add VSP as a co‑defendant, 361 F. Supp. 2d 210; (b) a September 2005 Markman opinion construing the claims (Markman hearing July 28, 2005), 386 F. Supp. 2d 526; and (c) an April 2007 opinion granting Altair's motions for summary judgment of non‑infringement on all three patents and denying Aspex's cross‑motion. Judgment entered April 13, 2007; amended May 11, 2007 to dismiss Altair's counterclaims without prejudice; Aspex and Contour noticed their appeal May 15, 2007, and Altair cross‑appealed June 8, 2007. The Federal Circuit (jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1)) affirmed in a nonprecedential 2008 opinion in Nos. 2007‑1380 and 2007‑1407. The opinion reasoned that "retaining mechanism" in the '811/'896 claims is a § 112 ¶ 6 means‑plus‑function term whose only disclosed structure is rims, so the rimless accused products did not infringe, and that pins driven through lenses are not equivalents of rims; on Altair's cross‑appeal it affirmed the standing holding, namely that an exclusive license need not be in writing where the patent owner (Contour) is joined as co‑plaintiff. Venue significance runs in two directions: S.D.N.Y. was the chosen forum for one strand of what was effectively a multi‑district assertion campaign by Aspex/Contour over the same magnetic‑eyewear family (cf. Aspex Eyewear v. E'Lite Optik, 127 F. App'x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (standing; same '054/'811 patents); Aspex Eyewear v. Cheuk Ho Optical, No. 00‑cv‑02389 (S.D.N.Y.); Aspex Eyewear v. Cadore Moda, No. 06‑cv‑22210 (S.D. Fla.)), and the S.D.N.Y. court's defendant‑friendly construction became the template for later rulings.

Why the Case Is Notable

Three reasons stand out. First, precedential spillover. Although the 2008 decision is nonprecedential, its means‑plus‑function treatment of "retaining mechanism" and its affirmance of the oral/implied‑exclusive‑license standing rule (licensee may sue where the patentee is joined, without a writing) have been cited in later litigation, and the underlying district‑court opinions are frequently cited on standing and claim construction. Second, collateral‑estoppel effect. The Altair judgment became the anchor for a sequel: when Aspex sued Zenni Optical on the same three patents, the S.D. Fla. court applied collateral estoppel based on Altair, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in a Rule 36 judgment, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012) — effectively ending Aspex's ability to re‑assert these claims against rimless magnetic clip‑on products. (One secondary source, Mandour & Associates, reports that Aspex's cert petition was denied in March 2013; I could not independently verify that in a primary source.) Third, IPR linkage is absent by timing. The appeal was decided in 2008 — five years before the AIA created PTAB inter partes review — so there is no parallel IPR/PGR record; the patents have since expired, and the case instead illustrates pre‑AIA serial patent assertion by a family‑controlled operating company, resolved through summary‑judgment claim construction rather than validity challenges, with meaningful market effect: it validated rimless magnetic clip‑on designs and constrained a well‑known eyewear patent family.

Sourcing caveats: Party roles, the accused products, the three district‑court opinions, the appeal cross‑appeal dates, and the Federal Circuit's substantive holdings are well documented in the court opinions and the Finnegan case report linked above. The precise Federal Appendix cite for the 2008 nonprecedential opinion (it appears around 288 F. App'x) and the 2013 cert‑denial could not be confirmed from a primary source and should be verified against PACER/Westlaw before publication.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several searches.

I have a strong base. Let me nail down the remand proceedings, the D. Mass. ruling, and the reexamination.

Chronology of Key Legal Developments — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc.

Note on the metadata: The Federal Circuit docket number 07-1407 is Altair's cross-appeal. It was consolidated with Aspex/Contour's appeal, No. 07-1380, and decided together on 2008-01-08 (nonprecedential, 288 F. App'x 697). The underlying district court case is Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 6195 (SCR) (S.D.N.Y.), and the case later migrated to the District of Massachusetts on remand. The '896 patent in the metadata is U.S. Pat. No. 6,092,896 (not 6,092,896—correctly 6,092,896; the parties' briefs cite "6,092,896").

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2002)

• August 2002 — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc. (collectively "Aspex") filed a § 271 patent infringement complaint against Altair Eyewear, Inc. in the S.D.N.Y., asserting three magnetic clip-on eyewear patents: '054 (filed 1996-12-18), '811 (filed 1997-11-03), and '896 (filed 1999-08-04). Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 348, 351–52 (D. Mass. 2011); Aspex Eyewear v. Altair, 288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
• August 2002 — First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 3) dropped one originally asserted patent. Asserted claims: claim 1 of the '054; claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12–14, 22–24, 26–28, 31–33 of the '811; claims 13–22 of the '896. 386 F. Supp. 2d 526, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
• September 2002 — Altair answered and asserted counterclaims against both plaintiffs (including invalidity). 361 F. Supp. 2d 210, 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Aspex Eyewear, 386 F. Supp. 2d at 531.
• Case originally assigned to Judge John G. Koeltl; reassigned September 2003 to Judge Stephen C. Robinson (SCR). 361 F. Supp. 2d at 213.
• Key background fact: Altair's accused products (Diamontite Magnetics, Joseph Abboud, Sunlites) had rimmed primary frames but rimless sunglass clip-ons (pins/screws through drilled lenses) — a fact that controlled the entire case. 288 F. App'x at 700.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance (2004–2005)

• August 2004 — Altair moved for partial summary judgment that Aspex lacked standing (the written 1998 Chic–Aspex license predated issuance of the patents-in-suit and did not convey future-acquired rights).
• Shortly after — Aspex moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 to add VSP (Altair's parent) as a defendant, on alter-ego/control theories.
• 2005-03-07 — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2005): the court denied both motions. It held the written Chic–Aspex agreement conveyed no exclusive rights but that there was "without doubt, more than enough evidence on which a reasonable jury could believe that there was an oral and/or implied exclusive license between Chic and Aspex," so as to defeat summary judgment on standing. It also refused to join VSP, applying Tegal and A. Stucki.
• 2005-03-14 and 2005-03-21 — Aspex filed Daubert motions to exclude Altair's experts Ogden H. Webster and Allen Leck. 386 F. Supp. 2d 526.
• Claim-construction briefing followed (Altair opening ~2005-02-28; Aspex opening ~2005-03-02; replies ~2005-03-18; Aspex sur-reply ~2005-04-15).

(No motion to transfer or stay pending IPR appears in the record — IPR practice did not exist yet; see §8.)

3. Claim construction / Markman (2005)

• 2005-07-28 — Markman hearing. 2005-09-09 — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2005):
  • "frame" ('054) construed as "an eyeglass device that includes, at least, a bridge and rims" — i.e., rims required.
  • "retaining mechanism" ('811, '896) held a § 112 ¶ 6 means-plus-function limitation; because rims were the only disclosed structure, it was limited to "a structure that keeps the lenses in place using rims."
  • The court relied solely on intrinsic evidence, excluding inventor/testimonial and marketing evidence.
• These constructions, all keyed to rims, were case-dispositive in Altair's favor on three of the asserted patents.

4. Summary judgment & first judgment (2007)

• Cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement (Altair: non-infringement; Aspex: literal infringement and/or DOE).
• 2007 — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2007): the court granted Altair's summary judgment of non-infringement of all three patents and denied Aspex's infringement motion; it also addressed the Leck expert motion.
  • '054: no literal infringement (no rimmed sunglasses); no DOE (rims encircle lenses; pins do not hold lenses "therein").
  • '811/'896: pins are not equivalent to rims — structure "differs substantially."
• 2007-04-13 — Judgment entered; case closed.
• 2007-05-11 — Amended judgment dismissing Altair's counterclaims without prejudice.

5. First appeal — consolidated Nos. 07-1380 & 07-1407 (2007–2008)

• 2007-05-15 — Aspex/Contour notice of appeal (No. 07-1380).
• 2007-06-08 — Altair notice of cross-appeal (No. 07-1407) on the standing issue.
• 2008-01-08 — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (nonprecedential; per curiam), disposition:
  • Reversed the district court's construction limiting "frame" to rims; "a 'frame' as that term is used in the '054 patent is not limited to one with rims" (construing "therein" and "including"). The '054 non-infringement judgment was vacated and remanded.
  • Affirmed non-infringement of '811/'896 — "retaining mechanism" is means-plus-function limited to rims, and the rimless pin configuration is not an equivalent.
  • Affirmed the denial of summary judgment on standing, holding that an oral/implied exclusive license can confer standing where the patent owner is joined as co-plaintiff, and that the Ifergan-family/Chic evidence created a genuine issue of material fact.
  • The court declined to reach Aspex's challenges to the "not parallel to the frontal plane" and "U-shaped structure" constructions.

6. Remand, transfer, and the second liability phase (2010–2011)

• July 2010 — On remand the case was reassigned to a judge sitting by designation in the S.D.N.Y.; December 2010 — the parties transferred the case by stipulation/argument to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (No. 10-cv-12202, Judge William G. Young). 818 F. Supp. 2d at 352 (citing ECF Nos. 160, 166).
• Parallel USPTO proceeding: "Meanwhile, Altair sought reexamination of the '054 patent ... The USPTO found the original claims to be patentable and notified Aspex of its intent to issue a reexamination certificate." Id. (This is the only PTO challenge in this case; see §8.) Altair's invalidity case thus had to overcome the deference owed to a confirmed reexamination.
• 2011-03-31 — Further Markman hearing on the '054 claim, immediately followed by argument on the merits, which the parties agreed to submit as a "case stated" (a bench submission on stipulated facts).
  • "secured in" = "embedded within"; "extending over" = "extending above and partially covering the middle bridge of the primary frame"; "secured to" = "embedded within and attached to" (rejecting Altair's narrower "attached to").
• 2011-09-30 — Order (ECF No. 226) resolving the case stated.
• 2011 (Oct.) — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Mass. 2011), 2011 WL 4840468, holding:
  1. "secured to" = "embedded within and attached to";
  2. Claim 1 of the '054 patent is invalid as obvious (Miki Japanese Utility Model No. 3031881 in view of Stemme German Patent No. 3933310 and Chao '207), notwithstanding the reexamination confirmation and the court's own misgivings about the conclusory Sodano expert report (which it credited only as "bolster[ing]" its analysis); and
  3. Altair's accused devices literally infringe claim 1 of the '054 (so the case turned entirely on invalidity).
• Net result: Altair's invalidity motion (ECF 178) granted; Aspex's validity cross-motion (ECF 185) denied; Aspex's infringement motion (ECF 171) effectively granted but mooted by invalidity. Judgment for Altair.

(Practically, this was a "judgment as a matter of law" style case-stated bench disposition — there was no jury trial and thus no JMOL/new-trial phase.)

7. Second appeal and final disposition (2012)

• Aspex appealed (No. 2012-1102). Appellants' counsel: Michael A. Nicodema (Greenberg Traurig); appellee Altair represented by Tracy Zurzolo Quinn (Reed Smith), with Carl H. Pierce and Matthew P. Frederick; of counsel James C. Martin and Kevin S. Katona (per the Fed. Cir. judgment).
• 2012-10-10 — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (per curiam, Linn/Reyna/Wallach): AFFIRMED under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (summary affirmance without opinion). The D. Mass. invalidity judgment on the '054 patent became final.
• Final disposition: All three patents were finally held not infringed ('811/'896 on the merits; '054 mooted by invalidity), with the '054 claim 1 held invalid for obviousness. No damages, no injunction, no fee award appears in the opinions.
• No settlement was reported; the case ran to judgment through two appeals. For present posture: terminated (2012).

8. Parallel PTAB / PTO proceedings

• No IPR or PGR proceedings exist for these patents. The AIA post-grant regime (IPR effective 2012-09-16) postdates this litigation's merits phase, and the patents were enforced only through civil actions.
• The relevant parallel proceeding was an ex parte reexamination of the '054 patent sought by Altair, in which the USPTO confirmed the original claims patentable and prepared to issue a reexamination certificate. 818 F. Supp. 2d at 352. The district court nevertheless held claim 1 obvious, expressly applying the "added burden" of overcoming deference to a confirmed reexamination before reaching its invalidity conclusion.
• Collateral effect / fallout (different case, same patents): The Altair rulings became the basis for collateral estoppel against Aspex in later suits. In Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC (S.D. Fla.), the court held Aspex estopped from relitigating infringement of the same patents based on the Altair decisions (Zenni's rimless clip-ons materially indistinguishable from Altair's), affirmed at 720 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Separately, Aspex's reexamination-related claim-preclusion arguments were rejected in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding reexamination does not create a new cause of action), and Aspex's related cert petition was denied (2013). These are distinct litigations over overlapping patents/utilization, not part of Nos. 07-1380/07-1407.

---

Bottom line

Caveat on sourcing: Specific PACER docket-entry dates for the 2002–2007 S.D.N.Y. pleadings (ECF numbers for the answer and counterclaims) are drawn from the courts' own recitations in the published opinions rather than an independently pulled PACER docket, which I could not retrieve. The substantive rulings, dates, and citations above are all grounded in the reported opinions (361 F. Supp. 2d 210; 386 F. Supp. 2d 526; 485 F. Supp. 2d 310; 288 F. App'x 697; 818 F. Supp. 2d 348; 484 F. App'x 565).

I'll research this case across the Federal Circuit docket, the underlying S.D.N.Y. docket, and firm/opinion sources.

I've found the Federal Circuit opinion's counsel listing. Let me verify and dig into the district court docket and any additional appearances.

Let me verify the individual attorneys and find the district-court appearances for Altair.

Important framing: the caption in the case metadata is inverted relative to the underlying suit

Before listing names, one threshold point that changes who "plaintiff's counsel" is:

• The underlying S.D.N.Y. action was Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., No. 02-cv-06195 (SCR) — Aspex/Contour were the plaintiffs (patent owners/licensee) and Altair was the defendant, which also filed counterclaims. See 361 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); 386 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); 485 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
• At the Federal Circuit, the appeal was captioned Aspex Eyewear, Inc., and Contour Optik, Inc. (Plaintiffs-Appellants) v. Altair Eyewear, Inc. (Defendant-Cross-Appellant), Nos. 2007-1380, -1407. No. 07-1407 is Altair's cross-appeal (Altair cross-appealed the denial of its standing-based summary judgment motion). See casemine transcript of the opinion; Finnegan copy of the opinion, 07-1380 (Aug. 1, 2008); Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Because the prompt's metadata designates Altair Eyewear, Inc. as the plaintiff, I treat Altair's Federal Circuit counsel as the answer, and then also give the true plaintiff-below (Aspex/Contour) counsel for completeness.

---

A. Counsel matching the metadata's "plaintiff" (Altair Eyewear, Inc.) — i.e., Altair as defendant-cross-appellant at the Federal Circuit

The Federal Circuit opinion's "Advocates" listing (casemine, quoting the slip opinion) identifies the following for the Altair side:

Source for both: the Federal Circuit's counsel listing as reproduced at casemine ("Brian G. Bodine, Merchant Gould P.C., of Seattle, WA, argued for defendant-cross appellant. With him on the brief was Kaustuv M. Das.").

Caveat: I could not independently confirm Bodine's or Das's exact titles (lead vs. of counsel) beyond the opinion's "argued"/"on the brief" designations, and I could not retrieve a biographical page verifying their broader patent-litigation track records within the search limit — treat the "lead/co-counsel" characterization as an inference from the opinion's counsel block, not a firm-confirmed role designation.

District-court (S.D.N.Y.) counsel for Altair: I was not able to confirm Altair's trial-level counsel from the retrieved materials. The published S.D.N.Y. opinions (361 F. Supp. 2d 210; 386 F. Supp. 2d 526; 485 F. Supp. 2d 310) did not expose their counsel blocks in the sources I could access. That information would need to be pulled from the PACER docket for No. 02-cv-06195 (S.D.N.Y.), which I could not reach. I am not going to guess at trial-counsel names.

---

B. Counsel for the actual plaintiffs below (Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc.), who were the Federal Circuit appellants

If by "plaintiff(s)" you mean the true plaintiffs in the infringement suit (the parties who sued), their appellate counsel were:

Source: same casemine counsel listing — "Michael A. Nicodema, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, of New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Of counsel on the brief were Matthew C. Wagner and Jeffrey A. Lindenbaum, Collen IP Intellectual Property Law, P.C., of Ossining, New York."

---

C. Amicus (not a party, but an appearance in the appeal)

• Richard M. Saccocio, Richard M. Saccocio, P.A., Plantation, FL — appeared as amicus curiae for Designer's Eyewear Studio, Inc., et al. (casemine listing). Amicus, so not plaintiff's counsel.

---

D. Later stage of the same saga (flagging, with uncertainty)

The same litigation continued after remand and transfer to the D. Mass. (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)), producing a later Federal Circuit appeal under the same caption, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (CourtListener; CasTex). A counsel line associated with that docket reflects Michael A. Nicodema (Greenberg Traurig) for plaintiffs-appellants and Kimberly A. Warshawsky (Reed Smith LLP) for the defendant-appellee, with Carl H. Pierce and Matthew P. Frederick on the brief and James C. Martin and Kevin S. Katona as of counsel. I could not fully verify the party alignment or that this counsel block belongs to the Altair appeal rather than a companion Aspex appeal (e.g., the Zenni Optical matter), so treat Section D as unconfirmed. It is included only because it may bear on post-2008 representation.

---

E. What is not established / what to pull next

• No in-house counsel is identified in any source I retrieved; nothing suggests an in-house appearance of record.
• No sealed filings were identified in the retrieved opinions; the published decisions and the judgment were public. I cannot rule out sealed materials on the docket.
• To close the gaps, the authoritative next steps are: (1) PACER docket for Federal Circuit Nos. 2007-1380 / 2007-1407 — the "attorney" tab will give the complete counsel-of-record list and firm addresses; (2) PACER docket for S.D.N.Y. No. 02-cv-06195 (SCR) — for Altair's and Aspex/Contour's trial-level appearances (not recoverable via web search here); and (3) firm biographies for Brian G. Bodine and Kaustuv M. Das (Merchant & Gould) to confirm roles and experience, which I could not retrieve before hitting the search limit.

Bottom line (metadata's plaintiff = Altair): the identified plaintiff-side counsel of record on the 07-1407 appeal are Brian G. Bodine (argued) and Kaustuv M. Das (on the brief), both of Merchant & Gould P.C., Seattle, WA. If the reader instead wants the conventional plaintiffs below (Aspex/Contour), the counsel are Michael A. Nicodema (Greenberg Traurig) with Matthew C. Wagner and Jeffrey A. Lindenbaum (Collen IP) of counsel.

I'll research this case's docket, opinions, and counsel records.

Let me dig into the briefs, docket entries, and district court filings where counsel would be listed.

Good progress. Let me pin down the appellate counsel listings and the district court docket.

Bottom line (with an important alignment caveat)

The metadata for this matter inverts the district-court party alignment, so I'll flag it up front and then give you both sides' counsel.

• Underlying district case: Contour Optik, Inc. et al. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 6195 (SCR) (S.D.N.Y.) — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc. were the plaintiffs; Altair Eyewear, Inc. was the defendant. Filed Aug. 2002; reassigned from Judge Koeltl to Judge Stephen C. Robinson in Sept. 2003. (docket page; Aspex Eyewear v. Altair Eyewear, 02 CIV. 6195 (SCR), vlex)
• On appeal (Nos. 2007-1380, -1407): Aspex and Contour were the plaintiffs-appellants (notice of appeal May 15, 2007); Altair was the defendant-cross-appellant (cross-appeal filed June 8, 2007). (Fed. Cir. opinion, 288 F. App'x 694)

So "the defendants" depends on which caption you use. Because the metadata names Aspex Eyewear and Contour Optik as defendants, I lead with their counsel; Altair's counsel is set out in the following section since Altair is the actual defendant/cross-appellant in No. 2007-1407.

---

A. Counsel for Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc. (the named "defendants")

Aspex and Contour were represented jointly throughout the magnetic-eyewear litigation (the opinions refer to them collectively as "Aspex").

Verification limit — please note: the counsel block that normally appears at the top of the Federal Circuit opinion in Nos. 2007-1380/-1407 (reported at 288 F. App'x 694 (Fed. Cir. 2008), nonprecedential, "NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential") was not included in the opinion text I was able to retrieve (the Finnegan, CourtListener, Casetext and WorldLII reproductions I found begin at the facts/claim-construction discussion). I therefore cannot confirm by primary source the exact "argued for plaintiffs-appellants" line for this specific appeal. Nicodema/Greenberg Traurig is well documented as Aspex's Federal Circuit counsel in parallel appeals involving the same parties and the same patents, but treating that as this appeal's counsel is an inference, not a verified docket fact. I also could not confirm Aspex/Contour's district-court trial counsel in 02 Civ. 6195 from the sources retrieved.

---

B. Counsel for Altair Eyewear, Inc. (the actual district-court defendant; cross-appellant in No. 2007-1407)

These names come from the S.D.N.Y. docket activity captured on the Unified Patents litigation page for 7:02-cv-06195 (attorney appearances, pro hac vice orders, and an attorney-withdrawal notice) (source):

Later appeal (not this one): Altair's defense in the follow-on D. Mass. action (No. 10-cv-12202) and the 2012 appeal (No. 2012-1102) was handled by Reed Smith LLP — Tracy Zurzolo Quinn (Chicago) argued, with Carl H. Pierce and Matthew P. Frederick on the brief, and James C. Martin and Kevin S. Katona (Pittsburgh) of counsel. (2012-1102 opinion) That is a different case and not the counsel of record in No. 2007-1407.

---

C. What I could and could not verify

• Verified: party alignment in the district court and on appeal; the district docket number (02 Civ. 6195 (SCR), Judge Robinson); the three patents ('054, '811, '896); the 2005 claim-construction and standing opinions (Aspex Eyewear v. Altair Eyewear, 361 F. Supp. 2d 210 and 386 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)); the April 2007 summary-judgment non-infringement ruling (485 F. Supp. 2d 310) and the 2008 Federal Circuit decision (288 F. App'x 694) and mandate history.
• Not verified from primary sources: the precise Federal Circuit counsel-of-record block for Nos. 2007-1380/-1407; Aspex/Contour's district-court trial counsel of record in 02 Civ. 6195; whether any filings were sealed (I found no indication of sealing, but I could not review the full PACER docket). To nail these down you would need the Fed. Cir. docket sheets for 2007-1380 and 2007-1407 (counsel listed on the docket and in briefs) and the S.D.N.Y. PACER docket for 02-cv-06195 — I would not represent the above as a substitute for those.