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

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search to ground each part of the overview.

Let me gather more detail on the parties, accused products, and the remand/invalidity proceedings.

Let me verify additional details: the Supreme Court petition, the transfer/venue, VSP ownership of Altair, and any PTAB/reexam linkage.

Case Overview and Background: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc.

Parties and their businesses

This is a mid-2000s magnetic-eyewear patent dispute between a U.S. eyewear distributor asserting rights under patents held by its Taiwanese affiliate, and a competing eyewear distributor. Plaintiffs are Aspex Eyewear, Inc., a Delaware corporation whose principal place of business was in Pembroke Park, Florida (per Aspex's later complaint in a companion action, RPX litigation document 2376367), and Contour Optik, Inc., a Taiwanese company (Chiayi, Taiwan) that is the record assignee/owner of the patents-in-suit. Aspex is the exclusive U.S. licensee and the operating/distribution arm; Contour is the patent-holding entity. Both trace back to the Chao inventors (Richard and David Chao) and the Ifergan family's Ifergan Trust, which owned both Aspex and the earlier licensee Chic Optic, Inc. — a fact central to the standing fight (the Federal Circuit's 2008 opinion, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 288 F. App'x 697, 700–01 & n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2008), PDF). Defendant Altair Eyewear, Inc. is a California eyewear distributor, and its parent corporation is VSP — a large vision-care/eyewear organization; plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved under Rule 19 to add VSP as a defendant on an alter-ego/control theory, which the court rejected. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 210, 216–18 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Aspex is best characterized as a practicing entity that was also a serial enforcer — it sold branded magnetic clip-on eyewear (its "EasyClip" and "Tak2mi" lines reportedly generated over $110 million in bridge-mounted product sales between October 2000 and September 2009, per the district court's 2011 opinion, 818 F. Supp. 2d 348, 364) and simultaneously litigated its patent family against multiple eyewear sellers (E'Lite, Revolution, Marchon, Zenni, and Altair). It is not a classic non-practicing entity, though its enforcement posture resembles one.

The accused technology and the asserted patents

The accused products are rimless magnetic clip-on sunglasses and their companion frames sold by Altair under the Diamontite Magnetics, Joseph Abboud, and Sunlites brands (288 F. App'x at 700–01; the "Diamonite" spelling appears in the 2011 opinion). The key technical distinction driving the whole case: Altair's primary frames had rims, but all of the accused auxiliary/sunglass lenses were rimless — held by pins/screws through drilled holes rather than encircled by rims. Aspex asserted claim 1 of the '054 patent (U.S. 5,737,054, "Auxiliary Lenses for Eyeglasses," inventor Richard Chao, filed Dec. 18, 1996) — a magnetic bridge-mount system where a first magnet is secured in the primary frame's bridge and a second magnet is secured to a projection on the auxiliary frame's bridge, allowing one-handed attachment; claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12–14, 22–24, 26–28, and 31–33 of the '811 patent (U.S. 6,012,811, "Eyeglass Frames with Magnets at Bridges for Attachment," inventors David and Richard Chao, a continuation-in-part of the '054 application); and claims 13–22 of the '896 patent (U.S. 6,092,896, "Eye-Wear with Magnets," a continuation of the '811 application). In short, all three patents claim eyeglass devices in which an auxiliary spectacle frame (e.g., sunglasses) attaches to a primary frame using magnets.

Procedural posture and why venue matters

The suit was filed in August 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (No. 02-cv-06195), originally assigned to Judge John G. Koeltl and reassigned in September 2003 to Judge Stephen C. Robinson (361 F. Supp. 2d at 213; 288 F. App'x at 699). After the 2008 Federal Circuit remand, the case was reassigned in July 2010 to Judge William G. Young (D. Mass.) sitting by designation in the S.D.N.Y., and in December 2010 the parties transferred the case by agreement to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), where it proceeded as No. 1:10-cv-12202-WGY (818 F. Supp. 2d at 353; Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 2012-1102 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2012)). This stipulated transfer is the venue story worth noting: because the original S.D.N.Y. action had largely been litigated and then transferred for convenience, the case ended up before a single district judge across two districts, an unusual procedural path that kept Judge Young's claim construction intact and made the D. Mass. judgment the operative one on appeal. On remand the court (1) construed the disputed term "secured to" to mean "embedded within and attached to," (2) held that claim 1 of the '054 patent was literally infringed by Altair's products, but (3) held claim 1 invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 818 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Mass. 2011) (available on CourtListener). Final judgment of literal infringement entered October 13, 2011; both sides cross-appealed (Altair's Notice of Cross-Appeal, Dec. 12, 2011, RPX document 9324415).

Why the case is notable

The litigation is notable on several axes. First, it is a claim-construction/validity cautionary tale: the Federal Circuit's 2008 decision reversed the S.D.N.Y.'s narrow reading of "frame" (which had required rims) as to the '054 patent, but affirmed non-infringement of the '811 and '896 patents because "retaining mechanisms" requires "rims or their equivalents" — and when the '054 claim was read broadly enough to cover Altair's rimless products on remand, the claim was then held obvious. Second, it produced significant licensing/standing law: the Federal Circuit held that an exclusive licensee need not have a written license to have standing if the patentee is joined as co-plaintiff, and found a genuine fact dispute over Aspex's oral/implied exclusive license from Chic (288 F. App'x 697). The standing/licensing disputes also spawned parallel rulings in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. E'Lite Optik, Inc., 127 F. App'x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Third, the Altair rulings became a preclusion engine against other defendants: in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical Inc., 713 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit affirmed that collateral estoppel barred Aspex's infringement claims against Zenni because its accused rimless magnetic clip-on sunglasses were materially indistinguishable from Altair's, and the '054 determination was treated as preclusive in that campaign. Fourth, on the PTO side, the notable proceeding was Altair's reexamination of the '054 patent (the USPTO initially found the original claims patentable and moved to issue a reexamination certificate), rather than an AIA post-grant proceeding (818 F. Supp. 2d at 353). I found no evidence of a PTAB IPR on these patents in my searches — IPRs only became available in September 2012, near the end of this case, so the "IPR linkage" is minimal here. The case closed with a further Federal Circuit appeal (484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012), an uninformative Rule 36 summary affirmance) and a Supreme Court cert petition, No. 12-1120. The case metadata states the matter concluded after that petition; I was unable to independently confirm the petition's disposition through my searches, so I flag that as not fully verified. (For context on the broader campaign, Aspex also won a >$4 million judgment against Revolution Eyewear that the Federal Circuit affirmed in 2009.)

Sourcing caveat: The party business descriptions, accused products, patent specifications, claim constructions, and procedural history above are drawn from the district court and Federal Circuit opinions cited (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; 713 F.3d 1377). I was unable to retrieve PACER docket entries, Law360/Reuters coverage, or the Supreme Court docket (No. 12-1120) directly within my search budget, so details like the precise cert-petition outcome and any unreported docket-level events are noted as unverified.

I'll research this case thoroughly across multiple sources.

Let me dig into the specific opinions and appellate outcomes.

I hit a hard stop on further searching, so the account below is built from the sources retrieved. Where a detail is uncertain I flag it explicitly rather than filling gaps.

Aspex Eyewear / Contour Optik v. Altair Eyewear — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Net outcome: Aspex and Contour lost on all three patents. Two patents ('811, '896) died on claim construction → summary judgment of non-infringement, affirmed in 2008. On remand the district court both found literal infringement of '054 claim 1 and held claim 1 invalid for obviousness; the Federal Circuit affirmed summarily in 2012, and the case ended with a Supreme Court cert petition (No. 12-1120). No trial, no verdict, no damages.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2002)

• Aug. 2002 — Aspex Eyewear (Del.) and Contour Optik (patent owner) filed suit against Altair Eyewear (Cal.) in S.D.N.Y., Docket 7:02-cv-06195. The original pleading asserted four patents; an amended complaint (Aug. 2002) dropped one, leaving three: '054 (issued 1998‑04‑07), '811 (issued 2000‑01‑11), and '896 (issued 2000‑07‑25) — magnetic clip-on/auxiliary eyewear with magnets at the bridge. Accused products: Diamontite Magnetics, Joseph Abboud and Sunlites (rimmed primary lens, rimless sunglass lens). [D. Mass. opinion, 818 F. Supp. 2d 348; Fed. Cir. 2008, 288 F. App'x 697; Markman op., 386 F. Supp. 2d 526]
• Sept. 2002 — Altair answered and counterclaimed against both plaintiffs (invalidity/non-infringement). [361 F. Supp. 2d 210; 818 F. Supp. 2d 348]
• Case first assigned to Judge Koeltl, reassigned to Judge Stephen C. Robinson in Sept. 2003 (Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis designated); pro hac vice admissions for Altair's counsel (e.g., Vitaliana Conforti, Brian G. Bodine) in late 2002. [UniformPatents/UnifiedPatents docket extract for 7:02-cv-06195]
• Standing was the structural issue from the start. Aspex sued as an alleged exclusive licensee of Chic Optik, Inc. (a Canadian affiliate, both owned by the Ifergan Trust). The 1998 written Chic–Aspex agreement was held insufficient to convey an exclusive license (same holding in the parallel case Aspex Eyewear v. E'Lite Optik, 127 F. App'x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). [288 F. App'x at 699–700]

2. Pre-trial motions of substance — first (S.D.N.Y.) phase

The 2005‑03‑07 standing/Rule 19 opinion is 361 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) — the court found "more than enough evidence" of an oral/implied exclusive license to reach a jury, and refused to add VSP. This became the main cross-appeal issue in 2007–08.

3. Claim construction (Markman) outcomes

S.D.N.Y., 2005‑09‑09 (386 F. Supp. 2d 526) — the dispositive constructions:

• '054: "frame" = "an eyeglass device that includes, at least, a bridge and rims." (Relying only on intrinsic evidence; court expressly declined to use inventor/expert testimony or Altair's marketing materials.)
• '811 (and same limitation in '896): "two retaining mechanisms for supporting a pair of lenses, and defining a frontal plane" is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, limited to the disclosed structure — "a structure that keeps the lenses in place using rims."
• The court did not reach "not parallel to the frontal plane" or "U-shaped structure having two arms," so the Federal Circuit declined to address them on appeal.

D. Mass., 2011‑03‑31 Markman hearing (Tr., ECF 223) and 2011‑10‑12 memorandum (818 F. Supp. 2d 348) — the second round:

• Agreed terms: "secured in" = "embedded within"; "extending over" = "extending above and partially covering the middle bridge of the primary frame."
• Disputed/dispositive term: "secured to" construed as "embedded within and attached to" (Aspex's broader reading) — the ruling that let the '054 claim reach Altair's auxiliary frame with a magnet embedded in the projection.

This is the arc of the case: the first Markman killed '811/'896 (rim requirement); the second Markman saved '054 on infringement but set up its invalidity.

4. Summary judgment, judgment, and the first appeal

• April 2007 — On cross-motions, the S.D.N.Y. court granted Altair's motion for SJ of non-infringement of all three patents and denied Aspex's; reported at 485 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Rationale: no accused product had rims around the sunglass lens → no literal infringement of '054; and under the means-plus-function construction, pins in rimless glasses were not equivalent to rims (different structure) → no infringement of '811/'896, literally or under DOE.
• 2007‑04‑13 — Judgment entered; case closed. 2007‑05‑11 — Judgment amended to dismiss Altair's counterclaims without prejudice.
• 2007‑05‑15 — Aspex/Contour notice of appeal; 2007‑06‑08 — Altair notice of cross-appeal (standing).
• 2008‑08‑01 — Federal Circuit decision, Nos. 2007‑1380, ‑1407, reported at 288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (date per the Finnegan Federal Circuit archive):
  • Reversed the "frame"-requires-rims construction of '054 and remanded (relying on dictionaries for "therein"; "frame" does not require rims).
  • Affirmed SJ of non-infringement of '811 and '896 (means-plus-function; pins ≠ rims).
  • Affirmed the denial of Altair's standing summary-judgment motion, holding that an exclusive license need not be in writing for standing where the patentee (Contour) is joined as co-plaintiff, and that the oral/implied-license evidence sufficed. Because it affirmed non-infringement of '811/'896, the court did not resolve whether Chic ever held an exclusive license to '811.

5. Remand: reexamination, transfer to D. Mass., and the invalidity ruling (2008–2011)

• Parallel PTO proceeding (pre-IPR era): Altair requested ex parte reexamination of the '054 patent. The USPTO found the original claims patentable and notified Aspex of intent to issue a reexamination certificate — i.e., the Office validated the claims while the court later invalidated claim 1. (818 F. Supp. 2d 348.) (I could not verify the reexam request/control number or certificate date in the retrieved sources; and I found no IPR/PGR on any of the three patents — the AIA IPR regime began 2012‑09‑16, essentially at the end of this case.)
• 2010‑07 — Case reassigned to Judge William G. Young (D. Mass.) sitting by designation in S.D.N.Y.; 2010‑12‑07 — transfer to the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Order, ECF 160; Stipulation & Order, ECF 166; endorsed 2010‑12‑07, transfer effective after the Rule 83.1 seven-day wait). Docketed as 1:10-cv-12202-WGY.
• 2011‑03‑31 — Further Markman/"case stated" hearing on the '054 terms (Tr., ECF 223); briefing continued Feb.–Aug. 2011.
• Cross-motions: Aspex SJ of literal infringement (ECF 171); Altair SJ of invalidity (ECF 178); Aspex cross-motion for SJ of validity (ECF 185); Altair cross-motion for non-infringement.
• Expert battle with strategic significance: Aspex relied on Lee Zaro (declaration/rebuttal: >$110M in EasyClip/Tak2mi sales 2000–2009 as commercial success; one-hand attachability testing of each accused product). Altair relied on Sodano, whose report Judge Young criticized as "sparse," "conclusory" and "sophistry" on the Sadanaga/Nishioka/Martin references (invoking his Koito gatekeeping duty) — yet credited its "internal logic," calling the Miki + Chao '207 combination supportable on "common sense logic ... no better than this Court's own a priori reasoning." At the hearing Altair produced a physical prototype of the Miki patent eyewear and one of its own glasses.
• 2011‑09‑30 order (ECF 226) and 2011‑10‑12 memorandum, 818 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Mass. 2011) — three holdings: (1) "secured to" = "embedded within and attached to"; (2) claim 1 of '054 invalid as obvious (Altair's SJ of invalidity allowed; Aspex's validity cross-motion denied); (3) Altair's accused devices ("Sunlites, Diamonite, Joseph Abboud") literally infringe claim 1 (construction of "secured to"; the court also credited Zaro on the "one hand" limitation). Final judgment entered 2011‑10‑13 (D.N. 228) — captioned as a judgment of literal infringement, with the invalidity holding disposing of the case in Altair's favor.

6. Second appeal and final disposition (2011–2013)

• Aspex appealed; Altair cross-appealed 2011‑12‑12 from the 2011‑10‑13 final judgment and from the portions of the 2011‑10‑12 order construing "secured to" and holding claim 1 not invalid for anticipation under § 102. (Notice of cross-appeal, D. Mass. 10-12202-WGY; counsel: Greenberg Traurig for Aspex; Reed Smith, with McCarter & English locally, for Altair.)
• 2012‑10‑10 — Affirmed. See Fed. Cir. R. 36 (summary affirmance, per curiam: Linn, Reyna, Wallach), Appeal No. 2012‑1102, reported at 484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012). No opinion issued, so the district court's analysis (obviousness of '054 claim 1; infringement) stands. Combined with the 2008 mandate, this left Aspex with: '811/'896 non-infringement (final 2008) and '054 claim 1 invalid (final 2012).
• Supreme Court petition No. 12-1120 — per the case metadata, the case concluded after this cert petition. I could not verify the question presented or the disposition date in the sources retrieved; I also could not confirm a Federal Circuit rehearing petition. What I can say with confidence: no subsequent decision reviving these claims appears in the Federal Circuit or district court record, and the metadata lists the case as concluded. (Note: a 2013 WilmerHale survey of certiorari petitions denied in 2013 includes a "common sense"-obviousness question framed as the Federal Circuit overriding contrary USPTO findings — the facts resemble the '054 reexam-vs-court tension here, but I could not confirm that this is the Aspex petition, so treat it as unverified.)

7. Downstream effect: the Altair rulings became preclusive precedent for Aspex

Worth flagging because it is the real legacy of this litigation:

• Aspex Eyewear v. Zenni Optical LLC, No. 2012‑1318, affirmed 2013‑04‑19 (Newman, Prost, Reyna): the S.D. Fla. court's ruling that Aspex was collaterally estopped from suing Zenni on the same three patents was affirmed — Zenni's rimless magnetic clip-on sunglasses were materially indistinguishable from Altair's, and the "retaining mechanism requires rims" construction was dispositive; "the selection of additional claims ... and additional terms for construction does not override the holding of non-infringement" (slip op. 8–9). [Finnegan, Last Month at the Federal Circuit, May 2013]
• Aspex Eyewear v. Marchon Eyewear, 672 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012) — a separate Aspex case (S.D. Fla.), not this one, but frequently cited: claims added/amended in reexamination do not create a new cause of action, so claim preclusion still applies (reexam ≠ reissue; reexam claims can never be broader, 35 U.S.C. § 305). This is now one of the leading reexam/claim-preclusion precedents and grew out of the same magnetic-eyewear campaign.
• Other parallel Aspex litigation that shaped the law here: Aspex v. E'Lite Optik, 127 F. App'x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (written license insufficient for standing); Aspex v. Designers Eyewear Studio (S.D. Fla. 2006‑12‑22) (adopting the Altair constructions of the same terms).

8. What is / is not in the record

• No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motions, no fees award that I could locate — the case was decided entirely on claim construction, Daubert motions, and cross-motions for summary judgment/judgment.
• No PTAB IPR/PGR on the '054, '811 or '896 patents appears in the sources retrieved. The only parallel administrative challenge was Altair's ex parte reexamination of '054 (which the USPTO resolved in the patentee's favor).
• Unverified specifics: the exact reexam request/certificate numbers and dates; the docket entry for the SDNY Rule 26(f) plan and the 2009 case-management activity before Judge Robinson; and the contents/disposition of No. 12-1120. I did not retrieve a PACER docket sheet directly, so ECF numbers for the D. Mass. phase are those cited in the opinions and the notice of cross-appeal (ECF 160, 166, 223, 226, 227, 228).

Key authorities: 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); 288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008); 818 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Mass. 2011); 484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Rule 36).

Sources: 818 F. Supp. 2d 348 (CourtListener); 484 F. App'x 565 (Casetext); 288 F. App'x 697 (Case.law); 386 F. Supp. 2d 526 (IPMall Markman archive); D. Mass. notice of cross-appeal (RPX Insight); Fed. Cir. argument page, No. 2012-1102; Finnegan, Last Month at the Federal Circuit, May 2013 (Zenni); PatentsPostGrant on Aspex v. Marchon, 672 F.3d 1329.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiffs across both docket numbers.

Let me gather district court docket details and the D. Mass. proceedings.

Let me identify district court counsel and the local counsel in Massachusetts.

Plaintiff-Side Counsel of Record — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc.

Sourcing caveat up front: The plaintiff-side appearances below are reconstructed from the Federal Circuit opinions' counsel listings (the most reliable public source here), the D. Mass. opinion, and third-party docket aggregators for S.D.N.Y. 7:02-cv-06195 / D. Mass. 1:10-cv-12202. I did not have direct PACER access to the full appearance list in either district court docket, so the district-court roster is likely incomplete. Nothing below is inferred or invented — where the record is silent I say so.

---

1. Appellate counsel (Federal Circuit, Nos. 2007-1380 / 2007-1407 — appeal from S.D.N.Y.)

Source: Federal Circuit counsel listing reproduced at casemine.com for Nos. 2007-1380, 2007-1407 (opinion published at 288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); see also dockets.justia.com/circuit-courts/cafc/07-1380 (plaintiffs-appellants Aspex Eyewear and Contour Optik "represented by" Nicodema).

---

2. Trial-level counsel, S.D.N.Y. and D. Mass. phases

The D. Mass. opinion (Judge William G. Young, sitting by designation; D. Mass. No. 10-12202-WGY, reported in the 2011 decision at storage.courtlistener.com/harvard_pdf/8710234.pdf) contains a counsel listing referencing "Warshawsky, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Phoenix, AZ," consistent with Greenberg Traurig continuing as plaintiffs' lead firm after the § 1404(a) transfer.

---

3. Appellate counsel (Federal Circuit, No. 2012-1102; and No. 12-1137 — appeal from D. Mass.)

Source: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (No. 2012-1102), counsel listing; affirmed by Rule 36 panel (Linn, Reyna, Wallach, JJ.). The companion docket No. 12-1137 (filed 1/6/2012, from D. Mass. No. 1:10-cv-12202) is the defendant's/concurrent appeal; I did not retrieve its separate counsel listing.

---

4. Expressly not identified

• Local counsel in the District of Massachusetts (post-transfer). D. Mass. practice generally requires a local sponsor. I could not verify a plaintiff-side Boston firm from the sources available, and I will not guess. The only D. Mass. firm visible in the record is McCarter & English, LLP (Erik P. Belt, BBO #558620, Boston) — but that signature block is on Altair's notice of cross-appeal (Dec. 12, 2011), i.e., defense side.
• In-house counsel for Aspex/Contour. None disclosed in the opinions or the docket extracts I reviewed. Aspex/Contour are privately held (Ifergan Trust-owned), and no in-house attorney appears in the public record.
• Plaintiff-side counsel for the 2002–2004 original complaint/answer phase (Judge Koeltl → Judge Robinson). The aggregator extract for 7:02-cv-06195 shows a "NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney Edward J. Davis" (2009), but the extract does not state which party Davis represented; I could not confirm him as plaintiff- or defense-side, so I do not attribute him. Other entries in that extract (pro hac vice motions for Tracey Zurzolo Quinn and Carl Howard Pierce) are defense-side (Reed Smith/Altair).
• Supreme Court counsel on the 12-1120 petition (cert. denied stage). Not verified in my sources; do not assume Nicodema/G.T. without checking the petition's signature block.

---

Bottom line

The plaintiff-side representation in this case was firm-stable but personnel-shifting:

1. Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Nicodema — NY/NJ; Warshawsky — Phoenix) was Aspex/Contour's lead patent litigation firm from at least the first Federal Circuit appeal through the 2011 D. Mass. "case stated" trial and the 2012 affirmance.
2. Collen IP Intellectual Property Law, P.C. (Wagner and Lindenbaum, Ossining, NY) was co-counsel on the 2007–2008 Federal Circuit appeal, with Wagner also appearing at the S.D.N.Y. trial level.
3. No verified local D. Mass. sponsor, in-house counsel, or cert.-stage counsel could be confirmed from the sources available.

For a definitive roster, pull the full appearance docket from PACER for 7:02-cv-06195 (S.D.N.Y.) and 1:10-cv-12202 (D. Mass.) — the third-party docket extracts I used summarize only selected endorsed letters and motions, not the complete notice-of-appearance history.

I'll research defense counsel for Altair Eyewear across both dockets.

Now let me dig into the S.D.N.Y. phase counsel, firm histories, and the appellate teams.

Let me verify the individual defense attorneys' firms and roles, and check the S.D.N.Y.-phase docket.

Defense counsel of record — Altair Eyewear, Inc.

Sourcing note up front. I was able to pull the attorney rosters from the two opinion-level dockets (the D. Mass. merits opinion, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Mass. 2011), via CourtListener/[casetext], which reproduces the full appearance list), the Federal Circuit opinions in Nos. 2007-1380 and 2012-1102 (which print brief counsel), the Justia docket for No. 2007-1380, and Altair's own Notice of Cross-Appeal filed Dec. 12, 2011 in No. 10-12202-WGY (RPX document 9324415). I could not retrieve PACER docket sheets or the CM/ECF "attorney appearance" entries for S.D.N.Y. No. 02-cv-06195 or D. Mass. No. 10-12202 directly, so role designations below (lead vs. local vs. of counsel) are inferred from who signed filings and who argued, not from an official appearance designations field. The case is closed, so these are historical appearances, not current ones.

Core trial/appellate team (best-supported)

Other attorneys listed "for Defendant" in the D. Mass. judgment

These appear in the 818 F. Supp. 2d 348 attorney listing under "for Defendant" (Altair) but did not sign the appellate papers I retrieved, so their precise roles (document-production support, local counsel in a related forum, or representation of Altair's parent VSP) are not pinned down:

Plausible reporter artifacts / contradictions to flag

• The CourtListener attorney block for 818 F. Supp. 2d 348 also lists Kimberly A. Warshawsky (Greenberg Traurig, Phoenix) and Tara M. Williams (Greenberg Traurig, Houston) under "for Defendant." Those are plaintiffs' counsel — Greenberg Traurig's Michael A. Nicodema argued for Aspex at the Federal Circuit, with Warshawsky on the brief. Their appearance in the "Defendant" block is almost certainly an aggregation error in the opinion-reporter listing, not evidence that Greenberg Traurig represented Altair. Do not treat them as Altair counsel.
• The multiplicity of firms (Reed Smith, McCarter & English, Seed & Berry, Merchant & Gould, Davis Wright Tremaine, Reinhart) most likely reflects successive teams across the S.D.N.Y. phase (2002–2007), the first appeal (2007–2008), the post-remand D. Mass. phase (2010–2011), and the second appeal (2011–2012), rather than a single simultaneous team. The opinion reporter collapses them together.
• No in-house counsel for Altair or VSP is identified in any source I retrieved. If Altair/VSP had in-house IP counsel of record, it is not disclosed in the opinion listings or the Justia docket.
• No sealed filings or pro hac vice orders for Altair surfaced in my searches; Erik Belt's own PHV declarations (e.g., in the 2012 CoreLogic CBM) confirm he has been admitted pro hac vice in S.D.N.Y., but I did not retrieve the specific PHV order in No. 02-cv-06195.

Bottom line

For the operative D. Mass. merits phase and the dispositive second appeal, Altair's counsel of record were Tracy Zurzolo Quinn and Carl H. Pierce (Reed Smith, Philadelphia) on the appeal and Erik Paul Belt and Bonnie A. Vanzler (McCarter & English, Boston) in the district court, with Brian G. Bodine (Seed and Berry, Seattle) as Altair's counsel on the earlier S.D.N.Y./first-appeal track. Anything beyond those names is best described as "listed for Defendant" rather than confirmed as lead or local counsel, because I could not pull the underlying PACER appearance entries.