Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Designers Eyewear Studio, Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with parallel searches.

Let me retrieve the actual Markman opinion and docket details.

I have the Markman substance. Let me pin down the docket, judge, and outcome.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. The plaintiff, Aspex Eyewear, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pembroke Park, Florida (Broward County) — confirmed in a parallel Aspex complaint filed in the District of New Jersey. Aspex is not a classic shell NPE/PAE: it is a long-standing operating eyewear company that distributes magnetic clip-on eyewear and acts as the exclusive U.S. licensee of the patents-in-suit, which are owned by Contour Optik, Inc. of Taiwan (the assignee of inventor David Yinkai Chao). Aspex's affiliate Chic Optic, Inc., is owned by the same family (the Ifergan Trust), and this licensee/assignee structure spawned years of standing litigation in the related Aspex cases. See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 2007-1380 (Jan. 2008) (discussing the Chic/Contour/Aspex licensing chain); Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. E'Lite Optik, Inc., 127 F. App'x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The defendant, Designer's Eyewear Studio, Inc., is an eyewear seller accused of offering infringing magnetic clip-on products; I could not locate a sourced description of the company's size or business, so its precise profile should be treated as unverified.

Accused technology. The case is one installment in a sprawling multi-front campaign over magnetically attached auxiliary (clip-on) sunglass frames. The accused products are eyeglasses/clip-ons in which a secondary lens frame is held to a primary prescription frame by magnets located at the bridge of the frames (rather than at the temples or on the lens plane). The critical factual wrinkle across the whole campaign was whether the accused frames were rimmed or rimless — many accused products were rimless, holding lenses with pins/screws rather than rims, which drove the claim-construction fight in this very order. (This rimless-vs-rimmed issue is described in detail in the related Aspex v. Altair, 386 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) and the Federal Circuit's 2008 Altair opinion.)

Patents asserted (all naming David Yinkai Chao as inventor and assigned to Contour Optik; Aspex sues as exclusive licensee):

• U.S. 5,737,054 — "Eyewear with magnets" family base (filed Dec. 13, 1996): a primary frame with a magnet in its middle bridge and an auxiliary frame whose bridge has a projection extending over and engaging the primary bridge, the two magnets coupling so the auxiliary frame attaches (claimed to be attachable with one hand).
• U.S. 6,012,811 — "Eyeglass Frames with Magnets at Bridges for Attachment" (issued Jan. 11, 2000; a continuation of the '054): claims a first frame with two "retaining mechanisms" supporting lenses and defining a frontal plane, a bridge, and a bridge-mounted magnetic member coupling to a second frame.
• U.S. 6,092,896 — "Eye-wear With Magnets" (issued Jul. 25, 2000; a continuation of the '811 and a CIP of the '054): adds a cavity/protrusion interlock at the bridge to further secure attachment.

Procedural Posture and the Markman Ruling

The case was litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division) — Aspex's home district and a venue it used repeatedly, including Aspex v. Concepts in Optics (S.D. Fla., Mag. J. Dubé) and Aspex v. Zenni Optical (S.D. Fla., J. Zloch). The Markman order (signed in chambers at Miami, December 21, 2006; docketed/dated December 22, 2006) construed three terms across the three patents, expressly finding the Aspex v. Altair construction (386 F. Supp. 2d 526) persuasive and adopting it throughout. The court's constructions were:

1. "Retaining mechanisms" = "a structure that keeps the lenses in place using rims" — treated as a means-plus-function limitation under § 112 ¶ 6, limited to rims because rims were the only structure disclosed.
2. "Frame" = "an eyeglass device that includes rims."
3. "Projection" = "any portion of the auxiliary bridge which comprises a portion extended toward the primary bridge for going over and engaging or resting on top of the primary bridge."

These constructions were outcome-determinative: by limiting "frame" and "retaining mechanisms" to rimmed eyewear, the Florida court (like the Altair court) set up non-infringement for rimless accused products.

Why it matters. The Designers Eyewear order is a key data point in the inter-district consistency (and eventual correction) of Aspex's core claim constructions:

• The "retaining mechanisms = rims" construction survived on appeal — the Federal Circuit affirmed that rimless clip-ons did not infringe the '811 and '896 patents. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 288 F. App'x 700, 704 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
• But the "frame = includes rims" construction was rejected by the Federal Circuit as to the '054 patent, which held that "a 'frame' as used in the '054 patent is not limited to one with rims." Id. at 706. On remand the '054 claim 1 was held invalid for obviousness (affirmed, 484 F. App'x 565 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
• Those same rulings later collaterally estopped Aspex against Zenni Optical. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical Inc., 713 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

So this case sits in the middle of a broad, decade-plus enforcement campaign over Chao's magnetic-eyewear patents spanning E'Lite Optik, Miracle Optics, Altair, Concepts in Optics, Marchon, Revolution Eyewear, Clariti Eyewear, Zenni, and others. It also illustrates two recurring features of the campaign: (i) persistent standing/licensee challenges to Aspex's right to sue (resolved only by the oral/implied-license line of cases), and (ii) repeated § 112 ¶ 6 disputes that turned on whether the asserted claims reached rimless eyewear — the industry's dominant design direction.

Verification note. The Markman opinion text and construction holdings above are sourced from the opinion itself (IPMall hosted copy, 2006.12.22_ASPEX_EYEWEAR_INC_v._DESIGNERS_EYEWEAR_STUDIO.pdf) and the related Federal Circuit opinions. I was not able to verify, and therefore do not assert: the exact S.D. Fla. case number, the presiding judge in the Designers Eyewear matter, the specific accused Designer's Eyewear product models, or the final disposition of that particular suit. The order references "D.E. No. 61" and "D.E. No. 111," indicating a fairly developed docket by December 2006. Note also that the order's disposition paragraph lists the third patent as "6,092,096," which appears to be a typo for 6,092,896. These gaps would need PACER (S.D. Fla.) or a paid docket service to close.

I'll research this case across the sources you specified, starting with the docket and the Markman opinion.

Let me pull the Markman opinion itself and search for the specific docket.

Let me open the full Markman opinion to get the court, case number, and procedural history.

I've hit my search budget, so let me give you what I could verify and be explicit about the gaps — which are significant for this particular case.

Bottom line up front

For Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Designers Eyewear Studio, Inc., the only well-sourced event I could confirm is the Markman claim-construction opinion dated 2006-12-22, construing "frame" and "retaining mechanisms" in U.S. Patents 5,737,054, 6,012,811, and 6,092,896. I could not confirm from the sources available to me the docket number, the district, the complaint/answer/counterclaim events, any dispositive motions, trial, or the final disposition of this specific case. I want to be candid rather than fill those gaps with inference, because Aspex/Contour filed a large number of near-identical suits in this period and it is easy to misattribute another case's events.

Confirmed: the Markman ruling (2006-12-22)

Source: the opinion is hosted in the ipMall Markman-opinion archive as 2006.12.22_ASPEX_EYEWEAR_INC_v._DESIGNERS_EYEWEAR_STUDIO.pdf.

• Disputed terms: "frame" and "projection" in claim 1 of the '054 patent; "frame" in claims 1, 22, 26, and 31 of the '811 patent and claim 1 of the '896 patent; and "retaining mechanisms" in claims 1, 26, and 31 of the '811 patent and claim 1 of the '896 patent.
• "Retaining mechanisms" ('811/'896): Held to be a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6; because rims were the only structure disclosed, the court limited it to "a structure that keeps the lenses in place using rims." (The opinion cross-references the same construction in the Altair case, Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 526.)
• "Frame" ('054, '811, '896): Construed as limited to rimmed eyewear, rejecting Aspex's proposed construction covering rimless eyewear. The court reasoned that claim 1 of the '054 patent recites a frame "for supporting primary lenses therein," that all figures show rims, and that the claim language was not broader than the specification. It distinguished the PTO class definition of "frame" (Dec. 2004 edition) as a later extrinsic source and declined to follow it.
• The opinion cites D.E. No. 111, Exh. H (the '054 patent) and D.E. No. 61, Exh. C (the '896 patent), confirming a sizeable docket (at least 111 entries) existed by December 2006 and that the patents were attached to filings at D.E. 61 and 111 — but it does not identify the district or case number.

What I could not verify (and won't guess at)

• Filing date, complaint, answer, counterclaims — no PACER docket retrieved.
• Court/case number — unconfirmed. The IP Mall file name and the opinion's citations do not state them, and I did not locate a docket for "Designers Eyewear Studio."
• Pretrial motions (motion to dismiss/transfer/stay, summary judgment), discovery disputes, trial, verdict, post-trial motions (JMOL/new trial/fees) — no sourced events found.
• Final disposition (settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal) — unconfirmed.

If you need these, the practical next step is to pull the PACER docket directly (the case-number search would be run against the district court that handled Aspex's 2004–2007 enforcement wave).

Parallel PTAB proceedings — a necessary caveat

There can be no IPR or PGR in this case. The IPR/CBM/PGR regimes did not exist in 2006 — they were created by the AIA and took effect in September 2012. For a 2006 case the only PTO-side challenge mechanism was reissue and ex parte reexamination. Related Aspex patents did see reexamination activity (e.g., the RE37,545 reissue patent was reexamined at a third party's request, with the PTO confirming certain claims and allowing new ones in 2008), but I found no reexamination tied to the Designers Eyewear Studio suit in particular.

Related-case context (useful, but distinct litigation — do not conflate)

Because Aspex/Contour's patents were litigated in many parallel suits, these decisions bear on the same '054/'811/'896 constructions and are worth flagging:

• Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) — the same "frame"/"retaining mechanism" constructions (rimmed eyewear), which the Designers Eyewear court expressly followed.
• Fed. Cir. 2008-01-08 (Nos. 2007-1380, -1407), Aspex v. Altair — on appeal, the Federal Circuit held that "frame" in the '054 patent is not limited to rimmed eyewear (reversing the narrowing construction), while affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of the '811 and '896 patents because "retaining mechanism" (means-plus-function, limited to rims) was not met by rimless products. On remand the Altair court held the asserted '054 claim invalid over the broadened construction.
• Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc., 434 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006-01-10) — standing/licensee analysis (Contour/Chic license; "limited portion of the patent term"); and the Miracle claim-construction order (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2003) on the '545/'747 arm limitation.
• Later, the Federal Circuit applied the Altair "retaining mechanism" construction to collaterally estop Aspex from suing Zenni Optical on the same rimless clip-on eyewear (Fed. Cir. 2013), which shows how determinative the rimmed-eyewear construction proved across the family.

The key takeaway for your case: the 2006-12-22 Markman ruling adopted the rimmed-eyewear construction that had already defeated Aspex in Altair, and that construction (as to "retaining mechanism") was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit — so this ruling was almost certainly outcome-determinative against Aspex's infringement theory here, even though I could not source the downstream events in this specific docket.

---

Sourcing note: Everything above about the Designers Eyewear Studio ruling is grounded in the opinion text reproduced in the IP Mall Markman archive; everything about the related cases is grounded in the Federal Circuit opinions and Finnegan "Last Month at the Federal Circuit" summaries surfaced in search. The complaint-to-disposition chronology for this specific case is not sourced here and should be confirmed against PACER before you rely on it.

I'll research plaintiff's counsel for Aspex in this matter, starting with the opinion, docket, and related Aspex cases.

Let me search the dockets directly and the Stanford NPE database for this specific case.

The RPX Insight result looks like a complaint with a counsel signature block. Let me dig into docket and counsel sources.

Plaintiff's counsel — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Designer's Eyewear Studio, Inc. (S.D. Fla., Markman op. Dec. 21–22, 2006)

Bottom line: I could not retrieve the operative docket sheet or a counsel-appearance line for this specific case, and the Markman opinion itself lists no attorneys (it is signed in chambers at Miami and names only the parties). I therefore cannot name plaintiff's counsel of record in this case with a citation, and I won't guess. What follows is (a) the one closely analogous, sourced plaintiff-side team in Aspex's same-district, same-era litigation, labeled clearly as an inference, and (b) the concrete steps to confirm.

1. What is confirmed (and about a different docket)

Sources: Casetext opinion text, http://g.casetext.com/case/aspex-eyewear-v-concepts-in-optics; Rutgers/Freelaw mirror, https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/freelaw/united_states_court_of_appeals_for_the_federal_circuit/documents/004c222ed4b5fbb7.xml

Key caution: that team appears in Aspex v. Concepts in Optics, No. 00-7067-CIV-MORENO/DUBÉ (S.D. Fla.) — a different Aspex S.D. Fla. case (before Magistrate Judge Dubé), decided on appeal in January 2007. It is not a confirmed appearance for Aspex in Designer's Eyewear Studio. It is, however, the strongest sourced data point for who Aspex was using as patent counsel in the S.D. Fla. in exactly this window, and Greenberg Traurig maintains a large Miami office, which is consistent with a lead-counsel + local-counsel arrangement under S.D. Fla. local rules.

2. An unopened lead worth pulling

An RPX Insight litigation document — a S.D. Fla. complaint captioned "ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC. and CONTOUR OPTIK, INC." (alleging Aspex's principal place of business at 2755 S.W. 32nd Avenue, Pembroke Park, FL 33023) — ends with a signature block reading "Counsel for Aspex Eyewear, Inc., and Contour Optik, Inc." I located the document but could not open the signature block within the search budget: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/[2376367](/patent/2376367). If that document is the complaint in this case, it would name plaintiff's counsel directly. Treat as unverified.

3. What I could not confirm (do not treat as established)

• No PACER/CourtListener docket sheet for Aspex v. Designer's Eyewear Studio surfaced, so there is no confirmed N.D. Fla. appearance line, no lead/local-counsel split, and no in-house counsel identified.
• No counsel names in the Markman opinion. The opinion cites only D.E. Nos. 61, 110, 111, and 112 — it does not name any attorney.
• Whether Contour Optik, Inc. was a co-plaintiff here. The opinion refers to "Plaintiffs argue" (plural, e.g., on the "retaining mechanisms" term) while the case metadata styles a single plaintiff. That plural usage — echoed on the defense side by "Defendants" and by the Federal Circuit's amicus listing "Designer's Eyewear Studio, Inc., et al." — suggests the real caption may have had multiple plaintiffs/defendants. Unresolvable without the docket.

4. Contradiction / discrepancy flags (per your instruction)

1. Metadata vs. opinion naming: metadata says "Designers Eyewear Studio, Inc."; the opinion header and the Federal Circuit use "Designer's Eyewear Studio, Inc." (possessive). Same entity.
2. Single-plaintiff caption vs. plural "Plaintiffs" in the Markman opinion — see §3, unresolved.
3. Patent-number typo already flagged in prior sections: the order's decretal paragraph recites "6,092,096" for the '896 patent (correct: 6,092,896).

5. How to lock this down

1. Pull the S.D. Fla. docket (case filed ~2005–2006; D.E. 61/110/111/112 already on the record by Dec. 2006) via PACER or CourtListener's RECAP docket search for "Aspex Eyewear" / "Designer's Eyewear Studio."
2. Check the "Attorneys" tab and the signature blocks on D.E. 110 and 111 (the parties' claim-construction briefs) — those will name lead and local counsel definitively.
3. Cross-check the RPX Insight complaint at the link in §2.

One-line takeaway: The only plaintiff-side patent team I can source in Aspex's contemporaneous S.D. Fla. enforcement litigation is Michael A. Nicodema and Barry J. Schindler of Greenberg Traurig, LLP (appellate counsel in Aspex v. Concepts in Optics, Fed. Cir. No. 2006-1245) — a plausible, but not confirmed, proxy for who represented Aspex before Judge/Magistrate in the Designer's Eyewear Studio Markman proceeding.

I'll research defendant counsel in this case.

The first search surfaced a key lead: "Designer's Eyewear Studio, Inc." appeared as amicus in the related Federal Circuit appeal, represented by a Florida firm. Let me dig into the actual docket and any district court filings.

I found the Markman opinion itself. Now let me identify the docket number and counsel.

Defendant counsel of record — Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Designer's Eyewear Studio, Inc. (S.D. Fla.)

Verification caveat up front. I was able to locate the Markman opinion in this case and a directly related Federal Circuit appearance by defendant's counsel, but I was not able to retrieve the operative PACER docket sheet for the S.D. Fla. case itself (no docket number surfaced in the sources available to me, and the opinion's own D.E. citations — Nos. 61, 110, 111, 112 — are the only docket references I could confirm). So the firm/role details below are based on the counsel's documented appearance for this defendant in the related appeal, not on a confirmed district-court appearance line. I flag each item's evidentiary basis.

The Markman opinion (anchor source)

The decision is reproduced at IPMall's Markman archive: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Designer's Eyewear Studio, Inc., S.D. Fla., 2006 (signed "in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21 day of December, 2006").
https://ipmall.info/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/Markman/pdfFiles/2006.12.22_ASPEX_EYEWEAR_INC_v._DESIGNERS_EYEWEAR_STUDIO.pdf

It construed (1) "retaining mechanisms" as a § 112 ¶ 6 means-plus-function term = "a structure that keeps the lenses in place using rims"; (2) "frame" = "an eyeglass device that includes rims"; and (3) "projection" (for the plaintiff). The court adopted Defendants' constructions on the first two terms — the opinion repeatedly uses "Defendants" (plural) even though the case caption lists a single corporate defendant, which suggests there may have been multiple named defendants or that the court used the plural generically. That ambiguity is unresolvable without the docket.

Counsel identified

Sources for the Saccocio entry:

• Fed. Cir. opinion text (counsel listing): https://www.fin-negan.com/files/Publication/a4e78d1c-6a7f-4768-ba83-39afa6c83cd0/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/e51152e9-1268-4c59-a145-3a62b110cb2e/07-1380%2008-01-2008.pdf
• Same listing via casemine: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b264add7b0493475fb73
• Same listing via cetient: https://www.cetient.com/case/aspex-eyewear-inc-v-altair-eyewear-inc-[209728](/patent/209728)

Inference made explicit: Saccocio's representation of Designer's Eyewear Studio, Inc. is documented for the 2008 Federal Circuit amicus filing, not for the 2006 S.D. Fla. Markman proceeding. Because the same small firm appears on behalf of the same defendant entity in Aspex's eyewear-patent enforcement campaign in the same period, it is a reasonable inference that he also served as defense counsel below — but I could not verify that from the district-court docket, and I am not asserting it as confirmed.

What I could not confirm (do not treat as established)

• No lead/local-counsel split identified. If S.D. Fla. local rules or the defendant's retention produced a separate local counsel, that attorney does not appear in any source I retrieved. The Markman opinion names no attorneys.
• No in-house counsel identified. Nothing suggests a corporate legal department appearance.
• No other defense attorneys identified. Related Aspex cases involve different defense teams — e.g., in Aspex v. Altair (S.D.N.Y.), Altair was represented by Brian G. Bodine, Kaustuv M. Das, and Vitaliana Conforti (Davis Wright Tremaine / Merchant & Gould, Seattle) and Edward J. Davis (Davis Wright Tremaine, New York). See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (Robinson, J.). None of those attorneys is connected to Designer's Eyewear Studio — I list them only to ward off conflation.

Relevant experience note (limited to what is verified)

Richard M. Saccocio is a solo practitioner in Plantation, Florida whose confirmed connection to this matter is appearing for the eyewear-defendant side in Aspex's Federal Circuit enforcement litigation (2008). I do not have verified information on the scope of his broader patent-litigation practice, other reported decisions, or whether he has since changed firms/status; PACER and firm-website confirmation is needed before relying on those details.

Recommendation for confirmation

To lock this down, pull the S.D. Fla. docket for the case (the opinion is dated Dec. 21–22, 2006; D.E. 110, 111, 112 appear in the record) via PACER/CourtListener and check the "Attorneys" tab and the signature blocks on D.E. 110 (Defendants' claim-construction brief). That will definitively confirm whether Saccocio (and/or any additional local counsel) appeared below.

Contradiction / discrepancy flags

1. Defendant name spelling: the case metadata styles it "Designers Eyewear Studio, Inc.," whereas the Markman opinion header and the Federal Circuit opinion render it "Designer's Eyewear Studio, Inc." (possessive). Same entity; noted per your instruction to flag metadata conflicts.
2. "Defendants" (plural) in the Markman opinion vs. a single-defendant caption — unresolved without the docket.
3. Patent number typo: the Markman conclusion recites "United States Patent Number 6,092,096," but the patent-in-suit is 6,092,896 (the '896 patent). The opinion's decretal paragraph therefore contains a typographical error; the metadata's 6,092,896 is correct.
4. Related-case caution: the frame/retaining mechanisms constructions in this S.D. Fla. case largely track Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (which this court cited and followed) — but that is a different case with different counsel. The Federal Circuit later reversed the "frame"-requires-rims construction on appeal in Altair (288 F. App'x 697, Aug. 1, 2008), while affirming the "retaining mechanisms" means-plus-function holding. If the defendant here sought to ride the Altair "frame" construction, that construction did not survive appellate review.