Defendant
1 case as defendant.
I'll research this company before writing the profile.
Manhattan Design Studio, Inc. is a US eyewear company operating as a brand/affiliate within the Aspex Eyewear group. It appears in federal filings under that name and was formerly known as Ira Lerner, Inc. Its principal address is listed as c/o Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 2755 SW 32 Avenue, Pembroke Park, Florida; officers of record include members of the Ifergan family (Nonu, Thierry, Yael, Karen), who also run Aspex. Aspex Eyewear is a private company founded in 1965 by Nonu Ifergan and based in Pembroke Park. Exact founding year, employee count, and revenue for Manhattan Design Studio are not publicly disclosed and could not be verified independently.
Products / operations. Manhattan Design Studio is an operating eyewear concern, not a patent-holding shell. It sells ophthalmic frames, eyeglasses, sunglasses, and magnetic clip-on/sun-lens eyewear. The MANHATTAN DESIGN STUDIO trademark (filed 1999, registered 2001) is recorded to Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and covers "ophthalmic frames, eyeglasses, sunglasses, sun lens attachments, sport optics, magnetic optical systems and safety goggles." Aspex markets the brand alongside EasyClip and Takumi Magnetic Eyewear. Frames have been distributed in the US and Japan, including wide/large-size lines.
Patent-litigation posture. In the tracked case data, Manhattan Design Studio appears once, as a defendant, in Riach v. Manhattan Design Studio. It has no tracked plaintiff appearances. Historically, however, the entity was a co-plaintiff with Aspex Eyewear, Contour Optik, and Asahi Optical in magnetic-eyewear infringement actions (e.g., against Concepts in Optics and Miracle Optics) involving Aspex's reissued '545 patent — so it has been a two-way participant over time, principally as a defensive and enforcing operating company.
Notable case / context. Riach v. Manhattan Design Studio was brought by George Riach, Jr., an individual inventor asserting US 5,389,981 ("Eyeglasses having magnets attached thereto for improving the blood circulation of the eyes"). On September 25, 2001, the district court construed the claims narrowly and granted summary judgment in the defendant's favor; Riach appealed and the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeals on his unopposed motion (35 F. App'x 880, 2002). The dispute centered on magnetic eyeglass technology — the same field as the parties' own magnetic-eyewear patents.
A claim-construction/summary-judgment opinion dated September 25, 2001, captioned Riach v. Studi, referencing defendant Manhattan Design Studio. US Patent 5,389,981 (the '981 Patent) was asserted; the court held that the whereby clause in Claim 1 was an essential limitation because Riach argued health benefits during prosecution. The narrative could not confirm the case number, jurisdiction, filing date, or final disposition.