E-Vision Optics, LLC et al. v. Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al.

Case Overview and Background: E-Vision Optics v. Luxottica

This patent infringement litigation, E-Vision Optics, LLC et al. v. Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al. (Case No. 8:2023cv02013), filed on October 26, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, involves E-Vision Optics, LLC and e-Vision Smart Optics, Inc. (collectively, "E-Vision") asserting patent infringement against the global eyewear giant Luxottica Group S.p.A. and its U.S. subsidiaries, Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp. and Luxottica of America, Inc. E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc. is a privately held Delaware-based corporation specializing in research and development of vision-based optical technologies and electronic wearable frames, possessing an extensive patent portfolio with a focus on licensing and enforcement. Luxottica, a subsidiary of EssilorLuxottica, is the world's largest eyewear company, involved in the design, manufacturing, distribution, and retail of a wide array of eyewear brands. The lawsuit alleges that "certain products marketed by each organization" infringe "a number of patents owned by the e-Vision Group," though specific accused products relating to US Patent 11,971,612 have not been explicitly detailed in public information at this time.

The core of the dispute centers around U.S. Patent 11,971,612. While a specific one-line technical sketch of this patent was not found in the immediate search results, E-Vision's broader patent portfolio generally covers optical designs for electronic lenses and optics (including diffractive, refractive, pixelated, and combination optics), electronics for activating, powering, and charging these optics (remotely, wirelessly, or anatomically), and specific applications for electronic lenses in eyecare (such as contact lenses, IOLs, and spectacles), as well as wearable technology. The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, with Judge Andre Birotte Jr. presiding. This venue is notable for patent litigation due to its substantial volume of intellectual property cases, experienced judicial bench, and a system of random judge assignment.

This litigation is part of a broader patent assertion campaign by E-Vision, which has initiated similar lawsuits against other technology companies. The case is particularly notable for its linkage to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Luxottica has filed IPRs against E-Vision's patents, including IPR2024-01030 against U.S. Patent No. 8,708,483 and IPR2024-01072 against U.S. Patent No. 10,598,960. While the case metadata mentions IPR2025-01512 targeting US 11,971,612, a direct confirmation of this specific IPR against this patent was not found in the search results, suggesting it may not be publicly available or accurately linked in the initial prompt's metadata. Nevertheless, the existence of parallel IPRs indicates a common strategy by defendants to challenge patent validity at the PTAB, often leading to stays in district court litigation pending the IPR outcomes.

This patent infringement litigation, E-Vision Optics, LLC et al. v. Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al., Case No. 8:2023cv02013, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 26, 2023. The plaintiffs are E-Vision Optics, LLC and e-Vision Smart Optics, Inc., and the defendants are Luxottica Group S.p.A., Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., and Luxottica of America, Inc. The primary patent at issue is US 11,971,612. The case is part of a broader litigation campaign initiated by e-Vision against multiple companies, including Luxottica, alleging infringement of their patent portfolio related to electronic eyewear.

Key legal developments are as follows:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint): The complaint was filed on October 26, 2023, initiating the patent infringement lawsuit. E-Vision Optics, LLC and e-Vision Smart Optics, Inc. identified New Smart Optics, Inc. as their corporate parent. Attorneys John David Roehrick, Cori Cudabac Steinmann, and Brian D. Hill filed notices of appearance for the plaintiffs on the same day.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:
  • IPR2024-01072: Luxottica of America Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR2024-01072) challenging the patentability of claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,598,960 B2, owned by E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on December 30, 2025, determining that Luxottica demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims were unpatentable. An oral hearing for this IPR was held on October 6, 2025.
  • IPR2024-01030: Luxottica of America Inc. also filed IPR2024-01030, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,708,483. The petitioner indicated their intention to move to stay the co-pending district court litigation, arguing that discovery was in its early stages and the trial date would likely extend beyond the IPR's Final Written Decision deadline. Luxottica stipulated that if the IPR were instituted, it would not pursue any invalidity ground raised or that could have reasonably been raised in the petition in the district court litigation. An oral argument for this IPR was scheduled for October 6, 2025.
  • IPR2025-01512 (targeting US 11,971,612): While the prior summary noted IPR2025-01512 as targeting US 11,971,612, the detailed outcomes of this specific IPR and its direct impact on the district court case (e.g., a motion to stay specifically addressing this IPR) were not found in the provided search results. However, the general strategy by Luxottica in related IPRs (like IPR2024-01030) suggests a likelihood of a motion to stay pending IPR outcomes.
• Present Posture: As of today's date (2026-05-16), the district court case (8:2023cv02013) is active. Given the multiple IPR proceedings, particularly the success of Luxottica in having claims of a related patent deemed unpatentable (US 10,598,960 B2), it is highly probable that the district court proceedings have been stayed or a motion to stay is pending or has been granted, awaiting the resolution of the IPRs. However, specific docket entries confirming a stay for 8:2023cv02013 relating to IPR2025-01512 or other IPRs concerning US 11,971,612 were not explicitly found in the provided search results. Information regarding answers, counterclaims, Markman outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, or final disposition for the 8:2023cv02013 case, specifically pertaining to patent 11,971,612, is not available in the provided search results.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs E-Vision Optics, LLC and e-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.

The plaintiffs, E-Vision Optics, LLC and e-Vision Smart Optics, Inc., are represented by attorneys from King & Spalding LLP. The firm is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and maintains a significant intellectual property practice with offices in major patent litigation jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, California, which is relevant for this case in the Central District of California.

The following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs:

• John David Roehrick

  • Role: Attorney (likely Associate)
  • Firm and Office Location: King & Spalding LLP, likely Washington, D.C. or Atlanta. While his specific office for this case is not explicitly stated, King & Spalding has a robust IP practice across multiple offices, and a past reference notes him in the context of the firm's ITC patent litigation team. One source indicates his expertise in patent infringement, trademark, and copyright cases, with 1 year of experience.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Provides in-depth client support and research in complex IP litigation, including patent infringement matters, and has been specifically mentioned in connection with King & Spalding's ITC patent litigation team. He filed a Notice of Appearance for the plaintiffs in this case on October 26, 2023.

• Cori C. Steinmann

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: King & Spalding LLP, Dallas, Texas. She is licensed in both Texas and California.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: While her primary focus is on complex litigation including product liability, toxic torts, business, and construction cases, and she is an experienced trial lawyer, she filed initial documents, including a Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding a Patent or a Trademark and Corporate Disclosure Statements, on behalf of the plaintiffs in this patent infringement case on October 26, 2023. This indicates her involvement as counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this patent matter.

No other counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this specific case (8:2023cv02013) were explicitly identified beyond these two attorneys from King & Spalding. The filings are not sealed.

In the patent infringement case E-Vision Optics, LLC et al. v. Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al. (8:2023cv02013) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the defendants Luxottica Group S.p.A., Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., and Luxottica of America, Inc. are represented by attorneys from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The following counsel have been identified as representing Luxottica of America Inc. in related proceedings, specifically IPR2024-01030 concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,708,483, and are likely to be involved or are of counsel in the district court case due to the direct relation between the cases:

• Ali S. Razai

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key attorney in the patent litigation team.
  • Firm and Office: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Costa Mesa, CA.
  • Experience Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, particularly patent litigation, and has represented Luxottica in IPR proceedings.

• Benjamin B. Anger

  • Role: Attorney in the patent litigation team.
  • Firm and Office: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Costa Mesa, CA.
  • Experience Note: Involved in patent-related proceedings for Luxottica.

• Alexander B. Stein

  • Role: Attorney in the patent litigation team.
  • Firm and Office: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Costa Mesa, CA.
  • Experience Note: Counsel for Luxottica of America Inc. in patent matters before the USPTO.

• Jacob L. Peterson

  • Role: Attorney in the patent litigation team.
  • Firm and Office: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Costa Mesa, CA.
  • Experience Note: Represents Luxottica in patent-related disputes, including IPRs.

At this time, direct appearances for the defendants in the district court docket (8:2023cv02013) were not explicitly detailed beyond the plaintiff's counsel in the initial search results. However, given the close ties and related IPR proceedings where these attorneys have formally appeared for Luxottica entities, they are the identified counsel for the defense in this broader litigation campaign. No specific in-house counsel or local counsel other than the Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP team have been explicitly identified in the available public information for the district court case. Filings are not indicated as sealed in the general docket information available.