Untitled case

I'll research this case and patent now.

Case Overview: IP Innovation LLC, et al. v. Minolta Corp., et al., No. 1:02-cv-07611 (N.D. Ill.)

Parties and posture. According to the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, this 2002 Northern District of Illinois action was captioned IP Innovation L L C, et al v. Minolta Corp., et al, with the plaintiff classified as an "acquired patents" asserter — i.e., an entity monetizing patents it purchased rather than a manufacturing or research plaintiff. IP Innovation LLC was a well-known patent-assertion vehicle associated with Acacia Research Corporation; the Stanford database lists the same plaintiff filing parallel monitor/printer-industry suits in the same court at the same time, including IP Innovation L L C, et al v. Oki Data Corp., No. 1:02-cv-06231 (N.D. Ill.), which asserted the same patent. The defendants named in the caption include Minolta (the office-equipment and camera maker, later Konica Minolta) and other defendants denoted "et al." in the database entry. The case was filed in the Eastern Division in Chicago; the assigned district judge, the full defendant list, and the disposition are not confirmed in the sources I could reach, and I was unable to pull the PACER docket or a dispositive opinion, so I cannot state how the case ended.

The patent and accused technology. The single patent listed for this case is U.S. Patent No. 5,424,780, titled "Apparatus and method for spacial [spatial] scan modulation of a video display," issued June 13, 1995 (per the Google Patents sitemap entry for the number). In one line: it claims techniques for modulating a video display's scanning to alter how an image is rendered on-screen — a display-electronics/imaging patent, not a software or business-method patent. Consistent with that subject matter, the 2002 campaign targeted display and imaging hardware vendors (Minolta, Oki Data), and the same patent later resurfaced in New Medium Technologies LLC v. Barco NV, No. 1:05-cv-05620 (N.D. Ill.), where it was asserted alongside U.S. 6,529,637 and 6,870,964 as a patent "family" and where Barco moved for partial summary judgment of unenforceability for inequitable conduct as to all three (CourtListener docket entry; the motion briefing is dated 2008).

Why it matters. Three points are worth flagging. First, this is an early data point in the Acacia/IP Innovation assertion model — buying legacy electronics patents and filing in volume against peripheral and display manufacturers — years before the NPE wave became a policy issue; IP Innovation LLC is the same plaintiff that later drew wide attention in IP Innovation LLC v. Red Hat, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2007). Second, the N.D. Ill. filing is notable precisely because it is not a traditional patent venue: in 2002 the Northern District of Illinois had no specialized patent rules or reputation comparable to N.D. Cal. or E.D. Tex., so the choice likely reflected the defendants' corporate presence (Minolta's U.S. operations were Chicago-adjacent) rather than local patent expertise — a reminder that pre-TC Heartland venue practice let NPEs file almost anywhere a defendant did business. Third, there is no IPR linkage: the case predates the AIA by a decade, and PTAB inter partes review did not exist until September 16, 2012, so any validity challenge here would have run through the district court and the Federal Circuit.

Sourcing caveat: The party names, case number, court, patent number, and NPE classification are supported by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database entries (npe.law.stanford.edu, patent pages for 5,424,780 and 6,210,102) and the CourtListener docket for New Medium Technologies v. Barco. The patent title/issue date comes from the Google Patents sitemap index. I could not verify via PACER, Law360, Reuters, RPX, or IPWatchdog: the presiding judge, the complete defendant roster, the complaint's specific accused products, or the outcome/settlement — those remain unconfirmed and should be checked against the N.D. Ill. docket directly.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the patent and the docket.

Let me look up the specific 2002 docket and identify the parties.

Verification status — read this first

I was able to run only a limited set of searches, and I could not retrieve the docket, complaint, or any order for N.D. Ill. No. 1:02-cv-07611. What follows therefore separates (a) what is verified about this patent's enforcement history, (b) what is a reasoned inference about the 2002 case, and (c) what remains unsourced. I will not manufacture docket entries, counsel, or rulings for a case I could not confirm.

Two disambiguation warnings that matter for this file:

• "The '780 patent" is ambiguous in search results. US 5,424,780 (Cooper, image apparent-resolution) is unrelated to Champion Power's 11,xxx,780 dual-fuel-generator patent, Croga's 10,601,780 internet-isolation patent, Agilent's 6,433,780 "seeing eye mouse," or Astellas' mirabegron '780. Several promising hits were these other patents and had to be discarded.
• *The verified N.D. Ill. litigation over US 5,424,780 is No. 1:05-cv-05620 (New Medium Techs. LLC v. Barco N.V.), not 1:02-cv-07611.* It should not be loaded into this file as if it were the same case; it is the successor/parallel proceeding in which the patent was actually killed.

What is verified about US 5,424,780

The patent and its chain of title. US 5,424,780 ("method of improving the quality of an image… improving the apparent resolution of the image without requiring an increase in the number of image elements") issued in 1995 to J. Carl Cooper and was held by Pixel Instruments Corporation; in 1997 Cooper and Pixel conveyed rights to Technology Licensing Corporation (TLC), and by 1999 IP Innovation LLC (an Acacia entity) was involved. The '780 family includes US 6,529,637 (continuation-in-part of '780) and US 6,870,964 (divisional of '637). Standing/ownership was litigated at length in the 2005 case, with the court finding the 1997 Agreements conveyed "all substantial rights" to TLC under Propat, 473 F.3d 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See New Medium Techs. LLC v. Barco N.V., No. 05 C 5620, R. 436 (N.D. Ill.) (standing opinion), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.[191987](/patent/191987)/gov.uscourts.ilnd.191987.436.0.pdf

The 2000–2002 ex parte reexamination — the pivotal event, and it predates the 2002 suit. Cooper himself requested reexamination of the '780 to defeat the Shinya prior-art reference that had surfaced in litigation. The prosecution record (reproduced as exhibits to the 2008 summary-judgment motion in the Barco case) shows: 2000-05-16 Office Action; 2000-07-17 Office Action; 2000-10-23 interview; 2000-10-30 amendment; 2001-01-16 final rejection; interviews on 2001-02-15, 2001-03-14 and

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

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

The case is captioned IP Innovation LLC, et al v. Minolta Corp, et al. Let me dig into the docket and parties.

Bottom line up front

I was not able to verify counsel of record for the defendant(s) in IP Innovation LLC, et al. v. Minolta Corp., et al., No. 1:02-cv-07611 (N.D. Ill.) from open sources within this research session. Rather than guess, I am reporting (a) exactly what is confirmed about the case, (b) the one attorney-name lead I surfaced and why I cannot treat it as verified, and (c) a concrete verification path. I have not named any attorney I could not source.

What is confirmed about the case

Context worth noting: this is one of a 2002 wave of N.D. Ill. suits brought by IP Innovation on the Cooper image-resolution patents. A parallel case, IP Innovation L.L.C. v. Oki Data Corp., No. 1:02-cv-06231 (N.D. Ill., Judge James B. Moran), was voluntarily dismissed 11/14/2002, and its docket lists plaintiff-side counsel from Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro (Raymond P. Niro, Sr.; Arthur A. Gasey; Paul C. Gibbons; Robert P. Greenspoon). That is the plaintiff's team in a different suit — it should not be attributed to the Minolta defendants.

The one name I surfaced — and why it is only a lead

An attorney-association index (a Docket-Navigator-style aggregator surfaced via a public case/attorney lookup tool) shows:

Alison C. Conlon — Troutman Sanders LLP — listed against "N.D. IL, IP Innovation LLC v. Minolta Corp., 1:02-CV-07611, 10/23/02," with an adjacent party annotation reading "(L): Lexmark Intl Inc."

I am not presenting this as counsel of record for the Minolta defendants, for three reasons: (1) the record itself is a party/attorney cross-reference, not a docket appearance; (2) the "(L): Lexmark Intl Inc" annotation suggests the association may be with Lexmark (whether as a defendant in this suit or as a party in a related Cooper-patent suit — IP Innovation also litigated the '780 patent against Lexmark and Dell in a separate N.D. Ill. case that produced IP Innovation L.L.C. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Ill. 2006)); and (3) I could not confirm her role (lead, local, or of counsel), her office, or even that she appeared in 1:02-cv-07611 rather than a companion matter. Treat it strictly as a lead to check against the docket.

Why the gap exists (and it isn't sealing)

• No sealing issue identified. Nothing I found suggests the record in this case is sealed; the problem is purely one of access. This is a 2002-filed, 2007-closed docket, so it is outside the free RECAP/CourtListener coverage that exists for the later New Medium Techs. v. Barco case (where documents like Dkt. 731 are freely available).
• PACER paywall. Appearance entries ("ATTORNEY Appearance" / "Notice of Appearance") in N.D. Ill. CM/ECF from that era are only reliably retrievable by pulling the docket and the appearances themselves, which I could not do here.
• Aggregator metadata is thin. The Stanford NPE database and the free case indexes record the caption, dates, and patent numbers, but not counsel.
• Corporate change during pendency. Minolta Corp. / Minolta Camera Co., Ltd. combined with Konica in August 2003 to form Konica Minolta, so post-2003 filings may list Konica Minolta entities or Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A. rather than "Minolta Corp." — a common reason counsel-of-record searches on the original caption return nothing.

How to nail this down (recommended verification steps)

1. Pull the PACER docket for 1:02-cv-07611 and scan for "ATTORNEY Appearance," "Notice of Appearance," and withdrawal entries. Those entries name counsel and firm directly and are the authoritative source for "counsel of record."
2. Check the MDL/related-case consolidation order if the Cooper '780 cases were coordinated before Judge Moran — a consolidation order will list defense counsel for each defendant group.
3. Search N.D. Ill. opinions in the case (and the related 1:04-era Lexmark/Dell matter) for appearances blocks, which list trial counsel.
4. Contact Konica Minolta's legal department or search Konica Minolta press releases from 2003–2007 for the settlement/dismissal announcement (the case closed 1/18/2007), which often credits outside counsel.
5. Check Law360 / Reuters Legal archives for 2006–2007 coverage of the dismissal; those pieces typically identify lead defense counsel.

If you can supply the PACER docket text (or a screenshot of the appearance entries), I will convert it into the requested attorney-by-attorney table — name, role, firm and office, and a one-line experience note — with each entry tied to a specific docket number.