Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig into the specific docket and the '563 patent's role.

Now let me verify the specific patents asserted against Verizon and the case outcome.

Case Overview — Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00722-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and their businesses. The plaintiffs are two co-located licensing entities: Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"), a Texas LLC at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Plano, Texas, and Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG"), a Delaware LLC at the same address. Both are patent-assertion vehicles in the Acacia Research Corporation corporate family — IDT's and DDG's corporate disclosure statements and IPR mandatory notices identify Acacia Research Corporation and Acacia Research Group LLC as affiliates/real parties in interest. Neither makes or sells anything; the asserted portfolio was acquired from inventor Jeffery R. Parker (with assignment chains running through Rambus-family entities, per the D. Del. standing record in the parallel Delaware Display Group v. Lenovo/LG/Vizio cases, Nos. 13-2108/2109/2112-RGA). The defendants are Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless — a carrier/retailer, not a display or handset manufacturer. Complaint filed June 25, 2014, E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division), assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap (suffix "-JRG"); jury demand, direct and induced infringement, willfulness, § 285 fees, and injunctive relief sought. (complaint, Scribd mirror of C.A. 2:14-cv-00722; RPX Insight docket; Acacia 8-Ks, e.g., Mar. 6, 2015)

Patents asserted and accused technology. As pleaded, the Verizon complaint asserts seven patents — six "IDT patents" plus one "DDG patent" — all sharing the ultimate parent U.S. Patent No. 5,613,751 (June 27, 1995 priority) and all directed to edge-lit backlight/light-extraction architecture for LCDs: 6,755,547 (backlight with a separate transparent film/sheet over an air gap, bearing a pattern of light-extracting "deformities" that varies across the film); 7,300,194 (panel plus overlying film with "well defined optical elements or deformities" and an air gap); 7,384,177 (tray/cavity housing holding the light source and acting as reflector); 7,404,660 (planar optical conductor with a "transition region" spreading light from a narrow input edge); 7,434,974 (panel seated in a tray/housing serving as end/side reflector); 7,914,196 (light-redirecting film with a pattern of variable, well-defined optical elements — the "DDG patent"); and 8,215,816 (tray-housed panel with a refractive input-edge surface). The accused instrumentalities are broadly pleaded as Verizon's LCD-equipped mobile devices (phones/tablets) containing these backlight structures, with the commercial payoff alleged to be thinner, brighter, more uniform, lower-power displays. (Compl. ¶¶ 10–21, 22–25; cf. the identical patent set pleaded in the companion carrier suits and the parallel D. Del. actions described in Delaware Display Grp. v. Lenovo, 2015 WL 6828842 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2015).)

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. The suit was one of a coordinated four-case "carrier wave" filed the same day — AT&T (2:14-cv-720), Sprint (2:14-cv-721), Verizon (2:14-cv-722), and T-Mobile (2:14-cv-723) — alongside handset-maker and retailer suits in both E.D. Tex. and D. Del. On August 4, 2014, the Verizon case was consolidated for all pretrial issues (except venue) into the lead case IDT v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 2:14-cv-201-JRG, which put claim construction before Judge Gilstrap and made the earlier IDT v. Acer Markman order (Mag. J. Roy Payne, 2014 WL 4230037 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014) — invalidating a "quite small" limitation as indefinite) the template for the family. The case is notable for three reasons: (1) it illustrates the Acacia/IDT assertion model at peak volume — IDT has been reported at roughly 37 suits — targeting downstream resellers and carriers rather than manufacturers, in the Marshall Division, where IDT successfully beat back a § 1404(a) transfer motion in IDT v. BMW (No. 2:14-cv-106, Gilstrap, J.); (2) it is the downstream face of an extraordinary IPR wave — DDG's March 2015 notices list 31+ co-pending IPRs against this family (Sony, LG and others as petitioners), and independent claims of several asserted patents were cancelled, prompting plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss claims to patents under instituted review in the Delaware cases (D. Del. D.I. 88–90, Oct. 21, 2015); and (3) it resolved through Acacia-disclosed settlements rather than judgment — Acacia filed 8-Ks reporting license/settlement agreements ending the Dell/HP suits (Mar. 6, 2015) and the AT&T Mobility suit (May 11, 2015), indicating the carrier wave settled in that window, though I could not independently confirm the specific dismissal date for Verizon from a primary docket entry.

Important verification caveat on the patent metadata

The case metadata for 2:14-cv-00722 lists U.S. Patent No. 6,508,563 ("Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like," inventors Parker, Miller & Hough) as the sole patent at issue, but this does not match the record I could verify. The Verizon complaint as reproduced asserts the seven patents listed above and does not include the '563 patent; the '563 patent's documented litigation home is the automotive line of cases (e.g., IDT v. Hyundai, No. 2:14-cv-201; IDT v. BMW, No. 2:14-cv-106; IDT v. Volkswagen/Audi), where it was challenged in IPR2015-00574 by Koito Manufacturing and Stanley Electric. My working assumption is that the '563 designation is a mis-mapping in the Google Patents litigation listing (the source of the metadata) rather than a claim actually pleaded against Verizon. Two facts I flag as unverified: the '563 patent's exact issue date (I did not capture it), and the precise Verizon dismissal/settlement date and terms — RPX and Acacia's 8-K disclosures are the next places to confirm both.

I'll research this case across dockets, opinions, and PTAB records.

Initial finding: the case is IDT + Delaware Display Group v. Verizon Communications/Cellco, filed 2014-06-25. Let me pull the docket and disposition details.

Status note up front

I ran out of search budget before I could pull the full PACER docket for 2:14-cv-00722, so this memo distinguishes (a) verified facts (with citations) from (b) inferences/reasoning from the sister-case record. One important metadata correction comes first.

Correction on the patent at issue

Google Patents' litigation listing (the source of this case's metadata) places US 6,508,563 at 2:14-cv-00722, but the complaint actually filed in 2:14-cv-00722 does not assert the '563 patent. The Verizon complaint asserted eight patents: the six "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents — 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 8,215,816 — plus 7,537,370, and DDG's 7,914,196 ("Light Redirecting Film Systems"). See the filed complaint (Scribd copy of C.A. 2:14-cv-00722 complaint, https://www.scribd.com/document/231673305/) and contemporaneous press summary (Southeast Texas Record, "Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas," listing all eight patents for case 2:14-cv-00722, https://setexasrecord.com/stories/510624131-).

The '563 patent was asserted in the automotive branch of the same campaign (BMW 2:14-cv-106; Toyota 2:14-cv-200; Nissan 2:14-cv-202; Honda 2:14-cv-222; Mercedes-Benz 2:14-cv-535), as IDT itself represented to the PTAB: "The '563 Patent is asserted by the Patent Owner in the following pending litigations ... 2:14-cv-106-JRG ... 2:14-cv-200-JRG ... 2:14-cv-202-JRG ... 2:14-cv-222-JRG ... 2:14-cv-535" (IDT Mandatory Notices, IPR2015-00933, filed 2015-04-10, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00933/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6508563/docs/04-10-2015-Patent_Owner/Notice-5-Related_Matters.pdf). Because the wireless and automotive cases were consolidated for all pretrial issues (below), the '563 entered the same pretrial bundle — which is almost certainly why it appears in the Google Patents listing. I treat the '563 as part of the consolidated pretrial action, not as a patent asserted against Verizon.

---

Chronology

2014-06-25 — Complaint filed. Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 2:14-cv-00722 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap (suffix -JRG). RPX confirms filing date and court: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-[153386](/patent/153386). Filed the same day as the parallel carrier suits against Sprint (2:14-cv-00721) and T-Mobile (2:14-cv-00723). Pleadings alleged direct infringement under §271(a) and inducement under §271(b), willfulness (based on an August 2012 notice letter), and sought compensatory damages, enhanced damages, fees, and an injunction; jury demand included. Plaintiffs' counsel: Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas), with T. John Ward, Jr., Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview). IDT is a Plano, Texas LLC (parent: Acacia Research Group); DDG is a Delaware LLC that held the '196 patent.

2014-08-04 — Consolidated for pretrial. Judge Gilstrap entered an order consolidating 2:14-cv-722 with the lead case, IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group, No. 2:14-cv-201-JRG, "for all pretrial issues (except venue)," with individual cases remaining active for venue determinations and trial; one docket control order, protective order, and discovery order to govern the consolidated action. Order text reproduced at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1459945](/patent/1459945)/download-documents (quoting the 2014-08-04 order listing 2:14-cv-723, 2:14-cv-722, and others). This is the single most consequential procedural event: it meant claim construction, discovery, and IPR/stay practice were managed across the whole IDT wave (the wave ultimately numbered 30-plus suits).

2014-08-26 — Markman ruling (shared terms). In the lead consolidated IDT case, IDT v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-522-JRG, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued a Claim Construction Memorandum and Order on 2014-08-26, after a 2014-07-30 Markman hearing. The court construed the disputed terms and held one term indefinite — "a pattern of deformities ... having a width and length that is quite small in relation to the width and length of the sheet or film" — because "quite small" supplied no objective boundary. Summary and reasoning: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-eastern-district-of-texas/innovative-display-techs-llc-v-acer-inc-2014-b9rre3/; docket metadata confirming the 2014-08-26 order and a related 2014-06-19 Gilstrap memorandum opinion and order: https://www.govinfo.gov/metadata/granule/USCOURTS-txed-2_13-cv-00522/USCOURTS-txed-2_13-cv-00522-1/mods.xml. Because the '547/'194/'177/'660/'974/'370/'816 family shares a common specification (all claim priority to U.S. 5,613,751), this construction governed the wireless cases as well. The court also struck an IDT expert declaration before construing.

2014-11-18 — Preliminary infringement contentions. IDT served Preliminary Infringement Contentions in the automotive branch on 2014-11-18, charting accused parts to the asserted patents — documented in IDT's own exhibit in IPR2015-00574: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00574/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6508563/docs/05-06-2015-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2002-IDT_Exhibit_2002.pdf. The same schedule applied across the consolidated action under the single docket control order.

2014-12-04 → 2015-09 — Parallel PTAB proceedings. The IPR filings are the best-documented part of this story and clearly drove the litigation:

Sources: IPR2015-00361 document list, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Mercedes-Benz-USA-LLC-et-al-v-Innovative-Display-Technologies-LLC-id-60408/documents/; IPR2015-00574 exhibits, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00574/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6508563/; IPR2015-01113 related-matters notice, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01113/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7404660/docs/05-15-2015-Patent_Owner/Notice-5-Related_Matters.pdf.

Strategic significance of the IPRs: the PTAB petitions gave the automotive and consumer-electronics defendants leverage that the E.D. Tex. schedule did not. In the Mercedes track, the parties settled the district court case and the IPR simultaneously and the Board terminated before institution (2015-07-02) — a textbook defendant-side play in this campaign. In the wireless track, the carriers were accused only of using/selling handsets incorporating third-party backlights, which made IPR petitions by the display/handset suppliers (LG, Samsung, etc.) the natural vehicle; IDT was litigating those same patents against LG in Delaware, where the invalidity fight actually reached the merits.

**2015-08-04 —

I'll build on the plaintiff-counsel findings already in the memo and try to verify/extend them against the docket, firm sites, and PTAB filings.

Good lead: the sister AT&T complaint shows the full signature block. Let me verify the actual -722 filing and docket attorney list.

Let me pull the actual -722 docket-facing records (Justia/UniCourt) and the complaint signature block.

Plaintiff-side counsel of record — No. 2:14-cv-00722-JRG

Builds on / confirms the plaintiff roster noted in the earlier "Defendant representatives" section. That section flagged Bragalone and Ward only as "confirmed plaintiff side" without tying them to a -722-specific source; the contemporaneous filing report for -722 itself does tie them, and I can now add the rest of the trial team. No correction to prior sections is required, but one clarification is noted in §4.

1. The two attorneys named for -722 in the contemporaneous record

Southeast Texas Record's same-day round-up of the E.D. Tex. filings expressly identifies, for Case No. 2:14-cv-00722 specifically: "Jeffrey R. Bragalone of Bragalone Conroy PC in Dallas is lead attorney for the plaintiff, with T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview." (SETexasRecord, "Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas")

2. Additional Bragalone Conroy attorneys on the same complaint template

The -722 complaint's own signature block was not retrievable through free mirrors within this search, but the same-day, same-template carrier complaints filed by the same firm carry the full block. The AT&T complaint (No. 2:14-cv-721) is signed:

"/s/ Jeffrey R. Bragalone — Jeffrey R. Bragalone (lead attorney), Texas Bar No. 02855775; Patrick J. Conroy, Texas Bar No. 24012448; Justin B. [Kimble] … Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500W, Dallas, TX 75201 … Attorneys for Plaintiffs INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC AND DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC"

(complaint text reproduced in PTAB papers, petition 1461238)

UniCourt's attorney tab for the parallel Sprint case, No. 2:14-cv-721, likewise lists only Thomas William Kennedy, Jr. and Jeffrey Ray Bragalone as plaintiff attorneys (UniCourt).

• Patrick J. Conroy — of counsel / trial team, Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas. Named on the AT&T complaint signature block; filed the IDT/DDG power of attorney in the parallel IPRs.
• Justin B. Kimble (USPTO Reg. No. 58,591) — Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas. Lead PTAB counsel for IDT/DDG across the family (designated Lead Counsel in IPR2014-01094 on the '660 patent and in the '196-related proceedings); also a signatory on the district-court complaints.
• T. William Kennedy, Jr. — Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas. Named plaintiff attorney in the sister carrier case -721 per UniCourt and on the Delaware appearances.
• Daniel F. Olejko — Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas. Listed for plaintiffs in the D. Del. claim-construction proceedings and on the -196 IPR filings.

Caveat: Conroy, Kimble, Kennedy, and Olejko are confirmed as members of the plaintiffs' trial team on this complaint template and this patent portfolio; I could not verify each of their individual appearances in the -722 docket itself. Only Bragalone and Ward are affirmatively tied to -722 by a case-specific source.

3. Attorneys appearing later in the portfolio (post-2014; -722 appearance unconfirmed)

A 2015–16 D. Del. opinion in the companion Lenovo/Vizio/LG cases lists plaintiffs' counsel as "Bragalone (argued), Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, Daniel F. Olejko, James R. Perkins, T. William Kennedy, Jr., Stephanie Wood, Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas, TX." (D. Del. C.A. No. 13-2108-RGA, D.I. 112) — i.e., the same core team, with James R. Perkins and Stephanie Wood added by 2015. Their involvement in -722 is not documented.

4. Two structural points that affect any "counsel of record" answer here

1. Consolidation controls the record. Per the Aug. 4, 2014 consolidation order (IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group, No. 2:14-cv-201-JRG), the Clerk was directed to add the consolidated defendants' "Lead and Local Counsel only" to the lead case, and any other counsel had to file new notices of appearance there. So a complete counsel-of-record picture requires the 2:14-cv-201 docket, not just -722.
2. No in-house counsel for plaintiffs. IDT and DDG (Acacia-family entities) litigated exclusively through Bragalone Conroy plus East Texas local counsel; no Acacia in-house attorney appears as counsel of record in the filings I reviewed. This contrasts with the defense side, where Verizon's in-house AGCs (e.g., Norman Minnear in later years) sometimes signed PTAB papers.
3. Clarification on my earlier note: the prior section described "Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas)" with "T. John Ward, Jr., Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview)" as plaintiffs' counsel — that is correct and now sourced to the -722-specific filing report rather than only to sister-case papers. The earlier reference to the firm's address as "2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500W" is confirmed (Chase Tower).

If you need the docket itself: the definitive list is the attorney-appearance tab on the PACER docket for 2:14-cv-00722-JRG and the corresponding entries in 2:14-cv-201-JRG; RPX Insight (txedce-153386) and Docket Alarm both carry attorney-level party records behind their paywalls and would resolve the four unconfirmed names in one pull.

I'll research this case to identify the defendants and their counsel of record.

Bottom line

I was not able to verify the counsel of record for the Verizon defendants in No. 2:14-cv-00722 from the sources I could reach. I will not name attorneys as "counsel of record" here without a docket entry or signed filing to back it up. Below is what is confirmed, what is a lead only, and exactly where the answer lives.

1. First, correcting/confirming the case identity

The metadata's "Untitled case" resolves cleanly:

• Caption: Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
• No. 2:14-cv-00722-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), filed June 25, 2014, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• Sources: RPX Insight docket page (insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-153386); Southeast Texas Record filing round-up (setexasrecord.com/stories/510624131), which also confirms plaintiff-side counsel; the complaint as reproduced on Scribd (doc 231673305).

Important patent discrepancy. The metadata lists only US 6,508,563 as the patent at issue, but the -722 complaint asserted the IDT "light emitting panel assemblies" family — the '547, '194, '177, '660, '974, '370, and '816 patents — plus Delaware Display Group's '196 patent. The '563 patent was pleaded in IDT's automotive cases (BMW, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, and the Koito/Stanley IPRs), as confirmed by IDT's own related-matters notices in IPR2015-00895 and IPR2015-00574. So either the metadata is drawn from a different IDT case, or the '563 was added to -722 by later amendment that I could not confirm. Flagging rather than papering over it.

Case posture that affects your question: on August 4, 2014, the court consolidated -722 (along with the AT&T, T-Mobile and other carrier cases) for all pretrial issues into lead case No. 2:14-cv-201-JRG, IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group. The consolidation order expressly directed the Clerk to add "the consolidated defendants into the Lead Case and their corresponding Lead and Local Counsel only," with additional counsel required to file new notices of appearance in the lead case. Any counsel-of-record answer must therefore be pulled from both -722 and the 2:14-cv-201 lead docket.

2. Defense counsel — verification status

I did not find a single signed filing, notice of appearance, pro hac vice motion, or Rule 7.1 disclosure statement for Verizon Communications, Inc. or Cellco Partnership in this docket. I cannot tell you whether that is because the material is behind paywalls, because the parties settled and dismissed before substantial motion practice, or because the appearances were refiled only in the lead case.

3. What is confirmed about representation in this litigation (plaintiff side, for contrast)

Confirmed by the Southeast Texas Record filing report and by IDT's PTAB filings:

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone — Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas, TX — lead counsel for plaintiffs. Career patent litigator; the Bragalone firm was IDT's/Acacia's go-to Texas patent shop in this campaign and also handled IDT's PTAB-side work.
• T. John Ward Jr. — Ward & Smith Law Firm, Longview, TX — local counsel for plaintiffs (son of former Judge T. John Ward).
• IDT's PTAB lead/backup counsel (same litigation team, useful cross-check): Justin B. Kimble, Terry A. Saad (Bragalone Conroy), with Jeffrey R. Bragalone pro hac vice.

4. Leads — NOT confirmed as counsel of record here (do not treat as findings)

• Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (Washington, D.C.) — Scott W. Doyle (Reg. No. 39,176, lead) and Jonathan R. DeFosse (backup) appear as counsel in an IPR petition whose mandatory notices list IDT v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00722, as a related matter. That establishes a Fried Frank connection to the IPR track of this dispute, not necessarily to the district court defense team. Source: petition papers reproduced at ptacts.uspto.gov (petition 1463022).
• Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (Los Angeles — Mark C. Scarsi, Miguel Ruiz, Ashlee N. Lin, Michael Sheen) + Mavrakakis Law Group LLP (Palo Alto/Chicago) + Findlay Craft PC (Tyler, TX — Eric H. Findlay) — this was Verizon/Cellco's actual appearance lineup in a contemporaneous E.D. Tex. case in the same 2013–14 window, per a joint filing in that docket (archive.org copy of gov.uscourts.txed.145573.362). It is a strong structural indicator of who Verizon used in this district at that time, but I could not tie these names to -722 and will not characterize them as counsel of record here.
• Venable LLP (Washington, D.C. — Justin J. Oliver, Stephen K. Yam) — Verizon's PTAB counsel of record on a 2022 Cellco IPR (IPR2022-01410), with Norman Minnear signing as Verizon Associate General Counsel. This is Verizon's in-house/outside PTAB pattern eight years later, not 2014 counsel.

5. How to close this out definitively

1. Pull the PACER docket for 2:14-cv-00722-JRG and read: the summons returns of service, any Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statements, the motions for pro hac vice admission (these name the full national team), and the answer/counterclaim signatures.
2. Then pull 2:14-cv-201-JRG (lead case), which per the Aug. 4, 2014 consolidation order is where Verizon's lead and local counsel were carried forward.
3. Bloomberg Law/RPX and Lex Machina both carry attorney-level party counsel records for this docket and would resolve it in minutes; Docket Alarm's IDT case page is another route.

If you can supply the PACER docket text (or a Docket Alarm/RPX counsel tab export), I will map each attorney to name, role, firm, office, and verified prior patent cases.