Untitled case

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

Let me dig into the docket specifics and outcome of the Microsoft case.

Now let me examine the outcome of this case and the IPR linkage.

Case Overview — Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-cv-00783 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and accused technology. Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Acacia Research Group LLC / Acacia Research Corporation — i.e., a classic licensing/assertion vehicle, not an operating company. The patents it asserted trace back to Jeffery R. Parker and Lumitex (Cleveland, Ohio); the Taiwanese government's STPI research service reports the chain of title as Lumitex → Solid State Opto Limited (Mang-Shiang Lee) → Rambus entities → Acacia Research Group → IDT (I could not independently verify every assignment link or the reported $26M Rambus payment; treat the intermediate steps as reported, not confirmed). Reflecting the Acacia structure at the time, IDT's Rule 7.1 disclosure in a parallel case identified Acacia Research Group/Corporation as corporate parent. Defendant Microsoft Corporation is an operating software-and-devices company; the suit was filed on October 1, 2013 — the day after a Microsoft–Acacia license expired on September 30, 2013 — and was one of seven "Subsidiary Actions" filed by seven ARC subsidiaries against Microsoft in three states and four cities on the same day (Dkt. 54 at 2–4). The accused technology is not software but the LCD backlight architecture inside Microsoft's display-bearing devices: the asserted patents cover a light-emitting member whose light is internally reflected, a separate transparent sheet/film overlying it (with an air gap) bearing a pattern of optical "deformities" that redirects light to produce a desired, more uniform output distribution so it passes through the liquid crystal display "with low loss." I did not find a source in this review that lists the specific accused Microsoft SKUs; campaign-wide, IDT's complaints described the accused instrumentalities generically as laptops, desktops, tablets, monitors, televisions, mobile phones, cameras and (in the automotive suits) dashboard/instrument-panel displays, with alleged benefits of thinner, brighter, lower-power screens.

Patents asserted. The case feed lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547, but the complaint asserted seven patents, all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" and all sharing a common specification and an earliest priority date of June 27, 1995, per the claim construction record: the '547 (issued June 29, 2004; a backlight assembly with a light-emitting member, an overlying transparent sheet/film with an air gap, and a varying pattern of deformities directing light through an LCD with low loss), the '194 (Nov. 27, 2007), the '177 (June 10, 2008), the '660 (July 29, 2008), the '974 (Oct. 14, 2008), the '370 (May 26, 2009), and the '816 (July 10, 2012) — each a continuation/divisional-style member of the same Lumitex/Parker family claiming variations on light guides, films/sheets/plates, optical deformities and reflective/refractive surfaces for controlling emitted light, with the '547 treated as the representative patent (it was the first-issued, the one construed in the lead case, and the primary IPR target). The complaint pleaded willful infringement based on an August 2012 notice letter and sought an injunction, damages, treble damages, interest and fees, with a jury demand.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (the 2013-era epicenter of patent-plaintiff filings, and the same bench handling the parallel IDT campaign lead case, IDT v. Acer, No. 2:13-cv-00522, where Microsoft also appeared as a defendant), the case's defining fight was not infringement but venue, joinder and contract. Microsoft moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) or transfer, arguing that Acacia (the NPE parent) was an indispensable party because Microsoft's license agreement with Acacia contained an update/notice provision and a forum-selection clause, and Microsoft had separately sued Acacia in S.D.N.Y. on November 20, 2013 for breach of contract and abuse of process (Microsoft v. Acacia, No. 1:13-cv-08275 (S.D.N.Y.)), where Judge Crotty denied Acacia's motion to dismiss on April 25, 2014. In its June 17, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 54), Judge Gilstrap agreed that ARC was a necessary party under Rule 19(a) and that IDT could not adequately represent it — noting ARC and IDT were taking inconsistent positions on where Microsoft's breach-of-contract claim belonged — but denied the Rule 12(b)(7) motion without prejudice and denied transfer, holding that the forum-selection clause did not deprive the court of jurisdiction and that joinder was not "clearly infeasible" because ARC could voluntarily waive it. The case is notable for three reasons: (1) it is a leading illustration of the Acacia "subsidiary action" NPE model and of the license/contract defense (expiry-date sequencing plus an update-and-notice covenant) that operating companies used to try to pull a parent NPE into the case or into a second forum; (2) it sits inside one of the largest assertion campaigns of the 2013–2015 period — IDT sued Dell, HP, Acer, Huawei, ZTE, BlackBerry, Lenovo, LG, Sony, Pantech, Vizio, Microsoft, Nokia and multiple automakers (Ford, GM, Volkswagen/Audi, Mercedes-Benz) over LCD backlighting — with a matching wave of PTAB challenges; and (3) the IPR linkage was outcome-determinative for the '547: LG Display's IPR2014-01357 (petition filed Aug. 21, 2014; instituted Feb. 26, 2015 on claims 1–4, 16 and 26) ended with the Patent Owner's Request for Adverse Judgment (May 28, 2015) and a Judgment/Final Written Decision (June 10, 2015), and Mercedes-Benz's IPR2015-00359 through -00368 series challenged the same patent, part of a broad set of related IPRs (IPR2014-01092, -01094 through -01097, -01359, -01362, and IPR2015-00487, -00489 through -00497) coordinated against the IDT family.

Sourcing caveats. Docket metadata, filing date, division, judge, jury demand and the Dkt. 54 opinion are grounded in the Justia docket and opinion text; the seven-patent list, counsel (Bragalone Conroy P.C. and Ward & Smith Law Firm for IDT) and accused-technology framing come from the Southeast Texas Record filing report and complaint excerpts; the IPR posture comes from the LG Display petition/PTAB filings and IPR2014-01357 proceeding records. I could not verify within this review (a) the specific accused Microsoft products, (b) the final disposition of 2:13-cv-00783 (no dismissal or judgment entry was confirmed; a comparable IDT case against General Motors in D. Del. was voluntarily dismissed Oct. 23, 2015, which is suggestive of a global resolution but is not proof of it), or (c) the '547's current expiration/termination status. Those should be confirmed against PACER and the PTAB docket before being stated as fact.

I'll research this case aggressively across docket sources, PTAB records, and legal news.

Key finding: 2:13-cv-00783 is Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (filed 2013-10-01, Judge Gilstrap, Marshall Division). Let me dig into the docket and the parallel IPRs.

Let me get the full docket and the case's final disposition, plus the parallel IPR outcomes.

Case identification (correction to the summary)

The case-number metadata in the prompt maps to a specific defendant: Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:13-cv-00783 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division) — filed 2013-10-01, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, jury demand by plaintiff. The caption field in the prompt ("Untitled case") and the "defendant not identified" note in the existing summary are both superseded by the docket record. Source: Justia docket 2:2013cv00783; Southeast Texas Record case-filing roundup ("Oct. 1 • Innovative Display Technologies v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 2:13-cv-00783").

One important caveat up front: the prompt lists only the '547 patent as "at issue," but in this docket IDT asserted seven patents — the '547, '194, '177, '660, '974, '370 and '816, all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" and all claiming priority to a 1995 common ancestor. The '547 is only the representative member.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2013)

• 2013-10-01 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). The timing was deliberate: Microsoft's patent license with Acacia Research Group LLC ("ARC"), IDT's parent, expired by its own terms on 2013-09-30. The very next day, seven ARC subsidiaries filed seven separate suits against Microsoft in "three different states and four different cities" (the "Subsidiary Actions"), including this one. All seven patents were acquired by ARC in early 2013 and assigned to IDT in June 2013. Source: Dkt. 54 opinion text.
• The original complaint alleged Microsoft "has purposefully infringed" and sought damages reaching back before the license expired, plus willfulness (notice dated 2012-08-27), treble damages, fees and injunction. Accused products included the Microsoft Surface RT tablet, tablets/laptops and mobile phones. Source: Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
• 2013-11-20 — Microsoft filed its first motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) (failure to join an indispensable party) or, in the alternative, to transfer under § 1404(a), arguing ARC was indispensable and had breached the license by causing subsidiaries to claim infringement damages incurred during the license term (Dkt. 16). On the same day, Microsoft sued ARC in S.D.N.Y. (Microsoft v. Acacia, No. 1:13-cv-08275) for breach of contract and abuse of process, seeking to enjoin ARC affiliates from asserting later-acquired patents. Source: Dkt. 54.
• 2013-12-09 — IDT filed its First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26), expressly limiting relief to infringement "[f]or periods of time beginning on October 1, 2013" — a direct response to the license defense. Source: First Amended Complaint.
• Microsoft then filed a second motion to dismiss aimed at the amended complaint (Dkt. 33). The docket record I could retrieve does not include a separate answer/counterclaims entry; Microsoft's affirmative contract claims against ARC were litigated in S.D.N.Y. rather than as Texas counterclaims, so I cannot confirm the contents of any answer or counterclaim in 2:13-cv-00783. Flagging that as unsourced.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motion to dismiss / transfer — decided 2014-06-17

• 2014-04-25 — In the parallel S.D.N.Y. action, Judge Crotty denied ARC's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in all respects (Summary Order, ECF No. 37).
• 2014-06-17 — Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 54), Judge Gilstrap:
  • Held ARC was a "necessary" party under Rule 19(a) because the license agreement would have to be interpreted, ARC's rights could as a practical matter be impaired, and the court had "serious doubts that IDT would fairly and adequately represent ARC's interest" given that ARC and IDT were taking inconsistent positions on where Microsoft's breach claim belonged (SDNY vs. compulsory counterclaim in the Subsidiary Actions).
  • But found joinder was not clearly infeasible (the § 4.10 forum-selection clause did not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction and ARC might waive it), and therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Rule 12(b)(7) motion, with leave to re-urge.
  • Part III of the same opinion addressed Microsoft's alternative motion to transfer to S.D.N.Y. The retrieved excerpt cuts off at the start of that analysis; I cannot confirm the disposition of the transfer request from the sources I retrieved. (The related IDT transfer motions were consistently denied in this district — e.g., IDT v. BMW, No. 2:14-cv-00106, Dkt. 35 (Gilstrap, J.), and the Federal Circuit denied Microsoft's mandamus petition in the unrelated PersonalWeb matter, In re Microsoft Corp., No. 2014-123 (Fed. Cir. 2014-05-05).)
• Source: Dkt. 54 full text; Justia summary of Dkt. 54.

Stay pending IPR

• I found no stay motion or stay order in the Microsoft docket. What is documented is the PTAB's own statement that the district court cases were not stayed: the Board's 2015-03-31 Order on Conduct of the Proceedings in IPR2014-01357 records that "[t]he pending actions in the Eastern District of Texas and District of Delaware are proceeding. They have not been stayed." Source: IPR2014-01357 Paper 19 (2015-03-31).

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The Markman ruling in the IDT E.D. Tex. campaign issued in the Acer lead case (No. 2:13-cv-00522), addressing the same patent family:

• 2014-05-05 — P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 61); parties reached agreed constructions on certain terms (set out in Appendix A to the order).
• 2014-07-11 — Court granted defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's expert declaration (6/16/2014 Decl. of Kenneth I. Werner) (Dkt. 85) — a meaningful evidentiary blow to IDT, which then had to rely solely on intrinsic evidence.
• 2014-07-14 — P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. 89).
• 2014-07-30 — Markman hearing; the court distributed preliminary constructions of several terms to focus argument.
• 2014-08-26 — Claim Construction Memorandum and Order. The court adopted constructions from the intrinsic record, but held indefinite the term "a pattern of deformities on one side of the sheet or film 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 standard — invalidating that claim (claim 1 of the '547 is the illustrative claim containing this limitation).

Sources: IDT v. Acer claim construction excerpts; Studicata summary, IDT v. Acer; related docs.

Caveat: these secondary descriptions are AI-generated summaries and one of them attributes the opinion to "Payne, J." I was unable to verify the deciding judge or confirm whether Microsoft was formally a party to the Acer lead case (one summary lists Microsoft among the defendants in that action, which may be conflation with the separate 783 docket). Treat the judge attribution and party-list details as unverified; the hearing date (2014-07-30), the strike order (2014-07-11) and the indefiniteness holding are corroborated across sources.

---

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

Verified items only:

• The 2013-09-30 license expiration and the ARC license agreement were the pivot of the case — Microsoft's Rule 12(b)(7)/transfer motion rested on declarations (Dkt. 16-1, 16-3, 16-21) and the Agreement's notice/update and forum-selection provisions.
• The motion to strike IDT's claim-construction expert (granted 2014-07-11) removed IDT's only extrinsic-evidence support at Markman.
• The parties exchanged essentially no additional discovery in the IPR: the Board's 2015-03-31 order in IPR2014-01357 records that no motions for additional discovery were authorized and no protective order had been entered. Source: IPR2014-01357 Paper 19.

I could not retrieve a full docket sheet or a scheduling order for 2:13-cv-00783, so I cannot responsibly describe specific fact-discovery cutoff dates, expert reports, or damages discovery. Those are unsourced.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None found. I found no trial setting, trial transcript, verdict, JMOL motion, new-trial motion, or fee motion in this case. Given that the '547 claims were cancelled at the PTAB in June 2015 (below), it is unlikely the Microsoft action was tried on the '547. I cannot confirm the final disposition of 2:13-cv-00783 (settlement, voluntary dismissal, or otherwise) from the sources available to me; no judgment or appeal is documented in what I retrieved. Flagging this as the key unresolved item.

---

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '547 and their effect

Primary: IPR2014-01357 — LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC (U.S. Patent 6,755,547)

Sources: IPR2014-01357 docket/status; Institution Decision text; Conduct order.

Secondary: IPR2015-00361 — Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC (U.S. Patent 6,755,547) — a second petition against the same patent, on file by early 2015 (IDT's Exhibit 2001 in that proceeding, filed 2015-04-30, consists of the LG Display institution decision and related papers). Source: Exhibit 2001 in IPR2015-00361. Its ultimate disposition is not verified in my sources, but the June 2015 adverse judgment cancelling the '547 claims would have mooted it.

Related LG Display petitions on sister patents: IPR2014-01359 (U.S. Patent 7,914,196) and IPR2014-01362 (U.S. Patent 7,384,177, the '177) — both identified as pending in the '547 institution decision. There was also a D. Del. action, Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del., filed 2013-12-31), asserting the '547.

Effect on the litigation. The 2015-06-10 adverse judgment cancelling claims 1–4, 16 and 26 is the decisive event for the '547. Combined with the August 2014 Markman indefiniteness holding on the "quite small" limitation of claim 1, IDT's '547 case against Microsoft was effectively dismantled before trial: the asserted claim set was cancelled at the Board and the key limitation had already been held indefinite in the sister E.D. Tex. case. Note, however, that the PTAB expressly declined to stay anything — the district court cases proceeded in parallel — so the cancellation did not come via a litigation stay but via the patent itself being cut down.

---

7. Provenance of the patent and counsel (context)

• '547: application 2002-08-30, issued 2004-06-29, inventor Jeffery R. Parker, earliest priority 1995-06-27 (ancestor U.S. 5,613,751). Chain of title: Lumitex → Solid State Opto Ltd. (Lee Mang-Shiang) → Rambus International/Rambus Inc./Rambus Delaware → Acacia Research Group → Innovative Display Technologies LLC (acquired 2013-01-31; assigned June 2013). Source: STPI industry note; FAC ¶ 8.
• Plaintiff's counsel: Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William Kennedy Jr., Daniel F. Olejko (Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas); T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry (Ward & Smith, Longview). Source: Southeast Texas Record.
• Microsoft's counsel in 2:13-cv-00783: not verified in the sources I retrieved. LG Display's IPR counsel was Mayer Brown (Pluta, Streff, Paul, Lam).

---

Bottom line / present posture

• Filed 2013-10-01 against Microsoft (7-patent family, '547 representative); the suit was engineered around the 2013-09-30 expiration of Acacia's Microsoft license.
• 2014-06-17: Rule 12(b)(7) dismissal denied without prejudice; ARC held a necessary party with joinder not clearly infeasible (Dkt. 54). Transfer analysis in the same opinion — disposition unconfirmed.
• 2014-08-26: Markman in the sister Acer case; key '547 limitation held indefinite (claim invalid).
• 2015-02-26: IPR2014-01357 instituted on '547 claims 1–4, 16, 26; 2015-05-28 adverse judgment request; 2015-06-10 claims cancelled.
• No trial, verdict, or judgment documented. Final disposition of 2:13-cv-00783 — settlement/dismissal versus other resolution — is not established by the sources I could retrieve, and I am not going to invent one. The most likely (but unverified) path is that the case washed out with the '547 cancellation and the broader IDT–Microsoft licensing dispute (including the S.D.N.Y. contract action) rather than going to verdict.

Suggested next steps to close the gaps: pull the full PACER docket for 2:13-cv-00783 (post-Dkt. 54 entries), the IPR2015-00361 final disposition, and Judge Gilstrap's Part III transfer ruling in Dkt. 54.

I'll research this docket to identify plaintiff's counsel.

I've identified the defendant (Microsoft) and a lead firm. Let me verify the docket and counsel appearances directly.

Let me pull the full docket listing and check the June 2014 ruling in this specific case.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-cv-00783-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Case identification (from the docket, not the patent feed): The 2:13-cv-00783 case is Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, filed October 1, 2013 in the Marshall Division, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and 8,215,816 (the "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" family). (Justia docket; Southeast Texas Record, "Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas")

Sourcing note / caveat: I was able to confirm the plaintiff's counsel roster from (a) the Justia docket entry for 2:13-cv-00783, which lists the plaintiff's "Represented By" attorneys, and (b) the contemporaneous SETexas Record filing report for the October 1, 2013 Marshall Division filings, which identifies the same roster and their firms. I could not retrieve the full PACER docket sheet or the individual appearance notices (Dkt. Nos. 2–10 range) in this case, so I cannot confirm the precise appearance date or bar-roll status for each attorney in this specific case. Where an attorney appears in IDT's standard signature block but I could not independently confirm his appearance in -783, I flag it. Nothing in the record I found indicates sealed or withdrawn appearances for the plaintiff.

---

Firm 1 — Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Dallas, Texas) — lead/primary plaintiff's counsel

Address of record in IDT's filings: Chase Tower, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500 West, Dallas, TX 75201-7924.

Firm-level experience note: Bragalone Conroy was the plaintiffs' firm in the entire IDT / Delaware Display Group licensing-and-litigation campaign, including Del. Display Grp. LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd. / VIZIO (D. Del.), IDT v. Acer (2:13-cv-522, the lead case), IDT v. Dell, IDT v. HP, IDT v. BMW, and the accompanying IPR defense work.

Firm 2 — Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview, Texas) — local counsel

Address of record: 1127 Judson Road, Suite 220, Longview, TX 75601. (The firm later became Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC.)

---

Important procedural context affecting "counsel of record" in this case

• Consolidation. The 2:13-cv-783 Microsoft action was handled together with the co-pending Marshall Division cases; Judge Gilstrap's July 11, 2014 opinion in IDT v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00522-JRG (styled the LEAD CASE), lists Microsoft Corporation among the defendants moving to strike IDT's expert declaration. (Dkt. 85 in 2:13-cv-522, via Justia.) Practically, the same plaintiff's counsel team appeared across the lead and member cases, so the -783 roster is identical to the lead-case roster.
• The only substantive document surfaced on the -783 docket is Dkt. 54, a Memorandum Opinion and Order signed June 17, 2014. I could not retrieve its text, and I will not characterize its holding. (Justia docket)
• A different plaintiff's firm appears in a later, different IDT case. In IDT v. BMW of North America, No. 2:14-cv-00106-JRG (filed Feb. 2014), the amended complaint was signed by Demetrios Anaipakos, Amir Alavi, Brian E. Simmons, and George W. Webb III of Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. (Houston). That is a separate matter and those attorneys are not counsel of record in 2:13-cv-00783 — I flag it only so the two IDT fact patterns aren't conflated. (First Amended Complaint, 2:14-cv-00106)
• In-house / patent-owner personnel. IDT is an Acacia Research Group LLC affiliate. Acacia's in-house counsel Eric Lucas is referenced in the related Delaware discovery litigation, and Marvin Key was IDT's CEO, but neither was counsel of record in -783. (Del. Display Grp. LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., No. 13-2108-RGA (D. Del.))
• Nothing suggests sealed or attorney-less status for the plaintiff in this case, but note that several documents in the IDT Marshall cases were filed under seal (e.g., sealed motions to compel in 2:13-cv-522), so a small number of filings in -783 may be sealed or unavailable through public dockets.

Bottom line

Lead counsel for plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC was Jeffrey R. Bragalone of Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Dallas), supported by Justin B. Kimble (the firm's PTAB lead and most active docket filer), Patrick J. Conroy, T. William Kennedy, Jr., and Daniel F. Olejko, with T. John Ward, Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview) serving as local counsel.

I'll research this case to identify the defendant(s) and their counsel.

The defendant is Microsoft Corporation. Now let me find its counsel of record in this case.

Case identification (resolved)

Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:13-cv-00783 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, filed Oct. 1, 2013; assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap). The defendant is Microsoft Corporation — this corrects/extends the prior summary, which noted the defendant was not identified in the patent's litigation feed. The '547 patent was asserted alongside six sibling "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents ('194, '177, '660, '974, '370, '816).

Sources: Southeast Texas Record case filing summary; Justia docket 2:13-cv-00783 (filed 10/01/2013, Marshall Office, Judge Gilstrap, 35 U.S.C. § 271).

Plaintiff's counsel of record (confirmed, for contrast)

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone — lead; Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas, TX
• Patrick J. Conroy; Justin B. Kimble; T. William Kennedy Jr.; Daniel F. Olejko — Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas, TX
• T. John Ward Jr.; Claire Abernathy Henry — Ward & Smith Law Firm, Longview, TX (local counsel; Ward is the former E.D. Tex. chief judge)

Source: Southeast Texas Record filing summary (same counsel appeared across IDT's June/October 2013 E.D. Tex. filings, e.g., Nos. 2:13-cv-00525, -00527).

Defendant's (Microsoft's) counsel — not verified; explicit gap

I was unable to confirm Microsoft's counsel of record from the sources I could reach, and I will not name attorneys on inference alone. Specifically:

• The only docketed substantive filing surfaced is Doc. 54, "Memorandum Opinion and Order," signed by Judge Gilstrap on June 17, 2014 (per the Justia docket sheet). The opinion text was not retrievable in my searches, so I cannot cite which attorneys appeared on the papers.
• The Justia docket's "Represented By" listing I retrieved shows the seven plaintiff-side attorneys above plus one additional name, Harry Lee Gillam, Jr. Because the Southeast Texas Record's contemporaneous filing report lists only the seven Bragalone Conroy / Ward & Smith attorneys for IDT, the presence of Gillam on the docket representation list is consistent with — but does not prove — Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, TX) serving as local counsel for Microsoft. Treat that as a lead to verify, not a finding.
• No lead counsel, of-counsel, or in-house Microsoft attorney names were recoverable. Microsoft's 2013–14 E.D. Tex. defense teams were typically a national patent-litigation firm paired with Marshall/Tyler local counsel, with in-house counsel appearing infrequently — but which firms appeared in this specific case is not established by anything I found.

Why the gap exists, and how to close it

This is a 2013 NPE campaign docket; the free docket aggregators surface only the complaint, docket metadata, and the Doc. 54 opinion as viewable PDFs, and the appearance/answer entries (Dkts. ~8–20 range) are not indexed in the search results I obtained. To nail down counsel of record, pull the following directly:

1. PACER docket for 2:13-cv-00783 — the "Attorneys" tab / entries for Microsoft's Answer and Corporate Disclosure Statement, plus any Notice of Attorney Appearance (these carry the ECF signature blocks listing every attorney, firm, bar number, and address).
2. Doc. 54 (6/17/2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order) — the caption/preamble lists "counsel for plaintiff/defendant" as of that date; if it is a stay, transfer, or dismissal order it may also explain the case's disposition.
3. CourtListener/RECAP docket for the same case number (may have the answer PDF where Justia does not).
4. IPR-related filings — the '547/'194 family was subject to IPR challenges around 2014 ("independent claims... cancelled in IPR proceedings" per analysis of the parallel Delaware IDT/DDG campaign). Any Microsoft petition or patent-owner response in the PTAB would name Microsoft's outside counsel of record, which typically overlaps with the district-court team.

Bottom line

• Defendant identified and confirmed: Microsoft Corporation.
• Defense counsel: unresolved. I have one unverified lead (Harry Lee Gillam, Jr. / Gillam & Smith LLP as possible local counsel) and no confirmed lead counsel, of-counsel, or in-house name. Naming anyone else would be invention; the docket entries needed to answer this definitively are not sealed (so far as I can tell) but are simply not exposed in free sources — they require a PACER pull of the appearance/answer entries or Doc. 54's caption.