Untitled case

I'll research this case to build an accurate overview.

Good foundation. Let me verify the termination details, the underlying district court litigation, and the related proceedings.

Let me verify the Federal Circuit outcome and a few remaining details.

A note on framing before the overview: IPR2015-00363 is not a district court case — it is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The party labeled "Defendant" in the case metadata, Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"), is in PTAB terms the Patent Owner (the patentee defending the '660 patent), and the real adverse party is the Petitioner, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (jointly "Mercedes"). The infringement litigation that the IPR was filed to blunt is Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00535 (E.D. Tex., filed Apr. 24, 2014).

Parties and what they do. IDT is a Texas limited liability company headquartered at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Plano, Texas, with no manufacturing operations — it is a patent-assertion entity. In its PTAB mandatory notices IDT identified Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as its real parties-in-interest, and its complaint identifies its parent Acacia's Plano office as the operational hub (IDT complaint; IDT updated mandatory notices). Acacia is a publicly traded patent licensing company (NASDAQ: ACTG), and Stanford's NPE litigation database classifies IDT/Campaign filings as "acquired patents" assertions (Stanford NPE database). On the other side, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (a Delaware corporation based in Montvale, NJ) and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (an Alabama corporation based in Vance, AL) are the U.S. sales and manufacturing arms of Daimler; in March 2015 the Board forced Mercedes to amend its notices to add Daimler North America Corp. and Daimler AG as real parties-in-interest, which reset the petition filing dates (Conduct of the Proceeding order, Mar. 16, 2015). Mercedes was represented by Shearman & Sterling and later by Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (Scott W. Doyle and Jonathan R. DeFoose); IDT was represented throughout by Bragalone Conroy P.C. of Dallas (Justin B. Kimble, Jeffrey R. Bragalone).

The accused technology and the patent. The underlying E.D. Tex. suit, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Marshall Division and consolidated for pretrial purposes into lead case No. 2:14-cv-201, accused Mercedes vehicles having displays and lighting — for example the "A2C30083500 in-dash display" and M-class tail lamps — of infringing eight patents in the Parker "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" family (U.S. 6,508,563; 6,755,547; 6,886,956; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 8,215,816), with willfulness/treble-damages and injunction theories aimed at the finished vehicles rather than the component suppliers (complaint). The '660 patent — titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," sole inventor Jeffery R. Parker, filed June 16, 2006, issued July 29, 2008 — claims an edge-lit backlight for LCDs: a generally planar optical conductor whose input edge has greater cross-sectional width than thickness; a plurality of light sources adjacent that edge configured to generate light having an output distribution with a greater width component than height component; a predetermined pattern of light-extracting "deformities"; and a transition region between the source and the output region (IPR2014-01094 denial, Paper 10). Its ownership chain is Lumitex → Solid State Opto Limited → Rambus International/Rambus/Delaware → Acacia Research Group → IDT; the patent expired June 27, 2015, twenty years from the June 27, 1995 parent filing (FWD, IPR2015-00487, Paper 36). The '660 was the most-filed-against patent in the family, drawing at least nine separate IPR petitions (IPR2014-01094; IPR2015-00363, -00487, -00495, -00745, -00855, -00897, -01113, and later -01717).

Procedural posture and why it matters. IPR2015-00363 was filed December 4, 2014 by Mercedes — along with a motion to join LG Display's then-pending IPR2014-01094 under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (PTO Litigation Center Report, Dec. 5, 2014; Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Apr. 30, 2015). LG's IPR2014-01094 was denied institution on January 13, 2015, and IDT's preliminary response argued this "Copied IPR" — identical grounds, identical arguments — should be denied for the same reasons; the Board then reset the filing date in March 2015 to accommodate the added Daimler RPIs. Before institution, the parties settled: Acacia's June 19, 2015 Form 8-K disclosed a settlement and license agreement with the Mercedes entities resolving Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00535, and on June 30, 2015 the parties jointly moved to terminate twelve Mercedes-filed IPRs (IPR2015-00359, -00360, -00361, -00363, -00366, -00368, -00994, -01044, -01067, -01113, -01114, -01115), filing the agreement under seal; the Board entered judgment terminating all twelve proceedings on July 2, 2015, noting the patent disputes between the parties were fully resolved and that no § 315(e) or § 42.73(d)(3) estoppel attached because termination was joint (Form 8-K; termination judgment; joint motion). Venue mattered in part because E.D. Tex./Judge Gilstrap had already construed seven of the nine family patents in the companion IDT v. Acer case (2014 WL 4230037, Aug. 26, 2014) and had refused to transfer the parallel BMW case to New Jersey (IDT v. BMW, No. 2:14-cv-00106, Dkt. 35), keeping the campaign in a plaintiff-friendly forum.

The case is notable for four reasons. First, it is a window into one of the largest 2013–2014 NPE assertion campaigns in the display sector: IDT and its Acacia affiliate Delaware Display Group sued roughly forty-plus defendants — Apple, Dell, HP, Microsoft, Nokia, BlackBerry, Acer, Lenovo, Vizio, Huawei, ZTE, Canon, Nikon, Garmin and most major automakers — in E.D. Tex. (Marshall) and D. Del., on backlight patents acquired from an operating company (IDT mandatory notices). Second, it illustrates the 2015-era automotive-OEM IPR wave: Mercedes' twelve-petition cluster was matched by BMW, Volkswagen, Toyota, Ford, GM and supplier Koito filings, and the entire cluster evaporated in a single negotiated global settlement. Third, IPR2015-00363 is a textbook "copycat/joinder" petition — a § 315(c) joinder request built on a prior petitioner's grounds — and shows how the denial of the target IPR, plus an RPI amendment that resets the filing date under § 315(b), can bog a follow-on petition down before settlement resolves it. Fourth, and most significantly for the patent's story, the '660 ultimately survived the only IPR that was instituted: the Board instituted LG Display's IPR2015-00487 on July 16, 2015 on Oe + Etsuo, joined LG Electronics' IPR2015-01717, and in its July 15, 2016 Final Written Decision found none of claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 25–29, and 33–35 unpatentable, prompting Petitioners' December 23, 2016 notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit after the Board denied rehearing on November 28, 2016.

Sourcing caveats. (1) The precise claim set and grounds in the IPR2015-00363 petition itself are not quoted in the sources retrieved; IDT's preliminary response states the petition contains four grounds and is "identical" to LG's IPR2014-01094, so I infer the same claims (1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, 34) and references (Pristash, Tai, Ciupke, Tai + Funamoto) — treat that as an inference, not a confirmed docket fact. (2) The settlement terms are confidential; only the Acacia 8-K summary and the parties' representations to the Board are public. (3) I could not verify the Federal Circuit's disposition of the IPR2015-00487/01717 appeal in the sources reviewed, so the post-2016 outcome of the '660's validity fight should be confirmed against the Federal Circuit docket before being relied on.

I'll research this matter. Note upfront: the metadata identifies this as IPR2015-00363 — a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court litigation. That framing matters, so I'll investigate both the IPR itself and any parallel district court litigation involving U.S. 7,404,660 and Innovative Display Technologies LLC.

Let me dig into the specific IPR and the parallel district court campaign.

Let me research the parallel district court litigation and the outcome of the other '660 IPRs.

Important framing note before the chronology

The case metadata in this matter describes IPR2015-00363, which is an inter partes review before the PTAB, not a district court infringement action. So there is no complaint, answer, Markman ruling, discovery, trial, or verdict in that docket. The complaint/answer/SJ/trial events you asked about happened in a parallel E.D. Tex. infringement campaign against the same patent (U.S. 7,404,660, "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies") and the same patent owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"). I cover both, in order.

A caveat I want to flag up front: I hit my research-step limit mid-investigation, so a few downstream facts (notably the final written decision in the other '660 IPRs and the ultimate disposition of the non-Mercedes district court defendants) are not confirmed by my sources. I mark those clearly.

---

Part A — The PTAB proceeding: IPR2015-00363

Filing & initial papers (IPR equivalents of pleadings)

• 2014-12-04 — Mercedes-Benz files the IPR2015-00363 petition against the '660 patent. IDT's later filings state the petition was filed "seeking to join the first IPR." (IDT Opposition to Motion for Joinder)
• Petitioner simultaneously filed a Motion for Joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (Paper 3), seeking to join IPR2014-01094 — LG Display's earlier IPR on the same '660 patent. Petitioner conceded the two petitions were "identical" in grounds and argument.
• The petition advanced four grounds — three § 102 anticipation grounds and one § 103(a) obviousness ground (e.g., Pristash; Tai in view of Funamoto).

Key pre-institution motions (analogue of pre-trial motions)

• 2015-01-13 — The Board denied institution of IPR2014-01094 (LG Display) (Paper 10). This destroyed the joinder target: as IDT argued, "The Board cannot join one IPR to another unless the first IPR is instituted."
• 2015-01-23 — IDT files its Opposition to the Motion for Joinder, arguing the petition is a "Copied IPR" that must be denied for the same reasons as IPR2014-01094.
• 2015-03-13 / 2015-03-16 — Board conference call and Order (Paper 16) granting Mercedes-Benz leave to file amended mandatory notices adding Daimler North America Corp. and Daimler AG as RPIs. Critically, the order withdrew the original filing date and accorded a new filing date as of the amended-notice filing, and extended IDT's Preliminary Response deadline by one month. This is a notable § 315(b) time-bar management maneuver. (Order 2015-03-16)

Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (claim-construction / merits positions)

• 2015-04-30 — IDT files its Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 18) and Exhibit List (Paper 19). Arguments: the petition is identical to the denied IPR2014-01094 and should be denied; and on the merits, each ground fails (e.g., no disclosure of "a plurality of light sources," no disclosure of "a transition region"). IDT also attached the Acer claim construction order as Exhibit 2002. (POPR 2015-04-30)
• Note on claim-construction standard: in the sibling '660 IPR (IPR2015-00487), IDT argued the '660 patent was expired and that the Phillips standard rather than the BRI standard governed — a live dispute across the '660 IPRs. Whether that argument was pressed in 00363 specifically is not confirmed by my sources.

Discovery milestones

• Effectively none of strategic significance. The joint termination motion represents that the proceedings were "in their early stages," that "No depositions have been taken," and (in the related Mercedes IPR2015-01113) that Patent Owner had filed no substantive paper and no declaration. (Joint Motion to Terminate 2015-06-30)

Trial / oral hearing / final written decision

• None. The proceeding never reached institution, so there was no oral hearing (the "trial" phase of an IPR) and no final written decision.

Final disposition

• 2015-06-23 — Parties advise the Board of settlement.
• 2015-06-24 — Board authorizes joint motions to terminate under a combined caption.
• 2015-06-30 — Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 25) filed across a combined set of twelve Mercedes-Benz IPRs: IPR2015-00359, -00360, -00361, -00363, -00366, -00368, -00994, -01044, -01067, -01113, -01114, -01115. The written settlement agreement was filed as Exhibit 1010 with a request under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to be treated as business confidential information. (Combined joint motion PDF)
• 2015-07-02 — Board enters Judgment — Termination of Proceedings under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, terminating without a final written decision. Because termination was by joint request, no § 315(e) estoppel attached to Mercedes-Benz, and no estoppel attached to IDT. (Judgment 2015-07-02)

Practical effect: the '660 patent emerged from IPR2015-00363 unadjudicated. Mercedes-Benz obtained no cancellation of claims, but also incurred no estoppel — and it exited the dispute entirely.

---

Part B — The parallel district court infringement litigation

The patent owner and the campaign. IDT is a Texas-based NPE holding a family of Lumitex/Jeffrey Parker "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents (earliest priority 1995-06-27), acquired along the chain Solid State Opto → Rambus → Acacia → Innovative Display Technologies LLC. IDT and affiliate Delaware Display Group LLC filed a wave of LCD-backlight suits starting mid-2013. (Stanford NPE Litigation Database — '660; STPI summary)

Filing & initial pleadings

• 2013-06-28 — IDT files the E.D. Tex. batch: Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc. et al., 2:13-cv-00522, plus suits against Hewlett-Packard, Huawei (2:13-cv-00525), ZTE (2:13-cv-00527), RIM/BlackBerry, and Dell. The complaints assert 7 patents, including the '660 patent, all sharing a common written description and a 1995-06-27 priority date. (Mandour & Associates summary)
• 2013-12-31 — Delaware Display Group LLC v. Sony Corp., 1:13-cv-02111 (D. Del.), plus companion D. Del. suits against Amazon (1:13-cv-02106), Pantech (1:13-cv-02110), and VIZIO (1:13-cv-02112). These pleadings are boilerplate "information and belief" allegations without claim charts — a pleading-sufficiency vulnerability noted by analysts. (Complaint analysis, 1:13-cv-02111)
• 2014 — Automotive defendants targeted: IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group et al., 2:14-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex.); IDT v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. et al., 2:14-cv-00535 (E.D. Tex.), filed 2014-04-24 — the district court counterpart to the IPR2015-00363 petitioner. (Ex Parte docket tracker, 2:14-cv-00535)
• I did not locate answer/counterclaim specifics (e.g., declaratory judgment counts) in my sources for these dockets — treat that as unverified.

Consolidation and pre-trial management

• 2014-08-04 — E.D. Tex. consolidation order: 2:14-cv-201-JRG designated the LEAD CASE, with 2:14-cv-535 (Mercedes-Benz) and 2:14-cv-624 consolidated for all pretrial issues except venue; the court directed one docket control order, protective order, and discovery order for the consolidated action.

Claim construction (Markman)

• 2014-08-26 — Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-522, 2014 WL 4230037 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014) (Payne, J.) — first construction of the Display Patents, including the '660 patent terms. Objections were overruled 2014-12-15 (Gilstrap, J.) (Dkt. 219). In that case the court granted defendants' motion to strike IDT's expert declaration (Kenneth I. Werner) — Dkt. 85, Order of 2014-07-11 — and construed the terms without it.
• 2015-04-29 — claim construction hearing in the consolidated lead case.
• 2015-05-04 — Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. 244, 2:14-cv-201-JRG. The court organized the dispute into terms previously construed in Acer and terms not previously construed, and addressed:
  • Previously construed: "continuous side walls"; "transition region"; "an air gap between the film, sheet, plate or substrate and the panel member"; "predetermined"; "well defined optical elements or deformities" / "optical elements or deformities of well defined shape"; "pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss."
  • Not previously construed: "one or more secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective or refractive surfaces"; "in close proximity"; "positioned near…"; "optical elements"; "facilitate better mixing of light rays within the cavity or recess"; "more in the width direction"; "output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component"; "greater cross-sectional width than thickness"; "edge of said panel assembly"; "for shining light through said panel member"; and the LED/light-input-surface term.
  • (Order text via PTAB exhibit)
  • Caveat: my sources give the list of construed terms but not the adopted constructions themselves. I won't guess at the outcomes.

Discovery, trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• I found no evidence of a trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion in any of these dockets in my sources. Given the portfolio's claim cancellations and the 2015–2016 wave of settlements, it appears the campaign resolved before trial, but I cannot confirm this for every defendant.

Final disposition (Mercedes-Benz strand, the one tied to IPR2015-00363)

• The 2015-06-30 joint motion represents that the settlement agreement "resulted in the dismissal of the underlying civil action" and that "the settlement agreement ends all patent disputes between the parties," with "no new litigation or proceeding… contemplated in the foreseeable future." Mercedes-Benz's E.D. Tex. case (2:14-cv-00535) is recorded as closed 2016-02-08 (the later date likely reflects the final administrative closing rather than the June 2015 dismissal).

---

Part C — Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '660 patent and their effect

The '660 patent was hit with an unusually large IPR barrage — at least nine petitions. A PTAB petition identifies: (IPR2014-01094), (IPR2015-00363), (IPR2015-00487), (IPR2015-00495), (IPR2015-00745), (IPR2015-00855), (IPR2015-00897), and (IPR2015-01113), plus IPR2015-01717. (Petition listing the related case numbers; IPR2015-01717 analysis)

Selected developments:

• IPR2014-01094 (LG Display) — institution DENIED 2015-01-13 (Paper 10). This denial is what made IPR2015-00363's joinder motion untenable.
• IPR2015-00363 (Mercedes-Benz) — this case; terminated by settlement.
• IPR2015-00487 (LG Display) — INSTITUTED on one ground: obviousness of claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 25–29, 33–35 over Oe in view of Etsuo. IDT filed its Patent Owner's Response on 2015-10-08, arguing (i) the references are not combinable (opposing solutions to uniform light output), (ii) the light-source limitation is not met, (iii) petitioner's expert conceded non-infringement-of-limitation points on deposition, and (iv) petitioner's expert "merely copied word-for-word declarations from another expert" — an attack on expert reliability — plus secondary considerations/commercial success. Petitioner submitted a rebuttal commercial-success declaration (Vincent A. Thomas, CPA, FTI Consulting) on 2015-12-18. (POR 2015-10-08; Ex. 1030)
• IPR2015-00745 (Sony entities) — active in 2015 (IDT exhibit filed 2015-05-26 attaching the E.D. Tex. Markman order).
• IPR2015-01113 (Mercedes-Benz, '660 patent) — filed 2015-04-24, asserting Pristash anticipation, Ciupke anticipation, and Pristash/Ciupke in view of Kisoo or Seraku. Killed by the same 2015-07-02 termination judgment as 00363. (IPR2015-01113 analysis)
• IPR2015-01717 (LG Electronics) — filed 2015-08-13, challenging claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 25–29, 33–35 on Tai/Funamoto, Tsuchiyama/Tsunoda, and Oe/Etsuo theories; petitioner proposed construing "deformities" per the '660 specification's express definition ("any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of the light to be emitted").

Effect on the litigation. The IPR barrage was the central pressure point. Across the broader IDT/DDG portfolio, many asserted independent claims were cancelled — e.g., the independent claims of the '547, '194, '177, and '816 patents — while "some claims" of the '660 and '370 patents survived the IPR challenges. That asymmetry shaped which patents IDT could still assert and drove the 2015–2016 settlement wave. (Complaint analysis noting cancellations)

Not confirmed: the final written decisions in IPR2015-00487, -00745, -00855, -00897, -01717, and thus exactly which '660 claims ultimately survived. I did not reach those documents before my search budget ran out.

---

Bottom line

• IPR2015-00363 never got past the preliminary stage. Its defining features were (1) a § 315(c) joinder motion to the LG Display IPR, defeated when that IPR was denied institution on 2015-01-13; (2) an RPI amendment adding Daimler entities that reset the accorded filing date and extended the POPR deadline; and (3) termination by settlement on 2015-07-02 (37 C.F.R. § 42.72), with no final written decision and no estoppel.
• The district court counterpart (E.D. Tex. lead case 2:14-cv-201-JRG, consolidated with the Mercedes-Benz case 2:14-cv-00535) produced a real Markman proceeding — the 2014-08-26 Acer construction (2014 WL 4230037) and the 2015-05-04 consolidated order (Dkt. 244) — but no trial or verdict I could verify; the Mercedes-Benz action was dismissed as part of the same 2015 settlement.
• The strategic throughline: the '660 IPR campaign was the litigation's engine — it forced claim cancellations across the portfolio and drove a settlement that cleared the '660 patent of adjudicated invalidity while ending Mercedes-Benz's exposure.

If you want, I can pull the actual claim constructions from the 2015-05-04 order and the final written decisions in IPR2015-00487/-00745/-01717 — those are the two gaps I'd close next.

I'll search multiple angles for press coverage of this case.

Let me search more targeted press coverage angles.

Let me search a few more specific angles, including the appeal and any additional coverage.

Press coverage of IPR2015-00363 / U.S. 7,404,660

No outlet I could locate via web search published an article about IPR2015-00363 itself. The proceeding—Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC—never drew the dedicated legal-trade coverage (Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra) that major IPR fights typically generate. What exists is (a) docket/aggregator records, (b) general-audience reporting on the patent owner's broader campaign, and (c) corporate disclosure of settlements that resolved the underlying district-court suits. Below I summarize only what I actually found.

The most substantive editorial coverage of the entity behind this case is Techdirt, which reported on 2014-08-12 that Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT) is an Austin, Texas–registered Acacia Research subsidiary that "doesn't make any products or even have its own website," and that it had weaponized light-emitting-panel patents acquired via Rambus against an LCD-spanning set of targets—auto makers including Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and Mazda, camera makers Canon and Nikon, GPS suppliers TomTom and Garmin, and phone distributors Verizon, AT&T and Apple. Techdirt described the asserted portfolio as the "light emitting panel assemblies" family, and noted that IDT's second suit against Apple sought "nearly $6 billion in 'accrued royalties.'" It reported that a Garmin licensing agreement was IDT's only publicly known early conversion and that Acacia at the time "boasts that it has generated more than $1 billion in revenue" and returned "more than $455 million to its patent partners," including an on-the-record defense of the model from Acacia's Marvin Key. Techdirt's account is expressly adversarial—it frames the campaign as trolling—and its $6 billion figure and case counts are its own characterizations, not court findings. A separate Mandour law-firm write-up of the June 2013 Dell/HP complaint lists the '660 patent among the seven patents asserted and reports that IDT sought treble damages plus an injunction based on willful infringement.

The settlements that ended the parallel district-court litigation were reported only in corporate channels. Business Wire carried Acacia's 2015-08-13 release stating that its "Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC subsidiaries entered into a settlement and patent license agreement with Sony Corporation," resolving Delaware litigation; IP Frontline via CIP Lawyer republished that announcement on 2015-08-18 with no added detail. Acacia's SEC Form 8-K dated June 19, 2015 disclosed that the same two subsidiaries "entered into a settlement and license agreement with Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC," resolving E.D. Tex. Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00535—the litigation that gave rise to this IPR. A later Acacia 8-K dated October 13, 2015 disclosed a parallel settlement and license with General Motors LLC and Valeo North America, and Yahoo Finance carried a similar release for a MiTAC Digital/Magellan settlement. Bragalone Conroy's own attorney profile on Avvo describes the outcome of the Mercedes-Benz case as a "Favorable settlement following mediation."

Critically, none of these accounts mention IPR2015-00363, its June 30, 2015 joint motion to terminate, or the terms of the sealed settlement agreement, and none state any settlement dollar figure—the agreement was filed with the Board on June 30, 2015 as business confidential information. The connection between the district-court Mercedes-Benz settlement and the IPR termination is therefore inferable only from timing and the docket (the case is recorded as "Settlement Before Institution," terminated July 2, 2015), not from any press report. Where coverage and the record diverge: Techdirt's retrospective "$6 billion" claim and its characterization of IDT's "conversion rate" are press-side analysis, not court findings; conversely, the Acacia releases and 8-Ks treat each settlement merely as "resolving litigation" without describing the IPR posture at all. I found no reporting on the patent owner's substantive IPR wins on the related '660 patent (e.g., the Board's July 15, 2016 final written decision in IPR2015-00487 declining to invalidate the claims, and the later Federal Circuit appeal), which is documented only in PTAB and appellate filings.

Sources

• Case IPR2015- 00363 Patent 7,404,660
• Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC By: Justin B
• PTO Litigation Center Report - December 5, 2014
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
• Page 1UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEBEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARDLG DISPLAY CO
• LG Display Co., Ltd.v.Innovative Display Technologies LLC - LG Display Co
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Technology Company Accuses Dell, HP of Patent Infringement
• Ex. 1004 | IPR2015-01113 | Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Innovative Display Technologies | Ex Parte
• Ex. 1007 | IPR2015-01717 | LG Electronics Inc v. Innovative Display Technologies | Ex Parte

I'll research counsel of record for this IPR. Note upfront: IPR2015-00363 is a PTAB proceeding where the "plaintiff-side" (initiating) party is the petitioner — Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. — while the metadata's "Defendant" (Innovative Display Technologies LLC) is the patent owner/respondent. I'll identify counsel for both sides and flag the posture.

Good — I've found both sides' counsel. Let me verify details and firm affiliations.

Counsel of record — IPR2015-00363 (U.S. 7,404,660)

Posture caveat first. IPR2015-00363 is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action, so there is no "plaintiff" in the ordinary sense. The party that initiated the proceeding — the functional plaintiff-side — is the petitioner, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. The patent owner / respondent is Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"), which the case metadata labels as the "Defendant." (That label is itself an artifact: in the parallel E.D. Tex. suit, IDT v. Mercedes-Benz, No. 2:14-cv-00535, IDT was the plaintiff and Mercedes-Benz the defendants.) Because the instruction asks for "plaintiff" counsel and the metadata's only named party on that side is IDT, I set out both sides so the answer is useful either way, and flag which is which.

---

A. Petitioner side — Mercedes-Benz (the initiating/"plaintiff" side in the IPR)

How these were captured: In the consolidated Mercedes-Benz IPR family (IPR2015-00359, -00360, -00361, -00363, -00366, -00368), the Board issued an Order — Decision on Motions to Withdraw granting the withdrawal of King & Spalding's Weingaertner and Moffitt and noting that "Scott W. Doyle will be appointed as new lead counsel" (Shearman & Sterling), effective upon filing of a new power of attorney and updated mandatory notices. (Docket Alarm, IPR2015-00361, Order on Motions to Withdraw) The companion case IPR2015-01113 (same patent '660, same parties) likewise lists petitioner counsel as Scott Doyle and respondent counsel as Justin Kimble (IPverse/GreyB). (case detail)

---

B. Patent-owner side — Innovative Display Technologies LLC (the "Defendant"/respondent; plaintiff in the underlying district-court suit)

How these were captured: IDT's Power of Attorney filed 12/23/2014 in IPR2015-00363 appoints, for the entire Mercedes-Benz IPR group (00359/00360/00361/00363/00366/00368), Lead Counsel Justin B. Kimble (Reg. No. 58,591) and Back-Up Counsel Jeffrey R. Bragalone (pro hac vice to be filed), both of Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas. (Docket Alarm, Power of Attorney) IDT's Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Apr. 30, 2015) in IPR2015-00363 is likewise signed by Kimble and Bragalone. (Docket Alarm, Preliminary Response)

---

C. Timeline / counsel-of-record notes

• Petitioner counsel changed mid-case: King & Spalding (Weingaertner/Moffitt) → Shearman & Sterling (Doyle) per the Board's March 2015 withdrawal order. Doyle appears to have later moved to Fried Frank (where PlainSite lists him representing Mercedes-Benz U.S. International in 2:14-cv-00535), then Greenberg Traurig, and is now at Kelley Drye — so his firm affiliation depends on the date; Shearman & Sterling is the one tied to this IPR.
• Patent-owner counsel was stable: Bragalone Conroy (Kimble/Bragalone) from the December 2014 POA through the Preliminary Response.
• No in-house attorney is identified in the filings I could locate.
• The proceeding is recorded as terminated by settlement — "Settlement Before Institution," with the joint motion to terminate filed June 30, 2015 and the confidential settlement agreement filed as business-confidential information; termination was entered in early July 2015 (case summary; the parallel IPR2015-01113 shows a Termination – Settlement (July 2, 2015) on the same patent/parties).

D. Sourcing gaps / caveats

• I could not reach PACER or the USPTO PTAB API directly; the counsel identifications rest on PTAB filings mirrored on Docket Alarm, the Board's withdrawal order, IPverse/GreyB counsel listings, and law-firm bios. These are specific and internally consistent, but they are secondary mirrors rather than the sealed/native docket.
• The settlement agreement and any termination papers are sealed/business-confidential, and no filing identifies counsel inside those documents.
• I found no Law360/Reuters article naming counsel in IPR2015-00363 specifically, consistent with the "In the news" section (no dedicated trade coverage).
• Contradiction to flag: the case metadata's "Defendant(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC" does not match the IPR posture (IDT is the patent owner/respondent) and is reversed relative to the underlying district-court case (where IDT was the plaintiff). I would treat the metadata's party-role field as unreliable here.

I'll research counsel of record on both sides — and I need to flag up front that the party labels in the metadata are inverted relative to PTAB practice. Let me search.

Key counsel names are surfacing. Let me dig into the district court docket for 2:14-cv-00535 and verify the Shearman/King & Spalding transition.

Let me pin down the district court counsel roster (including any local counsel) and the Shearman/Fried Frank team.

Counsel of Record — with a party-label caveat first

The task asks for counsel for "the defendant(s)." In this docket the metadata's "Defendant: Innovative Display Technologies LLC" is actually the Patent Owner (the patentee defending the '660), not a defendant. So I give you both sides, clearly labeled, plus the corresponding district-court defense counsel.

One threshold point on completeness: because IPR2015-00363 terminated by joint motion before institution (judgment July 2, 2015), the universe of "counsel of record" is limited to the pre-institution appearances. There is no trial-phase roster here.

---

1. Patent Owner — Innovative Display Technologies LLC (the entity the metadata labels "Defendant")

Source: Patent Owner Power of Attorney, Paper 4 (filed Dec. 23, 2014), and Patent Owner's Preliminary Response, Paper 18 (Apr. 30, 2015).

The POA covers the joint Mercedes cluster, so Kimble and Bragalone were counsel of record in IPR2015-00363 from the outset. No additional Bragalone Conroy attorneys appear on the IPR2015-00363 record in the sources I reviewed.

---

2. Petitioner — Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC & Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (the actual adverse party / accused infringers)

Original counsel — King & Spalding LLP (Petitioner Power of Attorney dated Dec. 3, 2014, Paper 2):

Substituted counsel — Shearman & Sterling LLP (Petitioner Power of Attorney dated Jan. 29, 2015, filed Mar. 6, 2015, Paper 11):

The Board's Mar. 5, 2015 order in the companion Mercedes IPRs granted the Weingaertner/Moffitt withdrawal effective only upon filing a new POA naming Doyle as lead counsel and appointing back-up counsel. The Mar. 6, 2015 POA satisfies that — but note it names Doyle alone, so I could not confirm, from the sources retrieved, who Mercedes' back-up counsel was after substitution. Treat that slot as unverified.

The POA signature blocks identify Anthony P. Lasada (signing for Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC) and Richard J. Clementz (for Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.) as the corporate officers authorized to execute — company representatives, not necessarily attorneys of record.

---

3. Underlying district court — IDT v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00535 (E.D. Tex.)

• Scott W. Doyle appears as counsel for both Mercedes-Benz defendants (Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC) in the district-court suit, per his PlainSite attorney profile (role listed as "Defendant" for both entities in 2:14-cv-00535). This is the same Doyle who became Petitioner lead counsel in the IPRs.
• Local counsel: I could not verify a Marshall/Texas local-counsel appearance for the Mercedes defendants from the sources I retrieved. E.D. Tex. practice almost always requires one, so there is likely a local firm on the docket — but I will not name one without a source. Flagged as unconfirmed.

---

Sourcing caveats

• No Fried Frank appearance in this IPR is documented. The IPR's operative Petitioner POA (Mar. 6, 2015) is a Shearman & Sterling filing; the earlier "Fried Frank" attribution in this case's summary reflects Doyle's later firm affiliation (per PlainSite), not an appearance in IPR2015-00363, which terminated July 2, 2015.
• "Jonathan R. DeFosse/DeFoose" — referenced in the earlier case summary — I was unable to verify as counsel in this matter or as a Shearman/Fried Frank patent litigator in the searches run. Do not rely on it without confirmation.
• The IPR terminated by settlement before institution, so the record contains only pre-institution filings; there is no institution decision, no trial-phase counsel, and no depositions to cross-check appearances against.
• Primary documents supporting the rosters: POA Paper 4 (IDT, 12/23/2014); Preliminary Response Paper 18 (IDT, 4/30/2015); Petitioner POA Paper 2 (King & Spalding, 12/4/2014); Petitioner POA Paper 11 (Shearman & Sterling, 3/6/2015); Board Order Decision on Motions to Withdraw (Mar. 5, 2015, covering IPR2015-00359/360/361/363/366/368).