Litigation

Untitled case

unconfirmed

1:13-cv-02111

Patents at issue (1)

7434973

Summary

Listed on the USPTO/Google Patents litigation record for the '973 patent. The defendant and outcome were not confirmed; a contemporaneous report indicates DDG/IDT sued LG Display America in D. Del. in December 2013, but the match is unverified.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

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

Key finding: the docket shows this is Delaware Display Group LLC et al v. Sony Corporation et al. Let me verify the patent list, defendants, judge, and outcome.

Let me verify whether the '973 patent was actually asserted in the Sony case, and pin down the Sony defendants and outcome.

Case overview: Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Sony Corporation et al., No. 1:13-cv-02111 (D. Del.)

Correction to the prior summary, and the parties. Public litigation records resolve the "unconfirmed" defendant question: 1:13-cv-02111 is Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Sony Corporation et al., filed 12/31/2013 in the District of Delaware, assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews with Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge as referred judge (RPX Insight case page: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/dedce-53950-delaware-display-group-v-sony; Ex Parte case page lists the short caption "Delaware Display Group LLC v. Sony Corp"). The contemporaneous report in the existing summary (LG Display America) actually describes the sister case, 1:13-cv-02109, not this one — the seven December 31, 2013 complaints were 02106 (Amazon), 02107 (HTC), 02108 (Lenovo), 02109 (LG), 02110 (Pantech), 02111 (Sony), and 02112 (VIZIO) (RPX, "Innovative Display Expands Campaign with New Acacia Sub Delaware Display as Co-Plaintiff," Jan. 9, 2014, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/3720). Both plaintiffs are patent-assertion entities, not operating companies: Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT), a Plano, Texas-based Acacia Research Group subsidiary, and Delaware Display Group LLC (DDG), a newly created Acacia co-plaintiff that filed its first suits in this wave. The complaint states that "IDT and DDG share a common corporate parent" (Compl. ¶23, reproduced at https://docshare.tips/delaware-display-group-llc-et-al_58fcf008ee3435b234991c0e.html). The Sony side comprises Sony Corporation (Japan) and U.S. Sony entities; RPX's page renders three to four defendants, and I could not confirm the exact entity list from the docket text I retrieved, so treat the precise defendant roster as unverified. (Sony did retain its own expert for the district case — a PTAB deposition transcript references a witness "retained on behalf of Sony in the district court litigation.")

Accused technology and the patents. The accused instrumentalities are Sony display products incorporating LCD backlights — expressly "laptops, desktops, tablets, monitors, televisions, mobile phones, cameras, and video cameras with an LCD," with three exemplars: the Xperia TL phone, the VAIO SVE11135CXW laptop, and the Cyber-shot DSC-W620 camera (Compl. ¶25). The theory is that Sony's backlights practice the claimed light-extraction structures, yielding "thinner displays… higher light output… lower power requirement, and/or a longer battery life" (Compl. ¶26). The asserted family is Jeffery R. Parker's "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" portfolio (earliest priority June 27, 1995, common written description), traced Lumitex → Solid State Opto Ltd. → Rambus → Acacia (March 2013) → IDT/DDG; the campaign patents were 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; 8,215,816 (IDT), plus DDG's 7,914,196. One-line sketches of what is documented: the '547 patent claims a backlight with a separate transparent sheet/film over an air gap bearing a pattern of "deformities" that vary to pass light through an LCD with low loss; the '194 patent claims a panel member plus a film/sheet/plate across an air gap whose reflective/refractive surface elements redirect light; the '660 patent (per IPR2015-01113) concerns plural light sources configured to produce an output distribution wider than it is tall, optionally in a tray; the '974 patent claims an edge-lit panel in a tray/housing with light-extracting deformities; 7,434,973 (filed 02/09/2007, issued 10/14/2008) claims a panel with multiple light sources coupled across the width of an input edge and deformities that increase in density/size/depth with distance from the sources, greatest at midpoints between adjacent sources; 7,914,196 is titled "Light redirecting film systems having pattern of variable optical elements." I could not retrieve claim-level detail for the '177, '370, and '816 patents, so no sketch is offered for those beyond the shared family description. Note a genuine data hazard: the case metadata ties this docket to 7,434,973, but the campaign list most often reported is 7,434,974 — adjacent serial numbers issued the same day, and commentators have plainly conflated them (one Taiwanese analysis lists the '974 while explicitly pairing it with the '973's issue date). The '973 patent was owned by DDG and was asserted by DDG in the Delaware wave; Bragalone Conroy's pro hac vice declaration in IPR2015-00506 cites DDG's Delaware suits 1:13-cv-02109 and 1:13-cv-02112 as examples of DDG's assertion of the '973 and related patents, and the IPR2015-00506 petition identifies DDG v. Lenovo, 1:13-cv-02108 as a related action. Whether the '973 was named in the Sony complaint specifically is plausible and consistent with the litigation records, but I could not confirm it from the 02111 docket text itself.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed December 31, 2013, the case was docketed under Judge Andrews (D. Del.) with Judge Thynge referred; RPX records closure on September 1, 2015 (610 days), while the Ex Parte database shows a closure date of 07/15/2016 — an unresolved discrepancy, though the more internally consistent figure is the 2015 date. Public records do not disclose the disposition terms; the pattern across the campaign was licensing/settlement rather than judgment such that this should be characterized as a disposition with undisclosed terms, not a merits win. (LG Display's own 20-F disclosures confirm that the DDG/IDT actions against LG were resolved by stipulation of dismissal and settlement of all claims in April 2017.) Venue matters here for three reasons: Acacia deliberately filed this wave in Delaware rather than the Eastern District of Texas, where IDT had launched its June 2013 suits that it "resolved" — Delaware was becoming the preferred PAE forum for its speed, experienced § 101/claim-construction bench, and the Andrews/Thynge pairing. The IPR linkage is the case's central notable feature: LG Display filed a coordinated IPR wave on the family — IPR2014-01092 ('974), -01094 ('660), -01095 ('816), -01096 ('370), -01097 ('194), -01357, -01359 ('196), and -01362 — plus IPR2015-00506 on the '973 patent (petition filed Dec. 30, 2014; instituted July 6, 2015 solely on anticipation by Shinohara; final written decision June 23, 2016), with a joinder petition in IPR2015-01666 instituted Feb. 5, 2016. K.J. Pretech Co. filed three more in September 2015 (IPR2015-01866/01867/01868) and Mercedes-Benz filed IPR2015-01113 ('660). Institution decisions narrowed the fights — the Board refused institution in IPR2015-00506 on obviousness grounds, faulting conclusory motivation-to-combine arguments, and used the '973 proceeding to address the patent's effective filing date and real-party-in-interest disputes (Mayer Brown for LG Display; Bragalone Conroy for DDG). In the district courts, parallel claim construction on the family produced a construing opinion in the E.D. Tex. counterpart (Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc.), a copy of which was filed as an exhibit in the IPR. Finally, the market context: this was one of the larger 2013–2014 display-industry NPE campaigns, sweeping in panel makers and downstream OEMs across phones, TVs, tablets, laptops, cameras, and even automotive displays (later adding Apple, Google, Honda, GM, Mercedes-Benz, Canon, ASUS, HP, Dell, BlackBerry, Huawei, ZTE), and it illustrates the classic Acacia pattern of a Rambus-sourced portfolio asserted through purpose-built subsidiaries against component buyers. The '973 patent itself is now recorded as expired for failure to pay maintenance fees, and the docket text does not support any further characterization of the case's outcome.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case using web searches, starting with the docket and party information.

I have strong leads. Let me pin down the specific case 1:13-cv-02111 and the parallel IPRs on the '973 patent.

Case 1:13-cv-02111 is DDG/IDT v. Sony. Let me confirm the docket details and the Sony-specific outcome.

Key Legal Developments — Delaware Display Group LLC v. Sony Corp., No. 1:13-cv-02111-RGA (D. Del.)

Correction to the prior summary first. The case number 1:13-cv-02111 is not the LG Display case. It is captioned Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics Inc., and Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (RPX Insight litigation record: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/dedce-53950-delaware-display-group-v-sony; Ex Parte case record: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:13-cv-02111/delaware-display-group-llc-v-sony-corp). The December 2013 LG Display/LG Display America suit is a different case, No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA. Both were part of the same seven-case, same-day Acacia filing wave. The earlier "unverified LG match" should be removed.

One residual tension to flag: in the IPR on the '973 patent, DDG itself told the Board that it had asserted the '973 patent in 1:13-cv-02108 (Lenovo), not the Sony case (IPR2015-00506, Final Written Decision at 3, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00506/...). The '973 patent appears to have been asserted against more than one defendant, and the case metadata for 13-2111 (7 patents-in-suit) lists it as at issue here. The '973 was, however, plainly at issue in the first wave of Acacia's Delaware '973 suits, so the developments below are driven by that patent.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Date Development
2013-06-26 IDT takes assignment of the seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents from Acacia (per later complaint recitals).
2013-12-20 DDG takes assignment of the '973 patent from Acacia — 11 days before the suits were filed.
2013-12-31 Complaint filed (D.I. 1, entered 2014-01-02) with jury demand, asserting willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 against the four Sony entities; nine exhibits. Filed concurrently with six sister suits: 13-2106, -2107, -2108 (Lenovo), -2109 (LG), -2110 (Pantech), -2112 (VIZIO). RPX summary: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/3720
2014-01-02 D.I. 5 — Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying Acacia Research Group LLC as corporate parent and Acacia Research Corporation as affiliate, confirming DDG/IDT are NPE/assertion entities.
2014-01-02 / 2014-01-08 D.I. 6 — pro hac vice motion for the Bragalone Conroy PLLC team (Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, Daniel F. Olejko, T. William Kennedy, Jr.); granted 2014-01-08 by Judge Andrews. Local counsel: Farnan LLP (Joseph J. Farnan, Jr./Brian E. Farnan).
2014-01-08 Case assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews; referral to Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge; flagged related to 13-2106 through 13-2112.
Jan. 2014 Service on Sony entities (summons issued 2014-01-02). Sony's answer/counterclaims are not documented in the sources I could retrieve — treat the answer date and any declaratory-judgment counterclaims (non-infringement/invalidity) as unverified. In the parallel D. Del. IDT v. General Motors, No. 1:14-cv-850, the defendant did plead counterclaims, which is typical of this campaign.

Accused products: the complaint swept in a broad category of LCD display products (laptops, desktops, tablets, monitors, TVs, mobile phones, cameras, video cameras), identifying three exemplars — the Sony Xperia TL phone, the VAIO SVE11135CXW laptop, and the Cyber-shot DSC-W620 camera (Ex Parte complaint analysis, https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:13-cv-02111/doc/analysis/1). The infringement allegations were pleaded on "information and belief" without claim charts — a hallmark of this campaign and a target of defense motion practice across the family.

Prosecutorial/ownership background (relevant to later standing fights): the asserted patents trace to U.S. Pat. No. 5,613,751 (priority 1995-06-27) and passed Lumitex → Solid State Opto → Rambus International → Rambus Inc. → Rambus Delaware LLC → Acacia Research Group → IDT/DDG.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motions to stay pending IPR (the central pre-trial battle). Defendants in the Delaware family moved to stay in early April 2015, after LG and others filed PTAB petitions on most of the asserted patents (IPR2014-01092 ('974), -01094 ('660), -01095 ('816), -01096 ('370), -01097 ('194), -01359 ('196); later IPR2015-00487 ('660), -00489 ('177), -00506 ('973)).

  • Plaintiffs' opposition in 13-2111 (dated 2015-04-22) is preserved as an exhibit in the PTAB record (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1460034](/patent/1460034)/...). It states that plaintiffs offered on 2015-04-03 to drop patents with prejudice if defendants would drop the corresponding IPRs; defendants filed their stay motion "less than 20 minutes" after that offer; and that plaintiffs were then dismissing the '547 and '194 patents with prejudice as a case-streamlining measure.
  • Per RPX, in October 2015 Judge Andrews "agreed to stay those related cases entirely unless IDT/DDG agreed to drop, without prejudice, its claims of infringement as to the '177, '660, and '973 patents." Plaintiffs dropped them (see §5 below), and Judge Andrews then denied the motion to stay, allowing the earlier cases to proceed on the remaining patents (RPX: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/4389).

Transfer/§ 1404(a): no transfer motion in 13-2111 is documented. (In a sister case, IDT v. BMW, No. 2:14-cv-106 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Gilstrap denied BMW's transfer motion on 2015-03-30 — https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2014cv00106/[150437](/patent/150437)/35/.)

Summary judgment: there is no documented SJ opinion in 13-2111, which closed before the SJ phase. The family's SJ activity occurred in the surviving LG/Lenovo/VIZIO cases — see the 2016-11-19 Memorandum Opinion in 13-2108/-2109/-2112 (Judge Andrews), which resolved six summary-judgment motions (standing, ownership/defenses, invalidity, infringement, non-infringement) and which is instructive for what the Sony case would have faced (https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2013cv02108/[53947/351](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=53947-0351)/0.pdf). Notably, plaintiffs survived the standing challenge because the Rambus→Acacia IPCAAs plus recorded patent assignments were read to convey the right to sue for pre-2012-10-01 infringement.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

I found no Markman opinion issued in 13-2111 itself. Two adjacent constructions matter:

In the later Delaware cases, the disputed limitations were "a tray or housing having a cavity or recess in which the panel member is entirely received," "both the front and back sides having a pattern of light extracting deformities that are projections or depressions," and "the deformities that are in close proximity to the input edge increase in density, size, depth and/or height…" — all of which generated genuine fact disputes that defeated SJ in 2016.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

Within 13-2111 the docket-level discovery record is not retrievable from the sources I could reach. Comparable milestones in the lead LG case (No. 13-2109) show the pattern (docket sheet used as an exhibit in IPR2014-01359):

  • 2014-08-22 — plaintiffs' initial list of accused products.
  • 2014-11-21 — service of preliminary infringement contentions.
  • 2015-03-30 — amended accused-product list.
  • 2015-05-05 — motion for leave to amend to add the '973 patent; granted 2015-07-28.

Strategically, the discovery fight in the family was dominated by (i) the ownership/standing chain of Rambus→Acacia assignments (depositions and parol-evidence battles over the IPAA/IPCAA assignments — a live issue because the '973 was assigned to DDG only on 2013-12-20), and (ii) expert-battle motion practice (e.g., plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Vincent Thomas report, and the E.D. Tex. strike of plaintiff's expert declaration). Sony's retained expert was later deposed in a related PTAB proceeding referencing the "Delaware Display Group" district court case (PTACTS petition 1531261).

5. Post-2015: dismissal of individual patents, refilings, and the end of the case

  • 2015-10-21 — In the LG case, an order dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims on U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,384,177, 7,434,973, and 7,404,660 (order preserved as PTAB Ex. 2008, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01717/...). This was the price of avoiding a full stay.
  • 2015-12-30 — Plaintiffs re-filed the dropped patents in three new D. Del. actions expressly consenting to a stay pending the instituted IPRs: 1:15-cv-01220 (Lenovo), 1:15-cv-01221 (LG Electronics), 1:15-cv-01222 (VIZIO), each asserting the '177, '660 and '973 patents, including the '973. RPX: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/4389
  • 13-2111 closed on 2015-09-01 per RPX Insight (610 days in litigation). The Ex Parte case record shows a "Closed" field of 07/15/16, which may reflect a later administrative/docket closure; the two sources do not agree. The specific terminal docket entry (stipulation of dismissal with or without prejudice, or settlement) is not confirmed in the materials I retrieved. Given that the '547 and '194 patents were dismissed with prejudice in April 2015 and the case terminated while the '973 IPR was pending, a settlement-driven stipulated dismissal is the most likely mechanism, but I would not represent that as verified without the PACER docket for 13-2111.

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

On the '973 patent (the patent at issue in the metadata for this case):

  • IPR2015-00506 (LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Delaware Display Group LLC), filed 2014-12-30 on claims 1–5. Instituted 2015-07-06 on a single ground — anticipation by U.S. Pat. No. 6,167,182 (Shinohara). The Board rejected DDG's real-party-in-interest attack (LG Electronics/LG Electronics USA) and sidestepped the priority/written-description issue by using the '973 application's own filing date. Institution decision and analysis: https://ptabtrialblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IPR2015-00506-Granting-Institution-20150706.pdf and https://natlawreview.com/node/49327/printable/pdf
  • IPR2015-01666 (LG Electronics, Inc.), filed after institution and joined with IPR2015-00506 by order of 2016-02-05, with LG Electronics abandoning its extra ground.
  • Oral hearing 2016-03-01; Final Written Decision 2016-06-23 holding claims 1–5 of the '973 patent unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence (Wormmeester, A.P.J., with Giannetti and Bunting). https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00506/...
  • A Docket Alarm patent-linked court-record search for the '973 patent also returns a matter captioned "LG Electronics, Inc. v. Delaware Display Group LLC", consistent with a Federal Circuit appeal from the '973 IPR. I could not verify the appellate outcome or even confirm the appeal's existence — this should be checked against CAFC records.

Effect on the litigation: the '973 IPR is precisely why the '973 was pulled out of the Delaware cases in October 2015 and re-filed in December 2015 in standalone, auto-stayed complaints. By the time of the June 2016 FWD, 13-2111 (Sony) had already been closed for roughly nine months, so the invalidation of claims 1–5 could not have affected that case; it did, however, foreclose the '973 patent as an assertion vehicle going forward and was part of the background to the global dispositions below.

On the companion patents:

  • IPR2014-01359 ('196 patent) — LG Display v. DDG; DDG's exhibits in that proceeding are the D. Del. docket sheets for 13-2109.
  • IPR2015-01717 ('660 patent) — LG Electronics v. IDT.
  • IPR2014-01092/'974; -01094/'660; -01095/'816; -01096/'370; -01097/'194 — all filed by LG on the seven IDT patents.

Family-wide endgame (context, not 13-2111):

  • LG Display's Form 20-F discloses that the December 2015 Delaware action was stayed as of 2016-05-03; that IDT filed a further E.D. Tex. action against LG Display in August 2016 on two new patents; and that in April 2017 the parties filed stipulations of dismissal and amicably settled all claims asserted in those actions (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/[1290109](/patent/1290109)/000119312517145079/d346565d20f.htm).
  • The last litigated Delaware patents in the family ('370 and '974 in 13-2108/-2109/-2112) went to a full SJ round on 2016-11-19, in which Judge Andrews denied both sides' dispositive motions and left infringement and validity for trial.

Bottom line / present posture

DDG/IDT v. Sony, No. 1:13-cv-02111-RGA, was one of seven simultaneously filed Acacia NPE suits targeting LCD backlighting. It was terminated on 2015-09-01 (RPX record), roughly 20 months after filing, without a trial, verdict, JMOL ruling, or appeal, and evidently without a court-issued claim construction or summary judgment ruling in the case. The '973 patent that the case metadata ties to this action was invalidated at the PTAB (claims 1–5, 2016-06-23) in IPR2015-00506, which had been filed by LG in December 2014 and was the operative reason the '973 was stripped (without prejudice, 2015-10-21) from the Delaware cases and re-asserted in December 2015 in auto-stayed complaints that were ultimately settled in April 2017.

Unverified items that would require the PACER docket for 13-2111 or CAFC records to close out: (i) Sony's answer/counterclaims and their dates; (ii) the docket entry effecting termination (stipulated dismissal with/without prejudice vs. settlement); (iii) whether any Markman hearing was held in 13-2111 before it closed; (iv) the existence and outcome of any Federal Circuit appeal from IPR2015-00506/01666; and (v) the exact scope of Sony's motion to stay and Judge Andrews' disposition of it as applied to 13-2111.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this case to identify counsel of record for the plaintiffs. Let me start with searches on the docket and related sources.

The case appears to be against Sony, not LG. Let me confirm the specific docket and counsel for 1:13-cv-02111.

This case is against Sony Corporation (not LG). Let me pull the specific docket sheet and confirm plaintiff counsel for 1:13-cv-02111.

Case identification — an important correction

The metadata's working assumption is wrong on the defendant. Docket-linked records show that 1:13-cv-02111 is Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Sony Corporation et al., not LG Display America. Multiple PTAB filings by the patent owner identify "Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Sony Corp. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02111 (D. Del., filed Dec. 31, 2013)" as the co-pending district action for the asserted patents, and RPX/Ex Parte docket records confirm the Sony caption, Judge Richard G. Andrews (with Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge referred), filed 12/31/2013. The LG Display America defendant is the companion case, 1:13-cv-02109 — one of the seven DDG/IDT complaints (02106–02112) filed the same day. The '973 patent (the "DDG patent") is the one at issue in IPR2015-00506, in which DDG was the patent owner. This should be corrected in the case summary.

Plaintiffs' counsel of record (DDG / IDT)

The plaintiffs are Acacia Research subsidiaries (Disclosure Statement, D.I. 5, identifies Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as parent/affiliate). The SAME plaintiffs' team appears across the associated Delaware complaints (02106–02112), including 02111 — the pro hac vice motion at D.I. 6 is expressly docketed as "5 in 1:13-cv-02111-RGA," and Judge Andrews' 1/8/2014 order granting it lists 02111.

Delaware counsel — Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Name Role Firm / Office Notes
Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. Lead counsel of record (docket-designated "LEAD ATTORNEY") Farnan LLP, 919 N. Market St., 12th Fl., Wilmington, DE Former U.S. District Judge for the District of Delaware (1985–2002, incl. service as Chief Judge); brings Delaware federal-court credibility to local-counsel role.
Brian E. Farnan Delaware counsel (entered "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED") Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE Signed the D.I. 5 corporate disclosure statement and the D.I. 6 pro hac vice motion for plaintiffs; regular Delaware local counsel in patent cases.

Lead trial counsel — Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas, TX)

All admitted pro hac vice (email domain bcpc-law.com); PHV motion filed concurrently with the complaint on 1/2/2014 and granted 1/8/2014.

Name Role Firm / Office Notes
Jeffrey R. Bragalone Pro hac vice lead trial counsel Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX Also filed/signed the DDG PTAB mandatory notices (e.g., IPR2015-00757); central attorney in the Acacia/DDG-IDT backlight patent campaign.
Justin B. Kimble Pro hac vice Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas, TX Signed DDG's PTAB filings in the '196/'973 IPRs; part of the core DDG litigation team.
Patrick J. Conroy Pro hac vice Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas, TX Named in the consolidated PHV motion/order (D.I. 6).
Daniel F. Olejko Pro hac vice Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas, TX Named in the consolidated PHV motion/order (D.I. 6).
T. William Kennedy, Jr. Pro hac vice Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas, TX Named in the consolidated PHV motion/order (D.I. 6).
James R. Perkins Pro hac vice Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas, TX Appears in the annotated 02109/02111 docket excerpt filed as a PTAB exhibit (IPR2015-00506, Ex. 2004).

Sourcing, confidence, and gaps

Grounded in:

  • PTAB Patent Owner filings identifying 1:13-cv-02111 as DDG v. Sony (IPR2015-00757 mandatory notices, Docket Alarm PDF).
  • Delaware docket excerpts filed as PTAB exhibits in IPR2015-00506 ('973) and IPR2015-01717 ('660), showing the DDG/IDT plaintiff-side attorney roster, pro hac vice entries, and PHV order (D.I. 5, 6; order 1/8/2014).
  • RPX Insight and Ex Parte docket pages confirming the 02111 caption, judge, and filing/close dates.

Caveats — please treat as flagged, not asserted:

  1. I could not pull the live PACER docket for 02111 directly (paywalled). The attorney roster above is reconstructed from docket sheets reproduced in the associated/consolidated Delaware actions and PTAB exhibits. The individual appearance entries (D.I. numbers) for each attorney in 02111 specifically were not independently verified — the PHV motion (D.I. 6) and order are confirmed for 02111; the underlying per-attorney appearance entries are inferred from the shared docket.
  2. Exact firm/office details for the Dallas attorneys rest on the bcpc-law.com email domain and PTAB signature blocks (Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Ave., Dallas). I did not independently verify each attorney's current firm or a suite number, and some of these attorneys have since moved firms — treat firm affiliations as of ~2014–2016, not today.
  3. No in-house counsel for DDG/IDT appears on the docket excerpts; Acacia-affiliated entities typically litigated entirely through outside counsel, so none is reported.
  4. Counsel for the defendants (Sony) is a separate question and was not researched here; the Mayer Brown / Steptoe / Ross Aronstam teams in the search results belong to the LG companion case (02109), not Sony.

If you want, I can next try to pull the 02111-specific appearance entries and the Sony-side defense team, and confirm the case's disposition (RPX shows it closed 09/01/2015; Ex Parte shows 07/15/2016 — a discrepancy worth resolving).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the Sony-side defense team for 1:13-cv-02111.

Key lead: Sony filed IPR2015-00757 against DDG, with petitioner counsel Gregory Gewirtz. Let me pin down Sony's litigation team.

I hit the tool-call limit, so I'll report what the searches confirmed and be explicit about what remains unverified.

Defendants' counsel of record — 1:13-cv-02111 (Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Sony Corporation et al.)

Threshold point: the defense side is Sony's team, and it is confirmed

Building on the prior section's caption correction: because 02111 is the Sony case (not LG Display America), the relevant defense team is Sony's, and it is distinct from the LG-side team that appears in the companion matter and in the '973 IPR.

Confirmed: Sony Corporation et al. filed IPR2015-00757 against DDG on the '196 patent (filed Feb. 17, 2015; institution denied Aug. 11, 2015), and the same group represented Sony in the district court litigation. The IPR petition's own signature block and deposition testimony both establish the firm.

Confirmed counsel of record — defendant side

Name Role Firm / Office Notes
Gregory S. Gewirtz Lead counsel for Petitioner Sony Corporation in IPR2015-00757 (signed as "Attorney for Petitioner") — substantively the same team that defended Sony in 02111 Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP, 600 South Avenue West, Westfield, NJ 07090 (908-518-6343; ggewirtz.ipr@ldlkm.com) USPTO Reg. No. 36,522. Signed the Aug. 11, 2015 Joint Request to Treat Agreement as Business Confidential Information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) in IPR2015-00757, alongside the parties' Joint Motion to Terminate. Gewirtz is a longtime Lerner David patent litigator (electrical/optical arts) and the named PTAB petitioner counsel of record for Sony in this campaign.

Confirmation that Lerner David held the district-court defense role (not just the IPR): an IPR deposition transcript (PTACTS artifact from petition 1531261) contains the exchange: "In the Delaware Display Group, LLC case, you were retained on behalf of Sony in the district court litigation as well, isn't that right?" together with questioning about the witness's prior work "with the law firm Lerner David." That places Lerner David on the Sony defense side in the D. Del. action itself, not merely before the PTAB.

Known but not Sony's counsel — do not conflate

The attorneys surfaced in the earlier research for the related/companion matters are on other sides:

  • Mayer Brown LLP — Robert G. Pluta, Amanda K. Streff (Chicago); Baldine B. Paul, Jamie B. Beaber (Washington, D.C.) — appeared for Petitioners LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Electronics, Inc. at the March 1, 2016 oral hearing in IPR2015-00506 ('973). This is the LG side, not Sony's. (Record of Oral Hearing, IPR2015-00506, Paper 25.)
  • Justin B. Kimble / Bragalone Conroy PC — patent owner (DDG) side, already covered in the plaintiff section.

Gaps and caveats — flagged, not asserted

  1. Delaware local counsel for Sony is NOT confirmed. D. Del. practice requires a member of the court's bar, so a local firm necessarily appeared for the Sony defendants, but I could not verify which firm or attorney from the sources retrieved. Do not assume it was Connolly Bove, Potter Anderson, Richards Layton, Bayard, or any particular firm — that would be fabrication. This is the single most important open item.
  2. Individual Lerner David attorney roster on the 02111 docket is unverified. I can confirm Gewirtz as the named petitioner counsel and can confirm Lerner David's involvement in the district case, but I could not pull the 02111 PACER docket, and I cannot name additional Lerner David attorneys (e.g., other partners or associates who entered appearances) or their per-attorney D.I. numbers. Any additional names would be invented.
  3. Identity of the three Sony defendants is unconfirmed. RPX lists 3 defendants in 02111; the complaint analysis indicates Sony display products (Xperia TL, VAIO SVE11135CXW, Cyber-shot DSC-W620). The likely entity set (Sony Corporation / Sony Corporation of America / Sony Electronics Inc.) is inference, not verified. Whether Sony had in-house counsel of record is also unknown — IPR petitioner practice suggests outside counsel handled it.
  4. No sealed-filing issue identified, but I could not inspect the docket for appearances, so I cannot rule out later substitution or withdrawal of counsel during 2014–2015.
  5. Minor correction to the prior section: the prior text calls '973 "the DDG patent." The complaint excerpt indicates the '196 patent is the one expressly called "the DDG patent," and IPR2015-00757 (Sony's IPR) is on the '196 patent, while IPR2015-00506 (LG's IPR) is on the '973. Worth reconciling in the case summary.

Corroborating disposition context (relevant to counsel's work product)

The Joint Motion to Terminate IPR2015-00757, filed Aug. 11, 2015, was accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement (Ex. 1031) between Sony and DDG. This aligns with RPX's close date of 09/01/2015 for 02111 — i.e., the district case appears to have settled on terms tied to the IPR settlement. (Ex Parte still shows a 07/15/2016 closure, the same discrepancy flagged earlier; the Aug. 2015 settlement agreement makes the 2015 date the more plausible substantive disposition, with 2016 likely reflecting a later administrative/statistical close.)

Recommended next steps to close the remaining gaps

  1. Pull the 1:13-cv-02111 PACER docket sheet (or Bloomberg Law/Docket Alarm copy) for the defendant-side appearance entries and Delaware local counsel.
  2. Check the IPR2015-00757 petition and Power of Attorney for Sony's full real-party-in-interest list and any co-counsel firms — this often names the same defense firms used in the district case.
  3. Search Lerner David's firm website bio for Gregory S. Gewirtz (he has since moved firms; treat the Westfield, NJ affiliation as of ~2015) plus Law360 coverage of the DDG/IDT backlight campaign for confirmation of the Delaware local-counsel pairing.