Untitled case

I'll research this case across multiple sources before writing.

Now let me dig into the specific Amazon case, its disposition, and the IPR history.

Let me verify the Amazon-specific allegations, the case disposition, and the IPR outcomes.

Case Overview: Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02106-RGA (D. Del.)

Parties and accused technology. The plaintiffs are two non-practicing patent-assertion entities — Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG," a Delaware LLC) and Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT," a Texas LLC), both then operating from 2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, Texas. Both are Acacia vehicles: the Rule 7.1 disclosure filed at the outset identified Acacia Research Group LLC as corporate parent and Acacia Research Corporation as affiliate (13-2109 D.I. 5), and in the parallel PTAB proceedings DDG named Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as its real parties-in-interest (IPR2015-00757 mandatory notice). The lone defendant is Amazon.com, Inc., the e-commerce/cloud company and consumer-hardware maker (Kindle e-readers, Kindle Fire tablets). The accused instrumentality is generic rather than model-specific: the complaint targets "display products that use the fundamental technologies covered by the patents-in-suit," expressly including "tablets with an LCD," plus display components and downstream sales/imports, alleging §271(a) direct infringement and §271(b) inducement (complaint excerpt, PTAB petition 1461797). I could not verify a specific named Amazon model (e.g., which Kindle Fire generation) in the pleadings; RPX lists a single "accused product" for the case without naming it (RPX Insight).

Patents asserted and technical sketch. The complaint asserted eight patents, all claiming priority to a common ancestor, U.S. Pat. No. 5,613,751 (earliest priority June 27, 1995), and all directed to edge-lit LCD backlight technology: (1) U.S. 6,755,547; (2) 7,300,194; (3) 7,384,177; (4) 7,404,660; (5) 7,434,974; (6) 7,537,370; and (7) 8,215,816 — the "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents, sole-invented by Jeffery R. Parker, which cover a light guide/panel with light-extracting deformities that distribute emitted light in a predetermined output distribution (the "IDT patents"); and (8) U.S. 7,914,196, "Light Redirecting Film Systems Having Pattern of Variable Optical Elements" (Parker, Timothy A. McCollum, and Robert M. Ezell), the "DDG patent" — a backlight whose light-guide deformities emit light at low angles plus a light-redirecting film with a pattern of well-defined optical elements that vary across the film to bend light toward normal for a brighter, more uniform, thinner LCD (claim 1 quoted in IPR2014-01359; D. Del. Nov. 6, 2015 opinion). Note the metadata's single-patent designation ('196): that is the patent owned by DDG and the one the case metadata flags, but the docket and RPX confirm eight patents-in-suit in 13-2106 (AO 120 report, D.I. 3; RPX "8 Patents-in-Suit").

Posture, venue, and significance. Filed December 31, 2013 in the [U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington)](/courts/district-of-delaware-wilmington), assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews with referral to Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge, the Amazon case was the first of seven same-day complaints (13-2106 Amazon; 13-2107 HTC; 13-2108 Lenovo; 13-2109 LG; 13-2110 Pantech; 13-2111 Sony; 13-2112 Vizio) — a deliberate Delaware cluster by an Acacia PAE, chosen in part because DDG was Delaware-formed and the defendants (including Amazon, a Delaware corporation) were Delaware-resident or had Delaware ties. The case was short-lived: dismissed by agreement (13-2106 D.I. 19, cited at 13-2108 D.I. 112), with RPX recording closure September 5, 2014 after 249 days; the dismissal terms were not public, so any license/settlement payment is unverified. The case is notable on several axes. First, it is a textbook NPE re-monetization chain: the patents went from inventor Jeffery R. Parker's stable to Rambus (which held them ~December 2009 to January 2013), which sold them to Acacia on January 30, 2013 while retaining a percentage back-end, then Acacia created IDT (March 13, 2013), transferred the patents to it, and created DDG on December 20, 2013 — assigning the '196 patent to DDG the next day, immediately before filing (per the Feb. 23, 2016 D. Del. discovery opinion; see also RPX, Jan. 9, 2014). Second, it triggered a heavy IPR linkage: the '196 patent alone drew IPR2014-01359 (LG Display, filed Aug. 21, 2014 — institution denied March 2, 2015), IPR2015-00492, and IPR2015-00757 (Sony, filed Feb. 17, 2015, instituted Aug. 11, 2015), with parallel IPRs on family members the '547, '194, '370, and '660 patents (IPR2014-01357, -01097, -01096; IPR2015-00745/-01717) (GreyB IPR pages; IPR2014-01359). Third, the campaign's breadth mattered: because the patents read on generic edge-lit LED backlights, the wave swept in essentially every LCD product category (phones, tablets, TVs, laptops, cameras), which is why the same patents generated Markman rulings in Delaware and twice in Texas' E.D. Tex. (IDT v. Acer, 2014 WL 4230037 (Aug. 26, 2014); IDT v. Hyundai, 2015 WL 2090651 (May 4, 2015)), with Judge Andrews later construing the '196 (along with the '974, '370, and '816) on Nov. 6, 2015, and issuing a further opinion in the Vizio action on March 1, 2017.

Sourcing caveats: the case-specific dispositions above rest on the D. Del. opinions, the AO 120/docket sheets, RPX Insight, and PTAB filings; I did not independently pull PACER for 13-2106 or verify Amazon's litigation counsel or any monetary settlement. The IPR termination dates for IPR2014-01359 and IPR2015-00757, the original pre-Rambus assignee of record, and the precise Amazon model accused are not confirmed in the sources retrieved and should be checked against PACER/PTAB before being relied on.

I'll research this case using web searches against the sources you specified. Let me start with the docket and party information.

Let me dig into the specific docket for the Amazon case (1:13-cv-02106), the dismissal, and the PTAB IPRs.

I have substantial material. Let me now pin down the Amazon docket specifics, the IPR outcomes, and the final dispositions.

I hit the step limit before completing every planned search, so the below is grounded in what I was able to confirm from the PTAB records, the D. Del. opinions on Justia/CourtListener, RPX/Stanford NPE database, and the Federal Circuit-adjacent sources. Where I could not confirm a fact (e.g., the contents of Amazon's answer), I say so explicitly rather than guess.

Key legal developments and outcome — Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02106-RGA (D. Del.)

1. What this case actually is

• Caption/parties: Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG") and Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") v. Amazon.com, Inc. Filed 2013-12-31 in the District of Delaware (Wilmington) as part of a seven-case wave (C.A. Nos. 13-2106 through 13-2112) filed the same day. Assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews; Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge referred. (RPX Insight docket page; Stanford NPE Litigation Database.)
• Patents initially asserted in the wave: eight patents — U.S. 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; 7,914,196; and 8,215,816. The '196 patent ("the DDG patent," Light Redirecting Film Systems Having Pattern of Variable Optical Elements, issued 2011-03-29) was the only one owned by DDG; the rest (the "IDT patents") were owned by IDT. Docket Report to the Commissioner (D.I. 3); Markman opinion background at n.1.
• Ownership chain (matters for real-party-in-interest issues): The patents were owned by Rambus (~Dec. 2009–Jan. 2013), sold to Acacia on 2013-01-30, assigned to IDT 2013-07-26, and the '196 patent assigned to DDG on/about 2013-12-21 — ten days before suit. DDG/IDT's Rule 7.1 disclosure identified Acacia Research Group LLC as corporate parent and Acacia Research Corporation as affiliate. (D.I. 5, filed 2014-01-02; Feb. 23, 2016 opinion, 13-2108.)

2. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2013-12-31 — Complaint filed against Amazon.com with jury demand; eight asserted patents; general "information and belief" infringement allegations covering LCD-containing products. (Compl., D.I. 1.)
• 2014-01-02 — Rule 7.1 disclosure statement (Acacia parentage) (D.I. 5); the related cases were associated and assigned to Judge Andrews (D.I. dated 01/08/2014).
• 2014-01-13 — Summons returned executed.
• Answer/counterclaims: I could not confirm from the available records whether Amazon filed an answer, affirmative defenses, or counterclaims before the case was dismissed. The docket sources I retrieved show the case terminating at D.I. 19 on a dismissal by agreement, so any answer/counterclaim (if filed) would be in the entries I did not obtain. Flagged as unverified.

3. Dismissal — final disposition of 1:13-cv-02106

• 2014-09-05 — Case closed; per Judge Andrews' later account, "The cases against Amazon (CA No. 13-2106 D.I. 19) . . . were dismissed by agreement." (Mem. Op. 2015-11-06, C.A. 13-2108, at 1–2; RPX shows closed 09/05/2014, last docket entry 09/29/2014; 249 days in litigation.)
• Posture: The Amazon action was resolved by stipulated/agreed dismissal roughly eight months in — before claim construction, summary judgment, or trial. It never reached Markman, discovery merits, or trial. No judgment, verdict, JMOL, fee award, or appeal issued in this case. No public terms of the agreement are identified in the sources reviewed (any settlement/license terms would not be public).

4. Pre-trial motions of substance

• In 1:13-cv-02106 itself: none confirmed beyond the dismissal. There is no indication in the retrieved records of a motion to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment in the Amazon action.
• The IPR-stay fight happened in the companion cases (13-2108/2109/2112), not here. On 2015-10-21, after a hearing on a joint motion to stay pending IPR, Plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice the claims on three patents then under instituted IPR; Judge Andrews then denied the stay. (Mem. Op. 2015-11-06, at 2.) This is the closest analogue to a stay ruling in the wave, and it is instructive but not part of 13-2106.

5. Claim construction (Markman) — reached in the companion cases, not in Amazon

The '196 patent was construed by Judge Andrews in the consolidated 13-2108 (Lenovo) / 13-2109 (LG) / 13-2112 (Vizio) actions — a Memorandum Opinion signed 2015-11-06 (D.I. 112 in 13-2108). The Amazon case had already been dismissed, so this did not bind 13-2106, but it is the controlling construction of the '196 patent in the wave:

• "relatively low angles" (claim 1 of the '196 patent) — held INDEFINITE under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. The court found the specification gave no objective anchor for "relatively low," and Plaintiffs' "anything less than 90°" reading would read the term out of the claim. This is the single most consequential ruling on the '196 patent: it invalidates the flagship independent claim.
• "in close proximity" ('196) — plain meaning; indefiniteness rejected.
• Related constructions in the same opinion: "transition region" construed for the '370 patent; "positioned near" ('974) upheld; "more in the width direction" ('816) held indefinite. (Mem. Op. 2015-11-06.)
• The court noted the same terms had been litigated twice in E.D. Tex. (IDT v. Acer, 2014 WL 4230037 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014) (Payne, M.J.); IDT v. Hyundai Motor Co., 2015 WL 2090651 (E.D. Tex. May 4, 2015) (Gilstrap, J.)).

(Source: Justia, 1:2013cv02108 D.I. 112; morrisjames.com copy of the opinion.)

6. Discovery milestones with strategic significance (companion cases)

• 2015-07-09 — Defendants served Rule 45 subpoenas on non-parties Rambus, Inc. and Rambus Delaware LLC seeking teardown reports, unredacted royalty reports, and Acacia/Plaintiffs emails.
• 2015-11-04 — Motion to compel (D.I. 107).
• 2015-12-04 — Plaintiffs moved to amend to add willful infringement (D.I. 159).
• 2016-02-23 — Judge Andrews' Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 222 in 13-2108): motion to compel granted in part / denied in part as to Plaintiffs, denied as to Rambus; motion to amend DENIED. Strategically important because it exposed the Rambus→Acacia→IDT/DDG provenance and the litigation-funding/consulting arrangement (Rambus retained 2013-03-25 by Acacia to do "teardowns" at the direction of in-house counsel), and it defeated the willfulness amendment. (Feb. 23, 2016 opinion.)
• 2016-05-10 — Memorandum Order on sealing of the March 29, 2016 discovery-conference transcript (D.I. 264 in 13-2108).

7. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• None in 1:13-cv-02106 — dismissed pre-trial.
• In the surviving companion actions, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion on summary judgment and a motion to strike (2016-11-28) (D.I. 351 in 13-2108) and a Daubert/expert-preclusion opinion on the testimony of Patrick F. Kennedy, Ph.D. (2017-01-18) (D.I. 365). I did not retrieve the substantive holdings of those opinions, and I did not confirm any trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee ruling. Treat the outcome of the surviving cases as unverified from the sources retrieved.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings on U.S. 7,914,196 (and effect on the litigation)

Notes on effect:

• The IPRs were filed after the Amazon dismissal (first petition 2014-08-21; dismissal 2014-09-05), so they had no effect on 1:13-cv-02106. Their litigation impact played out in the surviving cases (13-2108/2109/2112), where the court's 2015-10-21 dismissal-without-prejudice of the three patents then under instituted IPR shows the PTAB filings directly shaped which patents remained in suit. (Mem. Op. 2015-11-06, at 2.)
• The Board's institution decision in IPR2014-01359 also confirmed the RPI dispute (DDG naming Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as RPIs; LG's attempt to add LG Electronics entities rejected). (IPR2014-01359, Paper 12; DDG mandatory notices.)

9. Final disposition / present posture

• 1:13-cv-02106 is closed. Dismissed by agreement (D.I. 19), case closed 2014-09-05, no judgment, verdict, injunction, or fee award. It is not an active matter and never generated appellate activity of its own.
• The '196 patent's claim 1 was held indefinite in the wave's 2015-11-06 Markman opinion, which is the most important legal development for that patent regardless of the Amazon case's early exit.

10. Caveats

1. Amazon's answer/counterclaims (if any) are unverified — I could not retrieve the 13-2106 docket entries between D.I. 1 and D.I. 19.
2. The institution/termination outcomes of IPR2015-00492 and IPR2015-00757 are unverified from the sources I reached.
3. The substantive holdings of the 2016-11-28 summary-judgment opinion and 2017-01-18 expert-preclusion opinion (companion cases) were not retrieved.
4. The surviving cases' eventual resolution (trial/settlement/dismissal) is unverified here.
5. The Stanford/RPX pages identify 13-2106 as involving 8 patents and one accused product; the complaint's technical allegations are quoted from PTAB exhibit copies of the wave complaints, which are the same form complaints used across the seven cases.

Primary sources: D. Del. Mem. Op. 2015-11-06 (13-2108 D.I. 112) and Mem. Op. 2016-02-23 (13-2108 D.I. 222), via Justia/CourtListener; PTAB IPR2014-01359 Papers 2, 12 and DDG mandatory notices; IPR2015-00757 Petition and Patent Owner Preliminary Response (2015-05-27); RPX Insight (13-2106 closed 2014-09-05) and Stanford NPE Litigation Database.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Let me look specifically at the Amazon.com docket and confirm counsel.

Let me pull the actual 02106 (Amazon) docket from RECAP/CourtListener and verify firm details.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiffs — Delaware Display Group LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:13‑cv‑02106‑RGA (D. Del.)

Case status note: This was part of the seven‑case Delaware wave (C.A. Nos. 13‑2106 through 13‑2112) filed 12/31/2013 by Acacia‑affiliated NPEs Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG," holder of the '196 patent) and Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT," holder of the '547, '194, '177, '660, '974, '370 and '816 patents). The Amazon case was closed 09/05/2014 (RPX Insight, dedce‑53944); Judge Andrews later recited that "the case[] against Amazon (CA No. 13‑2106 D.I. 19) w[as] dismissed by agreement" (see Del. Display Grp. LLC v. Lenovo, No. 13‑2108‑RGA, Nov. 6, 2015 opinion, at 2, Justia). Because the case terminated at the pleading stage, the appearances below are the complaint‑stage appearances and no withdrawal of counsel is reflected.

Sourcing caveat: I could not retrieve the PACER docket sheet for 13‑2106 itself. The attorney designations below are taken from (a) the D. Del. docket sheet for the companion case 13‑2109 (LG), which is the same docket text reproduced for the related cases and which expressly cross‑references 13‑2106‑RGA in the pro hac vice order, and (b) the complaint filed in 13‑2106 against Amazon (the text of which appears in IPR exhibit materials, PTAB IPR2014‑01359 Ex. 1003). The PHV motion (D.I. 6 in each of 13‑2106 through 13‑2112) and the 1/8/2014 order granting it were entered jointly in all seven cases, so the same team appeared in 13‑2106.

Local counsel — Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)

The Rule 7.1 disclosure Brian Farnan filed identified Acacia Research Group LLC (corporate parent) and Acacia Research Corporation (affiliate) — the ultimate interest behind both plaintiffs (D.I. 5).

Lead trial / national counsel — Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Dallas, TX)

2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500‑West, Dallas, TX 75201. All admitted pro hac vice on 1/8/2014 (order signed by Judge Andrews; PHV attorneys added to the electronic noticing list 1/9/2014).

The PHV motion (D.I. 6) named exactly these five Bragalone Conroy attorneys (Bragalone, Conroy, Kimble, Olejko, Kennedy) — no others — for C.A. 13‑2106 through 13‑2112.

Additional / related names (flag with caution)

• James R. Perkins (Bragalone Conroy) appears in the companion Delaware dockets and in the 2017 VIZIO opinion, but he is not listed on the 1/8/2014 PHV order in 13‑2106; I could not confirm he entered an appearance in the Amazon case specifically.
• Terry A. Saad (Bragalone Conroy) signed PTAB powers of attorney for IDT but is a PTAB practitioner, not a district‑court appearance here.
• No in‑house Acacia counsel is identified in the 13‑2106 docket materials I could review; Acacia's role appears only through the Rule 7.1 corporate‑parent disclosure.

Bottom line

The plaintiffs' counsel of record in 1:13‑cv‑02106 were Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. (lead, Farnan LLP, Wilmington) and Brian E. Farnan (local, Farnan LLP), together with Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Dallas) — Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, Daniel F. Olejko, and T. William Kennedy, Jr., all admitted pro hac vice on 1/8/2014. Because the Amazon action was dismissed by agreement in mid‑2014 shortly after the pleadings, these are the complaint‑stage appearances; I found no later substitution of counsel, and I did not independently pull the 13‑2106 PACER docket sheet, so any sealing or post‑2014 appearance changes cannot be ruled out.

I'll research counsel of record for the defendant(s) in this D. Del. action. Let me start with docket-level sources.

The case is DDG/IDT v. Amazon.com, Inc. Now let me find Amazon's counsel of record specifically.

Let me try the RECAP/CourtListener docket and the RPX docket document page directly.

I hit my research step limit before I could pull the actual 13-2106 docket sheet (RECAP/CourtListener or PACER), so I have to be candid: I could not confirm Amazon's counsel of record in this specific case from retrievable sources. Below I separate what is verified from what is only a well-grounded lead, per your instruction not to invent attorneys.

Counsel of record — Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02106-RGA (D. Del.)

1. Verified: who the defendant is

• Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation with principal offices at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98109; served via registered agent Corporation Service Company, Wilmington, DE. (Pls.' Compl., 13-2106 D.I. 1, ¶ 3 — text reproduced in PTAB/IPR exhibit copies of the wave complaint.)
• Amazon.com was the sole defendant, and no co-defendants or third parties appeared. (RPX Insight, Delaware Display Group LLC et al v. Amazon.com Inc., 1:13-cv-02106 — "1 Defendant.")
• The case is a companion to six related actions filed the same day (13-2107 HTC; 13-2108 Lenovo; 13-2109 LG; 13-2110 Pantech; 13-2111 Sony; 13-2112 Vizio). (Mem. Op. 2015-11-06, C.A. 13-2108 D.I. 112, at 1–2.)

2. Not verified — Amazon's counsel of record (the actual answer to your question)

• I could not retrieve the docket entries in which Amazon's counsel entered an appearance. The Nov. 6, 2015 Memorandum Opinion confirms the case terminated at D.I. 19 ("The cases against Amazon (CA No. 13-2106 D.I. 19) … were dismissed by agreement"), but the intervening entries (roughly D.I. 2–18) were not available in the sources I reached. The 13-2106 docket is not posted on the public Justia/CourtListener PDF mirror I could access (that mirror carried 13-2108 D.I. 112 by way of example), and RPX's page for 13-2106 shows only summary metadata (closed 09/05/2014; 249 days), not the attorney list.
• Consequence: I cannot name a lead counsel, local counsel, or in-house attorney for Amazon in 13-2106, and I will not guess. Whether Amazon even filed an answer (vs. appearing only through extensions/stipulation) is likewise unconfirmed — the earlier section of this case flagged the same gap, and it remains open.
• Where to look next (unresolved): PACER/CourtListener docket for 1:13-cv-02106 (D. Del.), specifically the docket text for the Notice of Appearance, any Rule 7.1 disclosure by Amazon, the pro hac vice motions, and the stipulation of dismissal at D.I. 19 (which typically bears the signature blocks of both sides' counsel). The IPR exhibit set contains "Delaware Lawsuit — Docket Sheet Annotated to Highlight Attorneys," but only for C.A. 13-2109 (LG), not 13-2106.

3. Verified: plaintiff-side counsel (to correctly attribute docket signatures)

Because the only counsel signatures I could confirm in the wave are on the plaintiffs' side, I note them so they are not mistaken for defense counsel:

(Source: the 13-2109 docket sheet reproduced as IPR exhibits — e.g., DDG Exhibit 2004 in IPR2015-00506 — and the wave complaints; the same Farnan/Bragalone team appears across 13-2106 through 13-2112.)

4. Best leads on Amazon's counsel — inferences from other cases, not this one

Amazon did not have a single fixed Delaware firm in this era, so the following are candidates to check, not confirmed counsel of record here:

• Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View/San Francisco, CA) — Amazon's frequent national patent-litigation counsel. Fenwick attorneys (J. David Hadden, Darren E. Donnelly, Saina S. Shamilov, William Moseley) are shown appearing for Amazon.com, Inc. in another Delaware patent matter (RECAP gov.uscourts.ded.47049, D.I. 194), and Eman Sojoodi (Fenwick & West) filed a Notice of Appearance for Amazon.com in an E.D. Tex. action in Dec. 2014 (gov.uscourts.txed.145573, D.I. 314). Whether Fenwick appeared in 13-2106 is unconfirmed.
• Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE) — Amazon's Delaware local counsel in Technology Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00690-SLR (D. Del.), via Richard L. Horwitz (VitalLaw IP Law Daily, Apr. 1, 2014, reporting that case; Horwitz also appeared for Amazon alongside Fenwick in ded.47049). Again, not confirmed for 13-2106.

⚠️ Do not treat either firm/attorney above as counsel of record in 13-2106 without confirming from the docket. Amazon used multiple firms in this period, and the only defensible statements about 13-2106 are (a) the defendant was Amazon.com, Inc., and (b) the case was dismissed by agreement at D.I. 19 on/before 09/05/2014 with no judgment.

5. Bottom line

• Confirmed defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (D. Del. 1:13-cv-02106-RGA), sole defendant; dismissed by agreement (D.I. 19), case closed 09/05/2014.
• Counsel of record for Amazon: NOT VERIFIED. The appearance/answer/pro hac entries were not retrievable; I found no court opinion, docket sheet, or news item naming Amazon's attorneys in this case.
• Strongest leads to verify: Fenwick & West LLP (national) + Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Delaware local) — supported only by their appearances for Amazon in other matters and therefore expressly flagged as unconfirmed here.
• No sealed-filing issue is apparent (the case closed long before the 2016 sealing disputes in the companion actions), so the gap is a source-access gap (recap/PACER retrieval), not a sealing problem.

If you can pull the 1:13-cv-02106 docket text from PACER or CourtListener, the Notice of Appearance and the D.I. 19 stipulation will resolve this definitively; I can then give firm, office, role, and experience notes for each signatory.