Untitled case

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

Let me dig deeper into the parallel proceedings and outcomes.

Case Overview — LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, IPR2014-01095 (PTAB)

Parties and roles. This proceeding is not itself a district‑court infringement suit but a defensive inter partes review petition filed at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and it must be understood as one front in a much larger infringement campaign. The Petitioner is LG Display Co., Ltd. (with LG Display America, Inc. identified as a real party in interest), the Korean flat‑panel maker; the Patent Owner is Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"), a Texas‑registered patent‑assertion entity and subsidiary of Acacia Research (now Acacia Research Group). IDT is a classic NPE/PAE: it makes no products, was founded in March 2013, and shares its Austin address (1701 Directors Blvd., Ste. 300) with dozens of other Acacia shell entities. IDT's asserted portfolio was assembled through a chain of transfers — inventor Jeffery R. Parker of Lumitex → Solid State Opto Ltd. → Rambus (which bought the optical patents for a reported ~$26M) → Acacia Research Group → IDT (RPX Insight; Techdirt; STPI/iknow). In the district‑court litigation, IDT and co‑plaintiff Delaware Display Group LLC (another Acacia sub) appeared as plaintiffs; LG and other OEMs were defendants.

Patents and accused technology. The patent at issue, U.S. 8,215,816 ("Light emitting panel assemblies," Parker), issued July 10, 2012 from application 13/315,412 (filed Dec. 9, 2011) but claims priority to a June 27, 1995 ancestor (U.S. 5,613,751). In one line: it claims an edge‑lit LCD backlight assembly — a light source; a panel member with an input edge and a light‑emitting surface bearing a pattern of "light‑extracting deformities"; a tray or housing with a cavity that entirely receives the panel; end‑edge and side‑edge reflectors; an additional component overlying the panel; the panel being wider than it is tall; and an input edge with a refractive surface that spreads the light "more in the width direction" as it enters the panel (claim 1, '816 patent col. 9–10; RPX patent page). The '816 is one of a family of eight asserted "light emitting panel assembly" patents (also 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and DDG's 7,914,196), all directed to edge‑lit backlight/light‑guide structures used in LCD screens. The accused products were accordingly end products containing edge‑lit LCDs — laptops, tablets, smartphones, monitors, TVs, GPS navigation units, cameras, and even automobiles (defendants across the campaign included Amazon, HTC, Lenovo, LG, Pantech, Sony, VIZIO, Acer, Dell, HP, Apple, Canon, Nikon, Garmin, TomTom, Mercedes‑Benz, BMW and others) (RPX; RPX).

Procedural posture and venue. IPR2014-01095 was filed July 1, 2014 challenging claims 1–4 of the '816, and on January 13, 2015 the Board (Judges Giannetti, Powell, and Bunting; opinion by Bunting) issued Paper 9 denying institution — the Board found LG Display failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of four obviousness grounds (Pristash, Gyoko, Murase and others, each in view of Tsunoda or Imai) because the petition asserted combinations without a fact‑based motivation‑to‑combine rationale (Nat'l Law Review/Drinker Biddle summary; PTAB Trial Blog copy of decision). IDT had argued the petition was time‑barred under §315(b) as LG Display was a privy of LG Electronics (served Jan. 2, 2014), but the Board disposed of the case on the merits. The IPR ran in parallel with the underlying D. Del. actions Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 1:13‑cv‑02109, and sister cases 13‑2106 through 13‑2112 before Judge Richard G. Andrews (D. Del.), and with earlier E.D. Tex. suits (IDT v. Acer, No. 2:13‑cv‑522, Magistrate Judge Payne, Aug. 26, 2014; IDT v. Hyundai, Judge Gilstrap, May 4, 2015). LG Display concurrently filed IPRs against four sibling patents (IPR2014‑01092, ‑01094, ‑01096, ‑01097), and follow‑on '816 challenges were filed by LG Electronics (IPR2015‑00496, also denied institution July 20, 2015), Mercedes‑Benz (IPR2015‑00366/IPR2015‑01114), and KJ Pretech (IPR2015‑01866) (Docket Alarm; IPR2015‑00496 decision).

Why the case is notable. Three things stand out. First, it is a clean PTAB practice lesson: the Board's denial turned not on whether each element was known, but on the petitioner's failure to explain why a skilled artisan would combine the references — a "motivation to combine" teaching point that law‑firm commentary flagged for practitioners. Second, it exemplifies the mid‑2010s Acacia/NPE assertion wave: the '816 family (originally Lumitex/Rambus assets) generated dozens of suits against display OEMs, and the IPR linkage mattered offensively and defensively — the D. Del. court noted that in October 2015 plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice claims on three patents that were then subject to instituted IPRs, while the '816's own IPRs were both denied institution (D. Del. Memorandum Opinion, 13‑2108, Nov. 6, 2015). Third, the '816 did not survive the district‑court claim‑construction fight: Judge Andrews held the "more in the width direction" limitation indefinite under §112 ¶2, agreeing with Judge Gilstrap's Texas analysis that multiple plausible constructions existed — a finding that, combined with the expired status of the patent (Rambus/IDT let it lapse for non‑payment of maintenance fees), underscores how fragile this asserted family proved to be (vLex/Justia opinion; USPTO.report).

Sourcing caveats: The January 13, 2015 non‑institution decision and the identity of the panel are well documented (Paper 9; National Law Review; Docket Alarm). The precise disposition of the §315(b) time‑bar argument is less clear from the secondary sources I could retrieve — the decision as summarized rests on the merits, and I could not verify a separate ruling on privity. I also could not confirm from primary sources which three of the eight asserted patents were dismissed in Delaware in October 2015, nor the final dollar terms of any IDT–LG settlement/license; those points should be checked against PACER and the docket before being relied on.

I'll research this case. Note upfront: the metadata describes a PTAB proceeding (IPR2014-01095) on U.S. 8,215,816, but you're asking about the underlying district court litigation — so I'll research both the IPR and the parallel infringement suits involving this patent family.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the PTAB outcomes for the other '816 IPRs and the district court dispositions.

Key PTAB outcome found. Let me detail the final written decision, the joined VIZIO/Lenovo IPRs, and the district court dispositions.

Threshold point: the metadata describes a PTAB case, not the infringement suit

IPR2014-01095 is not a district court litigation — it is an inter partes review at the PTAB (LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, U.S. Patent 8,215,816). The infringement litigation over the '816 patent is a separate, sprawling multi-district campaign (E.D. Tex. and D. Del.) brought by Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"), an Acacia Research subsidiary. Because you asked for the litigation chronology, I've assembled the district court case and the parallel PTAB proceedings, since on this patent the PTAB — not the courts — produced the dispositive merits outcome.

Bottom line: The '816 patent's asserted claims were ultimately cancelled by the PTAB, not invalidated by a jury. IPR2014-01095 itself was denied institution on 2015-01-13; the patent was killed three years later in a different IPR (IPR2015-01866, FWD 2017-03-15), after a Delaware court had already held claim 1 indefinite (2015-11-06). No verdict on the '816 patent appears to have been reached.

---

1. The patent and the campaign (2013)

• U.S. 8,215,816 "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," inventor Jeffery R. Parker; issued 2012-07-10 from App. 13/315,412 (filed 2011-12-09); earliest priority 1995-06-27. Claim 1 (the only independent claim) recites an LED-lit panel member in a tray/housing, light-extracting "deformities," edge reflectors, and — critically — an input edge with "a refractive surface that redirects the light output distribution of the light source more in the width direction as the light enters the panel member."
• The family was formerly Rambus-owned and transferred to Acacia in March 2013. IDT is the owner; sister Acacia sub Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG") owns U.S. 7,914,196. (RPX Insight, 2014-01-09)
• June 2013: IDT launched the E.D. Tex. campaign asserting seven patents including the '816: IDT v. Acer (2:13-cv-00522), v. Dell (…523), v. Hewlett-Packard (…524), v. Huawei (…525), v. Blackberry (…526), v. ZTE (…52x). (Cases listed in Mercedes-Benz's IPR2015-01114 petition, PTACTS)

2. Filing & initial pleadings — the Delaware wave (2013-12-31)

On 2013-12-31, DDG + IDT filed seven related suits in D. Del., all assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews:

(Recited in the D. Del. claim construction opinion, Delaware Display Grp. LLC v. Lenovo Holding Co., No. 13-2108-RGA, D.I. 112 (Nov. 6, 2015), Justia)

• Service on LGE USA and LGD USA occurred 2014-01-02 — the date that would later drive the § 315(b) one-year clock in the IPRs.
• A second wave followed against auto/OEM defendants: IDT v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l & Mercedes-Benz USA, No. 2:14-cv-535 (E.D. Tex.), served 2014-04-28/30 and later consolidated into lead No. 2:14-cv-201; IDT v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:14-cv-850 (D. Del.), filed 2014-06-30; and a Ford action in D. Del.
• Answers/counterclaims: the dockets show the standard pattern — extensions of time to answer (e.g., GM D.I. 7 and 10), and GM asserted counterclaims (pleading caption shows "Counter Claimant and Defendant" GM). I did not retrieve the text of any answer or counterclaim, so I can't characterize specific invalidity/non-infringement theories as pleaded.

3. Claim construction — three Markman proceedings, and the ruling that mattered

The same eight disputed terms were litigated three times across two districts (all patents share a common written description):

(a) First Texas Markman — IDT v. Acer, No. 2:13-cv-522-JRG (E.D. Tex.), 2014-08-26 (2014 WL 4230037, Mag. J. Payne). Hearing held 2014-07-30; construed "transition region," "predetermined," and "pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss" across the '547, '194, '177, '660, '974, '370 and '816 patents. Notably, the court granted defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's expert declaration (D.I. 85, 2014-07-11), so no extrinsic expert evidence was considered. (vLex)

**(b) Second Texas Markman — IDT v. Hyundai Motor Co., 2015-05-04** (2015 WL 2090651, J. Gilstrap). Construed seven of the eight terms, including "more in the width direction" — which Gilstrap treated as a permissible "before and after" comparative (i.e., not indefinite), along with "in close proximity," "positioned near," and "optical elements."

**(c) Delaware Markman — Delaware Display Grp. LLC v. Lenovo Holding Co., No. 13-2108-RGA (D. Del.), 2015-11-06** (D.I. 112; hearing 2015-10-27, D.I. 90). Judge Andrews construed the terms across the '974, '370, '816 and '196 patents. The two holdings that decided the litigation:

• '816 patent, "more in the width direction" — INDEFINITE under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. The court found three plausible competing readings ("width vs. height," "width vs. length," "width vs. prior travel direction") and held the term failed Nautilus's reasonable-certainty standard. This reads directly on claim 1 — the sole independent claim — i.e., the asserted '816 claim was held indefinite in Delaware.
• '196 patent, "relatively low angles" — INDEFINITE (§ 112 ¶ 2).
• Also: "transition region" construed as "a region configured to transmit light from a light source to a light emitting area"; "pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss" held non-limiting (surplusage/whereby clause); "predetermined," "optical elements," "positioned near," and "in close proximity" given plain meaning (indefiniteness rejected).

This is the single most important district-court merits event for the '816 patent. Note the 3-way split among judges on the same term — Gilstrap read it as definite; Andrews read it as indefinite.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2015-05-06: The Pantech action (13-2110) was stayed pending Pantech's bankruptcy (D.I. 39). Forced halt, not a merits event.
• 2015-10-21: Following a hearing on the joint motion to stay pending IPR, plaintiffs elected to dismiss without prejudice all claims on three patents then subject to instituted IPRs (D.I. 88, 89); the court then denied the joint motion to stay (D.I. 90). This is the classic IPR/litigation interplay maneuver: IDT mooted the stay fight by dropping the IPR-encumbered patents rather than litigating them in parallel. (D. Del. D.I. 112 at 1–2.)
• Delaware discovery: in the LG action, plaintiffs represented by 2014 that the court had issued a claim construction order and the parties had taken "over 10 depositions" with "numerous others" scheduled (Patent Owner's Preliminary Response, IPR2014-01095, PTACTS).
• PTAB discovery: Patent Owner filed a motion for additional discovery on privity between K.J. Pretech and LG Display (opposed by Petitioner, Oct. 2015, IPR2015-01866), and deposed IDT's expert Kenneth Werner on 2016-09-21 (Ex. 1026). The privity/§ 315(b) theme ran through the whole campaign.

5. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to strike plaintiff's claim construction expert (E.D. Tex., granted 2014-07-11, D.I. 85) — significant: it stripped IDT of extrinsic support in the Texas Markman.
• Joint motion to stay pending IPR (D. Del.) — denied 2015-10-21 after plaintiffs voluntarily narrowed the case. (D.I. 90.)
• Motions to terminate PTAB proceedings on settlement (see §7), which functioned as the real "disposition" vehicle.
• I found no summary judgment ruling on the '816 patent, and no JMOL/new-trial/fee motion on it.

6. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

• No verdict on the '816 patent. I found no trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial or fee opinion on this patent.
• The January 2017 oral hearing transcript (IPR2015-01866) places district court trials in time: counsel for VIZIO (Jason Lo, Gibson Dunn) and Lenovo (Eric Klein, Vinson & Elkins) attended because "both Lenovo and VIZIO have trials that are imminent on two of these three patents within the next month or so" — i.e., E.D. Tex./D. Del. trials in early 2017 on the '974 and '370 patents (not the '816). (PTACTS hearing record, 2017-01-10)

7. Settlement, dismissal, judgment — final disposition

• Dismissals by agreement: Amazon (13-2106 D.I. 19), HTC (13-2107 D.I. 23), and Sony (13-2111 D.I. 69) — all dismissed by agreement (D.I. 112 at 1).
• Pantech: stayed 2015-05-06 for bankruptcy (13-2110 D.I. 39).
• General Motors: settled — GM letter re settlement agreement filed 2015-10-15 (D.I. 48), stipulation of voluntary dismissal 2015-10-23 (D.I. 50), so ordered 2015-10-23 (D.I. 51), with the § 290 report to the Commissioner (D.I. 52). (UniCourt docket)
• Mercedes-Benz: the auto cases and Mercedes' IPRs were terminated by joint motion — Joint Motion to Terminate Proceedings for Inter Partes Review filed 2015-06-30, covering the '660 patent and IPR2015-01114 ('816). (DocketAlarm) This is a settlement marker even though I could not retrieve the license/agreement terms.
• No appeal found from the Delaware indefiniteness ruling or from the '816 final written decision. I could not verify an appeal to the Federal Circuit on the '816; treat that as unconfirmed rather than as "no appeal."
• Present posture (as of 2026-09-15): the '816 asserted claims are cancelled (see §8); the Delaware '816 claims were dismissed/held indefinite; the district court docket in which IPR2014-01095's patent owner appeared (13-2108/2109/2112) is long closed. The litigation as to this patent is effectively over.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings on U.S. 8,215,816 — and their effect

IPR2014-01095 (your metadata case), in detail:

• Panel: APJs Giannetti, Powell, and Bunting; opinion authored by Bunting. Petitioner counsel: Robert G. Pluta et al., Mayer Brown LLP. Patent Owner counsel: Justin B. Kimble, Bragalone Conroy PC.
• Grounds: four § 103 grounds using Pristash (US 5,005,108), Funamoto (US 5,619,351), Gyoko (JP H6-273756) and Murase (US 5,178,447) as primaries, each in view of Tsunoda (JP H6-051130) or Imai (US 5,253,089), plus the '816 patent's admitted prior art and the Escuti declaration.
• Claim construction: BRI under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Petitioner proposed a construction of "deformities" (the parties had stipulated to that construction in the district court), but the Board found no need to construe any term.
• Holding: Petitioner failed to articulate a fact-based reason why a POSITA would substitute Tsunoda's/Imai's refractive input edge into Pristash/Gyoko/Murase. Per the Board (and as summarized by Drinker Biddle): "It is not sufficient to merely demonstrate that each of the components is known in the prior art; a Petitioner must also explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine those components and why." Each of the four grounds failed for at least that reason. (National Law Review V:26; denial PDF)
• § 315(b)/RPI issue expressly not reached: IDT argued the petition was time-barred because LG Electronics, Inc. and LGE USA were unnamed RPIs/privies (one-year clock from 2014-01-02 service). The Board declined to address it because it disposed of the petition on the merits — a discretionary dodge that left the privity question open.
• Concurrent LG petitions on siblings: IPR2014-01092 ('974), -01094 ('660), -01096 ('370), -01097 ('194).

The IPR that decided the patent — IPR2015-01866:

• Filed 2015-09-11 by K.J. Pretech (a Korean backlight maker; LG Display's supplier — which is precisely why IDT pressed the privity/§ 315(b) time-bar theory). Grounds: Tsunoda anticipation § 102; Pristash obviousness § 103; Pristash + Suzawa § 103.
• Instituted 2016-03-17 on claims 1, 3, 4.
• Oral hearing 2017-01-10, Detroit (Hearing Room G), with Judges Giannetti and Quinn appearing remotely. Arguments turned on the "deformities" construction and whether Tsunoda/Pristash disclosed the "refractive surface… more in the width direction," and — for the sibling '974 — the "tray or housing … posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount" limitation. IDT also renewed its § 315(b) privity argument and flagged the then-pending Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom en banc argument as a potential route to Federal Circuit review of the Board's RPI determinations.
• Final Written Decision 2017-03-15: claims 1, 3, and 4 unpatentable. (Reported by PTAB analytics sources — ExParte; GreyB IPVerse, which lists Status "Final Written Decision," Outcome "Unpatentable," termination 2017-03-15.)
• Caveat: I have the FWD date and outcome from third-party PTAB databases, not the decision text. I have not confirmed which ground carried the day, nor whether claim 2 (challenged in -01095 but not in -01866) survived. Claim 2 was never reached in -01095 and does not appear to have been challenged in -01866, so it may have survived the PTAB even as claim 1 fell.

Effect of the PTAB track on the litigation: LG Display's and LG Electronics' IPRs failed (-01095, -00496), Mercedes' failed (-01114), but K.J. Pretech's succeeded. The practical consequence was that IDT's settlements (GM, Mercedes, and by implication others) were negotiated against a patent asset whose independent claim had been held indefinite in Delaware (2015-11-06) and was then cancelled by the Board (2017-03-15).

---

Confidence notes / gaps

• Well-sourced: the PTAB filings, institution denials, panels, counsel, and the Delaware indefiniteness/claim construction rulings (full opinion text retrieved); the docket-level GM dismissal and Pantech stay.
• Third-party-sourced (not primary): the IPR2015-01866 FWD outcome (2017-03-15, unpatentable) — from aggregators, not the decision itself.
• Inference, flagged: that IPR2016-00910 = VIZIO and IPR2016-00914 = Lenovo. The hearing transcript says only that "Case Numbers 2016-910 and 2016-914 have been joined" and separately lists VIZIO (Gibson Dunn) and Lenovo (V&E) counsel; the mapping is my inference from counsel of record in Delaware.
• Not found / unverified: a final E.D. Tex. disposition for the 2013 Acer/Dell/HP/Huawei/Blackberry/ZTE actions; the settlement/license terms with GM or Mercedes; the substantive content of any answer or counterclaim; whether the '816 FWD was appealed; and whether the case is formally closed on PACER as of 2026-09-15 (I did not confirm a current PACER docket state). I would not assert any of these either way.
• The '816 patent term: counsel at the 2017 hearing referred to a patent having expired (with Philips governing construction); it is likely the '816 was at or near end of term by 2016–2017 given the 1995-06-27 priority, but I have not verified its expiration date and won't state one.

I'll search for press coverage from several angles.

Mostly primary/legal sources so far. Let me search news-specific angles.

Press and analysis coverage of IPR2014-01095 and the '816 campaign

The PTAB ruling itself drew practitioner-press attention, not news attention. The only substantive published analysis of IPR2014-01095 I could locate is a case note by Faegre Drinker Biddle (then Drinker Biddle) in the National Law Review, published 2015-01-26 as Volume V, Number 26, and mirrored on the firm's PTAB Trial Blog along with the Paper 9 decision. It reported that the Board denied institution on all four obviousness grounds against claims 1–4, that the Board agreed with LG Display that Tsunoda discloses a refractive input surface but found no "fact-based rationale to support replacing the input edge of the light emitting assembly of Pristash with the light input edge of Tsunoda," and that the other three grounds fell "for at least the same reason." The piece was framed as a portable practice lesson rather than as news, with the takeaway that "[i]t is not sufficient to merely demonstrate that each of the components is known in the prior art; a Petitioner must also explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine those components and why such a person would be motivated to do so." The same firm ran a companion note on the parallel '974 denial (IPR2014-01092) the next day in National Law Review, so the LG Display petitions were covered as a series of PTAB rulings, not as an industry story. I did not find Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra coverage addressing IPR2014-01095 specifically — if Law360 covered the Jan. 13, 2015 denial, it did not surface in any of my searches (caption, party names, patent number, or "motivation to combine" angles).

Coverage of the underlying campaign came from legal-trade and IP-policy outlets, and it is where the reported numbers live. A MandourLaw write-up reported the June 2013 Eastern District of Texas filing against Dell, HP, BlackBerry, Acer, Huawei and ZTE, listed the same seven patents at issue in the Delaware wave (including U.S. 8,215,816), named Jeffery Parker as inventor, and reported that the complaint alleged the defendants were notified in August 2012 and sought treble damages for willful infringement plus an injunction. A Chinese-language industry analysis by Taiwan's STPI/iKnow covered the same filing as a case study in patent-monetization chains, reporting the Lumitex → Solid State Opto → Rambus → Acacia → IDT transfer path, the reported US$26 million Rambus paid for the optical patents, and that IDT held 51 U.S. patents at the time. Techdirt went furthest beyond the record, reporting that IDT had 34 cases in litigation, had "already secured a licensing agreement from Garmin," and — in a second Apple suit — was "asking for nearly $6 billion in 'accrued royalties'"; it also quoted Acacia's Marvin Key defending the business model ("when someone is sued, whether a small or big company, that every single one of those cases is frivolous, abusive and without merit. And that's simply untrue") and cited Acacia's own claims of $1 billion in generated revenue and $455 million returned to patent partners. I could not confirm the publication date or headline of that Techdirt item from the retrieved page, so treat the figures as Techdirt's reporting rather than verified docket facts.

Settlement reporting was press-release driven and disclosed no money. IP Frontline, via ciplawyer, reported in August 2015 that IDT and Delaware Display Group had "entered into a settlement and patent license agreement with Sony Corporation" resolving the Delaware litigation — the Sony action being C.A. No. 13-2111 in the same wave. No financial terms were reported, which is consistent with the earlier sections' caveat that settlement values across this campaign remain unverified.

Where accounts diverge from the record. The MandourLaw piece, though it accurately reproduces the seven patent numbers, misidentifies the plaintiff as "Innovative Display Technologies, Inc." and describes it as "based in Plano, Texas" and the filing location as "San Diego" — the entity is Innovative Display Technologies LLC, and the suit was filed in Marshall, Texas. Techdirt's framing ("patent troll," "weaponized patents," "shakedown") is explicitly editorial and its $6 billion figure is a pleaded demand, not an adjudication. More significantly, none of the press coverage I found reported the two events that actually decided this patent: Judge Andrews's 2015-11-06 Delaware holding that "more in the width direction" was indefinite, and the 2017-03-15 K.J. Pretech final written decision cancelling claims 1, 3 and 4. Those outcomes appear only in court opinions and PTAB records, not in the press — so a reader relying on the news coverage alone would not learn that the '816 patent was ultimately killed.

Sources

• 7. LG Display, Petitioner herein, manufactures various Liquid Crystal Display Modules ("LCMs"), which are used for the displays ...
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Published on The National Law Review https://natlawreview
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• LG Display, Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies: Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2014-01095 - Published on The National Law Review https://dev
• LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC
• Published on The National Law Review https://dev
• Intellectual Property - September 02, 2026
• Case IPR2014- 01094 Patent 7,404,660
• Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC By: Justin B
• PTAB Case List for Patent Owner ACACIA RESEARCH GROUP LLC - Applied Filters: PATENT OWNER: Acacia Research Group LLCClear All
• Case IPR2014- 01357 Patent 6,755,547

I'll research this IPR and the counsel involved.

I have the core case identification. Now let me find the specific counsel of record.

Let me verify the petitioner's counsel and firm details, plus the patent owner's counsel.

Threshold point: there is no "plaintiff" in this proceeding

IPR2014-01095 is an inter partes review before the PTAB, not a district court infringement action. There are only two parties, and neither is styled a plaintiff:

• Petitioner / challenger: LG Display Co., Ltd. (naming LG Display America, Inc. as real party‑in‑interest) — the moving party, i.e., the functional analogue to a "plaintiff" here.
• Patent Owner / respondent: Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") — which is the party your case metadata lists under "Defendant(s)," even though in the parallel litigation IDT was the patentee/plaintiff.

The underlying infringement suit the petition responds to is Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del., filed Dec. 31, 2013), where the plaintiff was Delaware Display Group LLC / Innovative Display Technologies LLC and the defendants were LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., and LG Display America, Inc. The Board denied institution on Jan. 13, 2015 (Paper 9, Bunting, joined by Giannetti and Powell). (NLRev summary; Decision PDF)

Because of that ambiguity I give you both sides' PTAB counsel below.

---

A. Petitioner's counsel — LG Display Co., Ltd. (the "plaintiff-side" party)

All from Mayer Brown LLP. The lineup is documented in Patent Owner's exhibit/declaration filed in the closely related LG petitions, which states: "In the instant petition, the primary attorney is Robert G. Pluta of Mayer Brown LLP and the secondary attorneys are Amanda K. Streff, Baldine B. Paul, and Anita Y. Lam also of Mayer Brown LLP… one other Mayer Brown LLP attorney is participating in this IPR: Jamie B. Beaber," for a total of five Mayer Brown attorneys filing on behalf of LG Display. (PTAB document, ptacts.uspto.gov)

Caveat on sourcing: My best direct confirmation of the exact attorney lineup on the -01095 petition is a declaration filed by the patent owner in a related LG proceeding (the docket item cites the same July 1, 2014 filing date and the same five Mayer Brown names, and the service list uses the same @mayerbrown.com addresses: rpluta, bpaul, astreff, alam, jbeaber). I did not personally retrieve the Paper 2 power of attorney from the -01095 docket itself, so treat the per‑attorney role designations as well‑substantiated but not docket‑verified for -01095 specifically. I also did not confirm any local counsel in the PTAB proceeding — PTAB practice does not require one, and none is indicated.

---

B. Patent Owner's counsel — Innovative Display Technologies LLC (listed as "Defendant" in your metadata)

IDT's PTAB counsel across the whole LG Display IPR family (including -01095) is the Dallas IP boutique Bragalone Conroy P.C. The updated power of attorney expressly covers IPR2014-01092, -01094, -01095, -01096, -01097 and numerous others, and appoints:

---

C. What I could not confirm

• Delaware local counsel for IDT in the underlying Delaware Display Group v. LG Electronics (1:13-cv-02109) action — I did not verify the D. Del. docket/appearances, so I won't name anyone. That case was consolidated within the Delaware Display Group multi‑defendant MDL‑style cluster (the related Acer and Lenovo claim‑construction opinions are in the record).
• In‑house counsel for either LG Display or IDT — none is identified in PTAB filings; power of attorney and mandatory notices name outside counsel only.
• Whether Anita Y. Lam's registration number or office should be listed; not verified.
• No filings in this proceeding were sealed as far as I can tell — the proceeding simply terminated at the institution stage (Paper 9), so the counsel record is short.

I'll research counsel for both sides of this IPR, since the metadata's party labeling needs checking.

Good leads. Let me confirm the specific IPR2014-01095 filings and the parallel district court counsel.

Counsel of record — IPR2014‑01095

Threshold correction to the case metadata. This is an IPR, and there is no "defendant" in the Article III sense. The metadata's "Defendant(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC" is a role inversion worth flagging explicitly: IDT is the Patent Owner (the responding party), and LG Display Co., Ltd. is the Petitioner (the party that was the defendant in the parallel D. Del. infringement actions). I've therefore broken counsel out by side and labeled each role accurately, since a reader relying on the metadata alone would misidentify who is adverse to whom. Note also that the Board denied institution (Paper 9, Jan. 13, 2015), so neither side ever "appeared" at a trial on the merits; the relevant counsel records are the petitions/mandatory notices and the patent owner's powers of attorney.

---

Petitioner side — LG Display Co., Ltd. (the defendant in the parallel litigation)

All Petitioner-side counsel were outside counsel at Mayer Brown LLP; no LG Display in-house attorney is identified in the retrieved PTAB filings.

Sourcing. These five are identified in an IDT-filed PTAB document that recites the five IPRs LG Display filed on July 1, 2014 — a set that expressly includes "IPR2014‑01095 against the '816 patent" — stating: "In the instant petition, the primary attorney is Robert G. Pluta of Mayer Brown LLP and the secondary attorneys are Amanda K. Streff, Baldine B. Paul, and Anita Y. Lam also of Mayer Brown LLP," with Jamie B. Beaber as the fifth attorney (PTACTS petition document, USPTO). Confirming the same team's involvement in the '816 proceeding, IDT's May 26, 2015 service certificate in the related LG Display IPR was directed to Pluta, Paul, Streff, Lam and Beaber at mayerbrown.com, plus a dedicated IPR alias, DDGIPR@mayerbrown.com (same PTACTS document).

Caveat: the retrieved document describes "the instant petition" while enumerating five IPRs filed the same day, so I could not isolate a petition-specific power of attorney naming counsel solely for IPR2014‑01095. The five Mayer Brown attorneys are documented as the team on the July 1, 2014 LG Display filings as a group; individual firm office locations are not confirmed by the sources I retrieved (Pluta's profile appears under Mayer Brown's German-language site, which does not resolve to a U.S. office).

---

Patent Owner side — Innovative Display Technologies LLC (the party mislabeled "Defendant")

Counsel of record were outside IPR specialists at Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas, Texas. No Acacia/IDT in-house attorney is named.

Sourcing. IDT's "Patent Owner's Updated Power of Attorney" dated February 10, 2015, filed under 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b), appoints the Bragalone Conroy practitioners "to transact all business in the United States Patent and Trademark Office associated with IPR2014‑01092; IPR2014‑01094; IPR2014‑01095; IPR2014‑01096; IPR2014‑01097…" and lists Kimble, Bragalone, Saad, Kliewer and Kennedy with direct phone numbers (IPR2014‑01094 docket document). The same roster and the same patent list (including -01095) appear in IDT's updated POA filed in Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC v. IDT, IPR2015‑00363 (docket document). Because the POA instrument is family-wide, the individual attorney carrying the laboring oar in -01095 specifically isn't identified by these documents; Kimble is listed first and is the natural lead.

---

District court counsel (context) — not verified

The task asks for "defense" counsel in "this patent infringement case," but the only case in the metadata is the IPR itself. The parallel infringement actions referenced in the Board's decision — Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 1:13‑cv‑02109 (D. Del.), and sister cases 13‑2106 through 13‑2112 before Judge Andrews — would be where LG's litigation defense counsel appear. I was unable to retrieve docket sheets or opinions identifying those firms/attorneys in this research pass (my searches on the D. Del. case number and standard Delaware-defense firm combinations returned no results). I am therefore not naming any Delaware or national counsel for the LG defendants, and I would not infer them. Two documented facts do bear on that defense team, though: per IDT's PTAB filing, the same Mayer Brown attorneys (Beaber, Pluta and Streff) appeared for Dell on Sept. 5, 2014, and Beaber, Pluta, Streff, Lam and Paul appeared for HP on Oct. 8, 2014 in the related suits, notwithstanding Dell's and HP's other retained national and local counsel — the factual basis for IDT's §315(b) privity/time-bar theory, which it raised in a later filing. That filing also quotes LG Display's counsel Pluta admitting an "indemnification relationship between Dell and HP and LG Display."

---

Contradictions and open items

1. Metadata role error: "Defendant(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC" conflicts with the docket reality that IDT is the Patent Owner. Reported as a discrepancy, not repeated.
2. No petition-specific POA retrieved for IPR2014‑01095; the Petitioner-side roster is drawn from a group description of the five July 1, 2014 LG Display IPRs and a related service list, and Patent-Owner-side from a family-wide POA that names -01095.
3. Unverified: Mayer Brown office locations for each attorney; whether any LG Display in-house counsel participated; and all Delaware district-court defense counsel names.
4. The earlier case summary's §315(b) caveat stands — the Board decided on the merits (Paper 9), and I found no separate privity ruling in the sources retrieved.