Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Innolux

Bishop Display Tech LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) managed by the principals of the prolific Texas monetization firm IP Edge LLC, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Innolux, a major Taiwanese manufacturer of display panels and related solutions. The litigation targeted Innolux's provision of thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal displays (TFT-LCDs) and products incorporating these displays, such as liquid crystal modules (LCMs), monitors, smartphones, tablets, and TVs.

The sole patent asserted in this case was U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830, titled "Semiconductor light source driving apparatus and semiconductor light source driving method." This patent broadly describes a system and method for driving a semiconductor light source, such as an LED or laser diode, by measuring the current and impedance of the light source and adjusting the power supply's output voltage accordingly. The patent was originally assigned to Panasonic Corp before being acquired by Bishop Display Tech LLC.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. While the specific judge for this case is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, other related cases filed by Bishop Display Tech in the Eastern District of Texas have been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who is known for overseeing a significant volume of patent litigation. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent infringement lawsuits, favored by patent plaintiffs due to its expeditious dockets and perceived plaintiff-friendly jury pools. This case is notable due to Bishop Display Tech's association with IP Edge LLC, a firm recognized for its high volume of patent assertions and "file-and-settle" litigation strategy across various technology sectors. The settlement of this case, like other Bishop Display Tech litigations, aligns with IP Edge's typical pattern of resolving disputes.

Bishop Display Tech LLC initiated patent infringement litigation against Innolux Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case, which centered on U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830, ultimately concluded with a settlement between the parties.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome in chronological order:

• Complaint Filed (2022-10-03): Bishop Display Tech LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Innolux Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
• Waiver of Service and Answer Deadline (2022-11-08): A waiver of service was returned executed by Bishop Display Tech LLC, indicating that Innolux Corporation was served. An answer deadline was set for January 26, 2023.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2022-01-31 - 2022-06-01): Prior to or early in the district court litigation, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2022-00508) against Bishop Display Tech LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830, the same patent asserted against Innolux. This IPR was filed on January 31, 2022, and was terminated as settled on June 1, 2022, before an institution decision. The settlement of this IPR proceeding may have influenced the subsequent settlement in the district court case against Innolux.
• Settlement and Dismissal (Post-October 2022): The lawsuit against Innolux ended after the parties reached and notified the court of a settlement. While a specific dismissal date is not publicly available in the search results, it occurred sometime after the complaint was filed in October 2022, consistent with the case's "Settled" status.

No information was found regarding pre-trial motions of substance (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay), claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions for this specific case, likely due to the early settlement.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Bishop Display Tech LLC, in Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Innolux:

Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC

• John Paul Murphy

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm Office: Fort Worth, Texas
  • Experience Note: Mr. Murphy is a founding partner of Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC and has extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Patrick Joseph Conroy

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm Office: Fort Worth, Texas (associated with the firm's main office, though no specific city was listed in the Innolux docket, his appearance in other related cases points to this office)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Conroy is a founding partner of Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC and focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation.

• Jonathan Hart Rastegar

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm Office: Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Mr. Rastegar's practice includes patent litigation in various federal district courts.

• Thomas William Kennedy, Jr.

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm Office: Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Mr. Kennedy has experience representing clients in patent infringement lawsuits.

• Janson Westmoreland

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm Office: Dallas, Texas (likely, given other Dallas attorneys from the firm)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Westmoreland practices in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement.

• Justin Bryce Kimble

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm Office: Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Mr. Kimble's practice involves various aspects of intellectual property litigation.

Note: Bishop Display Tech LLC is associated with the patent monetization firm IP Edge LLC, which frequently litigate patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas. The attorneys listed are from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, a firm often representing plaintiffs in patent infringement cases in this district. While some appearances were noted in a related but separate case involving Bishop Display Tech LLC, their consistent representation of the plaintiff in East Texas patent litigation makes it highly probable they constituted the full counsel team in the Innolux matter.

While specific details about the counsel of record for Innolux in Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Innolux are not immediately available in the provided search snippets, general information about patent litigation defense and local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas can be inferred.

Innolux is a major Taiwanese manufacturer of display panels, and as such, they would typically engage experienced patent litigation counsel, often from larger national or international firms, as well as local counsel for cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Based on general practices in the Eastern District of Texas and Innolux's involvement in other patent litigation, typical defense counsel profiles would include:

Lead Counsel/Of Counsel:
These would likely be attorneys from firms with strong intellectual property litigation practices, often with offices in major legal hubs. These firms handle the core strategic and substantive aspects of the case. While the exact attorneys for Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Innolux are not identified in the provided information, Innolux has been involved in other patent disputes, and in some PTAB proceedings, Jeffrey Johnson and Rodney Miller have been listed as petitioner counsel for Innolux in other cases. It's important to note that these specific individuals were counsel in PTAB proceedings against Phenix Longhorn, LLC, not necessarily in the district court case against Bishop Display Tech LLC.

Local Counsel:
The Eastern District of Texas frequently requires out-of-state law firms to associate with local counsel who are familiar with the court's local rules, judges, and practices. Firms frequently serving as local patent counsel in the Eastern District of Texas and known for their patent litigation experience include:

• Gillam & Smith LLP: Melissa Smith, a partner at Gillam & Smith, is noted for trying lawsuits in the state and federal courts of the Eastern District of Texas for both plaintiffs and defendants. She has served as local counsel for visiting lawyers in over three thousand patent cases and is recognized among the top lawyers in her field.
• Potter Minton Law Firm: This firm is known for its intellectual property litigation work in the Eastern District of Texas, handling hundreds of patent cases as both lead and local counsel.
• The Davis Firm P.C.: Based in the Eastern District of Texas, this firm is often retained as local counsel and participates as full partners in pre-trial and trial proceedings, including arguing major hearings and examining witnesses.
• Klemchuk LLP: This firm provides local counsel services in the Eastern District of Texas for intellectual property, patent, trademark, copyright, and commercial litigation.

It is important to note that the Eastern District of Texas does not have a specific local counsel requirement beyond attorney admission and pro hac vice admission requirements.

Without direct access to the docket for Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Innolux (Case No. 2:22-cv-00384), identifying the precise attorneys and their roles for Innolux remains elusive. The provided search results indicate the case settled, and while the initial complaint was filed in October 2022, the docket retrieved in November 2022 only showed attorney appearance for the plaintiff.