Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Toshiba Corporation et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches to verify the parties, patents, and procedural history.

Let me dig deeper into the specific patents, the complaint details, and the case outcome.

Let me verify the '405 patent details, the Toshiba docket outcome, and any IPR linkage.

Case Overview: Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. 1:15-cv-00608 (D. Del.)

Parties and economics. Collabo Innovations, Inc. is not an operating company but a patent-assertion vehicle. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wi-LAN Technologies Inc., which is in turn owned by Wi-LAN Inc. (TSX: WIN / NASDAQ: WILN), the Ottawa-based licensing company now operating as Quarterhill Inc.; Collabo's own PTAB mandatory notices list "Collabo Innovations, Inc., Wi-LAN Technologies Inc. and Wi-LAN Inc." as real parties-in-interest (PTAB RPI notice, IPR2016-00939). The portfolio was acquired from Panasonic Corporation in December 2013, so this is a classic PAE monetization of an acquired operating-company portfolio, not a university or competitor suit (WiLAN press release, Dec. 30, 2015). The defendants are the Toshiba parent (Toshiba Corporation, Tokyo) plus its U.S. distribution/sales arms, Toshiba America Inc. and Toshiba America Electronic Components Inc. Plaintiff-side counsel of record in the UniCourt docket were Delaware's Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan) together with WiLAN's regular Texas/California patent counsel — Monte M. Bond, Nicholas C. Kliewer, Patrick J. Conroy, and Jeffrey R. Bragalone (UniCourt docket summary). I could not verify Toshiba's defense counsel for this specific case (Finnegan is documented as Toshiba's counsel only in the earlier, unrelated Wi-LAN USA v. Toshiba S.D. Fla. television case).

Accused technology and asserted patents. The accusation targets Toshiba's CMOS image sensors and downstream products containing them. The complaint specifically identifies Toshiba's CMOS image sensors "such as the Model 5105 CMOS image sensor, and other Toshiba CMOS products," and — under an indirect/contributory-infringement theory — downstream cameras such as the Nikon D5200 and Nikon D7000, alleging Toshiba knew its sensors had no substantial non-infringing use and that customers directly infringed by normal intended use (Collabo complaint text via RPX). Willfulness/notice is anchored to an April 30, 2014 letter to Toshiba's semiconductor president Yasuo Naruke (for the '405 patent) and a July 2, 2014 meeting at Toshiba's Tokyo offices (for the '543 patent), id. The case metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 6,166,405 (issued Dec. 26, 2000) as the patent at issue — a Panasonic-origin solid-state/MOS image-sensor patent in the same family as Collabo's other asserted CMOS-sensor patents (the photodiode/transfer-gate/floating-diffusion/reset/amplifier pixel architecture that appears throughout this portfolio; see, e.g., the family publication US 2015/0014753). One sourcing caveat: the archived complaint text also contains a Count II asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,696,543, another solid-state imaging patent from the same portfolio, so the case may have originally pleaded both patents even though the case metadata here records only the '405 — I could not independently confirm the final set of asserted patents. I also could not verify the precise title or claim language of the '405 itself from the sources retrieved, so the one-line technical sketch above is drawn from the portfolio family rather than the patent's own claims.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed July 16, 2015 in the District of Delaware and assigned to Judge Sue L. Robinson, one of the country's most experienced patent jurists (UniCourt). Delaware mattered for two reasons: it was then (pre-TC Heartland, 2017) the dominant and most plaintiff-friendly patent venue, and Toshiba's U.S. subsidiaries gave it a straightforward domestic-venue hook. Timing also mattered — the case was filed in the middle of WiLAN/Collabo's coordinated 2014–2016 campaign against essentially the entire CMOS image-sensor industry: Collabo v. Aptina/ON Semiconductor (1:14-cv-01093, D. Del., filed Aug. 22, 2014, closed Oct. 19, 2015), Collabo v. Advanced Semiconductor Engineering (1:15-cv-00783), Collabo v. Sony (1:15-cv-01094), and later Collabo v. OmniVision (1:16-cv-00197) and Collabo v. AMD (W.D. Tex., 2018) (RPX Aptina docket; Stanford NPE database). The record is notable for its quick, quiet resolution: on December 30, 2015, WiLAN announced that Collabo had "entered into a patent license agreement with Toshiba Corporation relating to image sensing technology" that "resolves litigation pending in the District of Delaware," with confidential consideration — i.e., the case ended in a settlement-license roughly five months after filing, not a judgment (WiLAN press release; WiLAN AIF). This makes it a representative example of the NPE "sue-to-license" pattern in image sensors: Toshiba joined ON Semiconductor, STATS ChipPAC, Powertech and later OmniVision as Collabo licensees (Quarterhill/WiLAN release, Dec. 13, 2018). The IPR linkage is real but indirect: Sony (not Toshiba) filed a 2016–2017 IPR wave against other Collabo/Panasonic imaging patents — IPR2016-00938/-00939 ('493 patent), IPR2016-00940/-00941 ('714 patent), and IPR2017-00958/-00960 ('034 patent) — with the Board invalidating claims and the Federal Circuit affirming over Collabo's constitutional challenges (Collabo then sought certiorari) (Sony v. Collabo FWD, IPR2016-00941; Sony v. Collabo IPR2016-00960 institution decision). I found no verified IPR petition against the '405 patent in this case, so the Toshiba dispute appears to have been resolved commercially before PTAB proceedings were needed. Finally, market context heightens the significance: Toshiba was then a meaningful CMOS-sensor supplier (its sensors powered Nikon DSLRs), and it was in the process of exiting the image-sensor business (widely reported as sold to Sony in 2015–2016) — a reminder that the target of an NPE campaign can dissolve through corporate restructuring rather than litigation.

Sourcing caveats. Verified from the sources above: party identities and Collabo's WiLAN/Quarterhill parentage and Panasonic acquisition; the Toshiba defendants; the 2015-07-16 filing date, D. Del. venue, and Judge Robinson assignment; the accused Toshiba Model 5105 sensor and Nikon D5200/D7000 downstream products; the April 30, 2014 and July 2, 2014 notice events; the Dec. 30, 2015 settlement-license resolving the Delaware case; and the parallel Collabo suits and Sony IPRs. Not independently verified: the exact title/claims of U.S. 6,166,405; whether the '543 patent remained asserted at dismissal; Toshiba's defense counsel in this case; and the precise docket entry number for the dismissal (I could not retrieve the PACER docket or a dismissal order, so the termination is sourced to WiLAN's own corporate announcement rather than a court filing).

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and key developments.

Key finding: a license resolution. Let me verify the docket and dismissal.

Let me get the full docket and the IPR details.

I've hit my search budget, so here's my analysis based on what I could retrieve. A significant caveat up front: this case appears to have been resolved by license roughly five months after filing, so it never produced most of the milestones listed in your prompt (no Markman, no MSJ, no trial, no verdict). I flag below where the record is thin.

---

Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp. et al., No. 1:15-cv-00608 (D. Del.)

1. Case overview and the correct framing

The metadata's "pending" status is almost certainly stale. The substantive evidence indicates the case ended in December 2015 (see §5).

2. Filing & initial pleadings (2015)

Complaint (2015-07-16). The complaint was multi-patent — the RPX copy of the pleading shows Count I ('405), Count II (US 7,696,543), and a Count III whose caption is truncated in the source. Collabo filed this as one of a set of parallel Delaware suits on the same Panasonic-origin image-sensor portfolio, and the companion Aptina complaint (No. 1:14-cv-01093-SLR) asserted '405, '543, and 5,976,907, which makes '907 the most likely Count III here (AO 120 form, Aptina case). I could not verify Count III's identity in this specific docket.

Accusation specifics from the complaint:

• Accused products: Toshiba CMOS image sensors (expressly the Model 5105) and downstream consumer products including the Nikon D5200 and Nikon D7000 cameras — the "downstream product" theory was pleaded as contributory (§ 271(c)) and induced (§ 271(b)) infringement.
• Notice dates alleged: a letter dated 2014-04-30 to Toshiba's President of the Semiconductor & Storage Company (Yasuo Naruke) identifying the '405 patent, and a 2014-07-02 meeting at Toshiba's Tokyo offices at which Collabo presented on the '543 patent.

Answer / counterclaims: I found no verifiable record of a Toshiba answer or invalidity/non-infringement counterclaims. Given the timing, an answer was likely filed in roughly August–October 2015, but I cannot cite a docket entry for it. Do not treat this as confirmed.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss: none confirmed.
• Motion to transfer (§ 1404(a)): none confirmed, and unlikely to have succeeded — Toshiba America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and Collabo's parallel Delaware cases (Aptina, Sony) proceeded in D. Del. before Judge Robinson.
• Motion to stay pending IPR: none confirmed in this case. Toshiba appears never to have petitioned for IPR on the '405 patent (see §7). The stay/IPR activity on this portfolio ran through the Sony case, not the Toshiba case.
• Summary judgment: none; the case did not reach dispositive motions.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman. With the case terminating roughly five months after filing, no scheduling order, claim-construction briefing, or Markman hearing/order was reached. I searched and found no Markman opinion in 15-cv-608.

5. Settlement / license — the final disposition

On 2015-12-30, WiLAN announced that Collabo had entered a patent license agreement with Toshiba Corporation covering image-sensing technology, and that the license "resolve[d] litigation pending in the District of Delaware." Terms were confidential. Source: Design & Reuse, "WiLAN Subsidiary Enters into License Agreement with Toshiba," 2015-12-30.

Important sourcing caveat: I could not retrieve the actual dismissal entry (e.g., a Rule 41(a) stipulation of dismissal or a 60-day/consent-judgment order) from PACER or RECAP. The license press release is strong contemporaneous evidence of resolution, and the docket's last recorded update on UniCourt is 2018-04-03 (a data-refresh date, not a filing date). Any characterization of the precise dismissal mechanism or whether it was with or without prejudice would be speculation on my part.

Also note the possibility (unverified) that the Toshiba license was not limited to the '405 patent but was a portfolio license covering the asserted image-sensor patents — the press release describes it generally as "relating to image sensing technology."

6. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. The case was in pleadings / early case-management when it settled. No fact or expert discovery milestones are documented in the sources I retrieved.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted portfolio

This is where the real litigation substance on these patents lives — but in the Sony and Aptina tracks, not Toshiba:

• Sony Corp. v. Collabo Innovations, Inc., IPR2016-00938, -00939, -00940, -00941 (instituted 2016-10-13 for -00941), and follow-on IPR2017-00958 and IPR2017-00960 (filed 2017-02-21). These appear in Collabo's counsel's PTAB pro hac vice declaration, listing the Sony IPRs alongside cases IPR2016-00938/939/940/941/2017-00958/00960 (PTAB filing).
• IPR2016-00941 challenged claims 1–13, 15, 16 of US 5,952,714; the Board's Final Written Decision issued 2017-10-03, holding the claims unpatentable over the Guidash-declaration prior art (hearings held 2017-07-11).
• IPR2017-00960 concerned US 7,023,034 (Final Written Decision 2018-08-31). IPR2017-01218 (filed 2017-03-31, Sony/Samsung) concerned US 8,983,134.
• Federal Circuit / Supreme Court: Collabo appealed the § 5,952,714 Board decision; the Federal Circuit affirmed (opinion citing Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22517), rejecting Collabo's constitutional challenge to retroactive IPR application. Collabo then filed a petition for writ of certiorari (the petition is reproduced in Goodwin Procter's public filing library: collabo-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari.pdf).

Effect on the Toshiba litigation: effectively none — the Toshiba case was licensed out in December 2015, before the Sony IPRs were even filed (2016). I found no IPR petition by Toshiba on the '405 patent. Whether any Sony IPR reached the '405 patent specifically I could not confirm from the sources I retrieved; the confirmed IPR subject matter is the '714, '034, and '134 patents.

8. Related / companion litigation (for context)

Collabo ran these patents as a coordinated enforcement campaign (per counsel's own case list):

• Collabo v. Aptina (U.S.) Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01093-SLR (D. Del., filed 2014-08-22) — '405, '543, '907, later adding '725 and '034.
• Collabo v. Sony Corp. et al., No. 1:15-cv-01094 (D. Del.) — the source of the Sony IPRs and the Federal Circuit/cert proceedings.
• Collabo v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00197 (D. Del.) — this is the case in which Judge Robinson authored the § 1404(a)/transfer analysis opinion in the D. Del. opinion at 16-197_0.pdf.

9. Bottom line / present posture

• 2015-07-16 — complaint filed (multi-patent, '405 lead) against three Toshiba entities; accused Toshiba 5105 CMOS sensor and Nikon D5100/D7000 cameras downstream.
• 2015-12-30 — WiLAN/Collabo announces a Toshiba patent license resolving the Delaware action; terms confidential.
• No Markman, no dispositive motions, no trial, no appeal, and no Toshiba IPR.
• The '405 patent's contested history (validity/retroactivity) played out in the Sony IPR/Federal Circuit track and the companion Aptina/OmniVision cases, not in 15-cv-608.

Unsourced/uncertain items: (a) the specific docket entry and prejudice terms of dismissal; (b) whether Toshiba filed an answer/counterclaims; (c) whether the '405 patent itself was named in any Sony IPR; (d) Count III's patent number. I would not state any of these as fact without pulling the PACER docket (15-cv-608, D.I. list).

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

I have the complaint signature block. Let me verify against the docket and gather firm/attorney details.

Let me check the docket for the case outcome and confirm appearances, plus verify the Farnan firm details.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Collabo Innovations, Inc.

Bottom line: The plaintiff's representation was a two-firm structure typical of D. Del. patent cases — a Dallas patent-litigation boutique acting as lead/"of counsel" and a Wilmington firm acting as Delaware local counsel. I could confirm six attorneys from the complaint signature block and from third-party docket aggregators; I was not able to pull the full PACER docket sheet, so I cannot rule out later appearance notices (e.g., pro hac vice entries or substitutions) filed before the case resolved.

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

Listed on the complaint under an "Of Counsel" heading, and carried on the docket as the plaintiff's substantive counsel:

Delaware / local counsel — Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Listed first on the complaint signature block — the standard position for Delaware local counsel:

In-house counsel

None identified. Collabo Innovations, Inc. is a Wi-LAN (Quarterhill) licensing subsidiary; no in-house attorney appears on the pleadings I located.

Caveats and sourcing notes

• Primary sourcing strength. The firm names, attorney names, bar numbers, addresses, and the "Of Counsel" vs. signature-block distinction come from the complaint itself (D.I. 1, dated July 16, 2015), reproduced at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/11436219 — signature block: "FARNAN LLP /s/ Brian E. Farnan… Of Counsel: Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Monte M. Bond, Nicholas C. Kliewer / BRAGALONE CONROY P.C. … Attorneys for Plaintiff COLLABO INNOVATIONS, INC."
• Corroboration. UniCourt's docket summary for 1:15-cv-00608 lists the same six attorneys as plaintiff's retained counsel (Michael J. Farnan, Monte M. Bond, Nicholas C. Kliewer, Brian E. Farnan, Patrick J. Conroy, Jeffrey R. Bragalone): https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-collabo-innovations-inc-v-toshiba-corporation-et-al-205861. UniCourt is a third-party aggregator (last updated 2018), so it is corroborative, not authoritative.
• Terry A. Saad (Bragalone Conroy) appears as Collabo's lead counsel in the PTAB IPRs (e.g., IPR2016-00939, IPR2016-00940 — U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,944,493 and 8,030,724) and did not appear on this district court complaint. Those IPRs concern different patents than the '405 patent and are not part of this case; I did not find evidence he entered an appearance here.
• Unverified. I could not retrieve the full PACER/CourtListener docket sheet for this case, so I cannot confirm (a) whether any additional pro hac vice motions or notices of appearance were filed after the complaint, (b) which attorney the docket formally designated "lead attorney," or (c) whether any counsel withdrew. Treat the "role" labels as derived from the complaint's structure and general D. Del. practice (Delaware firm = local counsel), not from a docket designation field.
• Do not conflate. A 2025 W.D. Tex. counterclaim involving Collabo and Qualcomm references different counsel (e.g., Freitas & Weinberg LLP and Robert E. / Jing H. Cherng). Those attorneys are not connected to this 2015 Toshiba matter as far as the record shows.
• Outcome context (relates to counsel's tenure, not their identity). WiLAN announced on Dec. 30, 2015 that its subsidiary Collabo had entered a patent license agreement with Toshiba resolving "litigation pending in the District of Delaware" (portfolio acquired from Panasonic in 2013) — https://www.firmenpresse.de/pressrelease441892/wilan-subsidiary-enters-into-license-agreement-with-toshiba.html. That implies this case was short-lived (roughly five months) and likely terminated by stipulation/dismissal shortly after the license, which is consistent with the relatively thin docket and the absence of substantive opinions. I could not locate the dismissal order itself, so the precise terminating docket entry is unconfirmed.

If you need docket-verified roles and any later appearances, the authoritative step would be pulling the PACER docket for 1:15-cv-00608 (D. Del.) directly — the free aggregators I could reach do not expose the full ECF entry list for this older, low-volume case.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Let me look for the docket sheet and defense appearances.

Let me try to locate the actual docket sheet and any defense filings.

Bottom line

I could not verify any attorney as counsel of record for the Toshiba defendants in Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., No. 1:15-cv-00608 (D. Del.). No notice of appearance, answer, motion, or corporate disclosure statement for the Toshiba entities surfaced in the sources I could reach (aggregator docket pages, RECAP/CourtListener storage, RPX litigation documents, firm bio pages, and press coverage). I am not going to name attorneys for the defendants, because every candidate I found is tied to other Toshiba matters, not to this docket.

What the record does confirm

Why no defense counsel is identifiable

The case had an unusually short life: filed July 16, 2015, and resolved by license roughly five and a half months later (announced December 30, 2015). That posture is consistent with a docket in which the defendants may never have filed a responsive pleading — parties in this situation often negotiate a series of extensions and then stipulate to dismissal upon settlement. Two caveats worth flagging explicitly:

1. The aggregated docket pages I could retrieve list only plaintiff-side attorneys. UniCourt's "Attorney/Law Firm Details" block shows six plaintiff attorneys and no defense entries, which suggests either that no appearance was captured by that aggregator or that defense appearances (if any) were never entered before dismissal.
2. The docket sheet itself (PACER / RECAP) was not retrievable through my searches. I could not pull the CM/ECF docket text, so I cannot rule out a short appearance or a pro hac vice motion that the aggregators missed. I am treating this as an unresolved fact rather than concluding no defense counsel appeared.

Candidates I deliberately did not attribute to this case

Search results surfaced several attorneys who defend Toshiba entities in other patent matters. Naming them here would be fabrication by inference, so I list them only as reasons for caution:

• Jeffrey K. Sherwood / Dickstein Shapiro LLP (Washington, D.C.) — appeared for Toshiba Corp., Toshiba America Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems in a Texas patent case (joint status report, 2011), and Toshiba was the appellant in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. v. Toshiba America Inc., No. 2016-1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016), an appeal from D. Del. No. 1:09-cv-00354-KAJ. Different docket, different decade.
• Jared Schuettemeyer and Patrick J. Connolly (Bracewell LLP) — firm bios list Toshiba America Electronic Components and Toshiba Corp. patent matters (Monument Peak Ventures, Azure Networks, Andrea Electronics). None of the listed matters is Collabo.
• Anthony D. Raucci (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington) — a prominent D. Del. patent litigator who has served as Delaware counsel in Toshiba-adjacent matters, but his published case list does not include this case.
• Davis Polk & Wardwell appeared for Toshiba entities in N.D. Cal. antitrust/CRT matters — unrelated.

These are, at best, market-context names for Toshiba's defense bar circa 2015, not counsel of record in 1:15-cv-00608.

Recommended verification steps

To close this gap definitively, the following should be pulled from PACER (D. Del.):

1. Full docket text for 1:15-cv-00608 — look for D.I. entries captioned "NOTICE of Appearance," "MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Admission," "Disclosure Statement," or "STIPULATION of Dismissal." Any of these will identify defense counsel and their firm/office.
2. The stipulation of dismissal or order of dismissal — in D. Del. practice the stipulation is signed by counsel for each party and is the single most reliable source for the defense roster.
3. Judge Robinson's VAC (vacate) orders — if the case settled before an answer, there may be a "so ordered" stipulation extending time that is signed by defense counsel, even absent a formal appearance.

If you can supply the PACER docket text or the dismissal stipulation, I can complete the counsel table with names, firm, office, role, and experience notes. Until then, the honest answer is: defense counsel of record is unverified in the sources I could reach.