Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple searches.

Good progress. Let me dig deeper into the patents, the technology, and the case outcome.

Let me verify the IPR outcomes and the broader family of PTAB proceedings.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. The plaintiffs are two Texas-registered holding companies — Delaware Display Group LLC (DDG) and Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT) — both subsidiaries/affiliates of Acacia Research Group LLC (parent: Acacia Research Corp.), one of the most prolific patent-assertion (NPE/PAE) organizations. Neither plaintiff makes or sells products; they exist to license and litigate a patent portfolio. The defendants are the LG display/electronics entities: LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (device OEM) and LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. (one of the world's largest makers of LCD panels and a supplier to other OEMs). Per RPX, IDT began this campaign in June 2013 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents originally developed by Lumitex (inventor Jeffrey R. Parker); the portfolio traveled Solid State Opto Ltd. → Rambus → Acacia (March 2013) → IDT/DDG. DDG was created as a new Acacia sub for this campaign and jointly filed seven related Delaware suits on 12/31/2013 (D. Del. Nos. 13-2106 through 13-2112 against Amazon, HTC, Lenovo, LG, Pantech, Sony, and VIZIO) ("Innovative Display Expands Campaign with New Acacia Sub Delaware Display as Co-Plaintiff," RPX Insight, Jan. 9, 2014).

Accused technology. The patents cover the edge-lit LED backlight architecture of LCDs — light-guide/panel members with "light-extracting deformities" that redirect light to a display's output surface, plus light-redirecting films. Because that architecture is ubiquitous in LCDs, the campaign effectively accused entire LCD product lines — laptops, tablets, smartphones, monitors, and TVs. RPX describes the defendants as selling "products using displays that are alleged to infringe the patents-in-suit, including laptops, smartphones, and tablets," and IDT's parallel suits reached downstream users (Apple, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, automakers, camera makers), attacking "any company that creates a product with an LCD screen." (Note: the complaint's exact accused LG model list is not well sourced in public reporting; the industry-wide scope is documented, individual SKUs are not.)

Patents asserted. The 12/31/2013 complaint reported eight patents to the PTO (D.I. 3): seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents owned by IDT — 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; 8,215,816 — all sharing a 1995 priority date/common specification, and one owned by DDG — 7,914,196 ("Light Redirecting Film Systems Having Pattern of Variable Optical Elements," a backlight + light-redirecting-film system). The '547 patent (the one flagged in your case metadata) issued June 29, 2004 and is representative: a backlit panel with a patterned sheet/film of deformities that controls the light output distribution.

Procedural posture. Filed Dec. 31, 2013, in the District of Delaware, assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews (C.A. No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA), with a jury demand and related-case designation across the seven Delaware filings. Delaware mattered because the Acacia entities are Delaware LLCs and LG's U.S. affiliates are Delaware-registrable, making venue easy; the patents had previously been construed in the Eastern District of Texas (IDT v. Acer, 2014 WL 4230037 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014), Mag. J. Payne; IDT v. Hyundai, 2015 WL 2090651 (E.D. Tex. May 4, 2015), J. Gilstrap), so the Delaware case partly tracked EDTX precedent. Plaintiff's Delaware counsel were Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan) and Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Jeffrey Bragalone, Justin Kimble, et al.); defendants were represented by Mayer Brown (Robert G. Pluta, Jamie B. Beaber, Kfir B. Levy, Mark H. Remus, et al.) and Seitz Ross Aronstam & Moritz (Benjamin J. Schladweiler). Trial was set for October 2016. On Nov. 6, 2015, Judge Andrews issued a claim-construction opinion holding a term of the '816 patent indefinite under § 112 ¶2 (the "more … than" limitation), while construing terms of the '974, '370, and '196 patents (D.I. 146). In October 2015 plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice claims on three patents then under instituted IPR, and the court denied the joint motion to stay (D.I. 88–89; see D.I. 41).

IPR linkage and outcome (this is the key update to your summary). LG filed a coordinated wave of IPRs on the asserted patents: IPR2014-01092 ('974), -01094 ('660), -01095 ('816), -01096 ('370), -01097 ('194), -01357 ('547), -01359 ('196), and a further petition on the '177 patent. IPR2014-01357 (LG Display Co. et al. v. IDT, filed Aug. 21, 2014, on the '547 patent) was instituted Feb. 26, 2015, but the patent owner filed a Request for Adverse Judgment on May 28, 2015, and the Board entered a Judgment/Final Written Decision terminating the proceeding on June 10, 2015 — i.e., the '547 claims were effectively cancelled (GreyB IPVerse case record). By contrast, in IPR2014-01359 (DDG's '196 patent) the Board denied institution on all challenges (Paper 12, Mar. 2, 2015). Additional LG IPRs later targeted the '660 patent (IPR2015-01717) and '973/'695 family members.

Why it is notable. (1) IPR linkage gutted the district-court case: the '547 patent — the lead patent — died at the PTAB by adverse judgment, and the plaintiffs walked away from the other IPR-challenged patents, leaving the litigation narrowed to a handful of claims by the time it settled. (2) NPE campaign pattern: this was a classic Acacia-style "sue the whole supply chain" campaign — panel makers, OEMs, carriers, automakers, and retailers — over 1990s-era Lumitex/Rambus backlight patents, with the portfolio monetized through dozens of defendants rather than products. (3) Market context: the patents read on standard edge-lit LCD backlights, so an adverse ruling threatened the entire LCD device industry; LG Display — a top global panel supplier — choosing to fight and file serial IPRs rather than immediately license gave the case outsized signaling value for other defendants. (4) Resolution: LG Display's SEC Form 20-F discloses that in March 2017 the parties reached a settlement in principle through mediation and in April 2017 filed a stipulation of dismissal, amicably settling all claims in the related DDG/IDT–LG litigations (including the December 2015 follow-on Delaware suit and an August 2016 EDTX suit over two additional patents); Law360 reported the LG/Lenovo settlements on April 10, 2017 ("Lenovo, LG Settle Patent Suits Over Display Backlight Tech"). Settlement terms were not disclosed.

Sourcing caveat: the party/adjudication facts above are drawn from the docket (D.I. 1, 3, 41, 88–89, 146), PTAB papers (IPR2014-01357, -01359), Judge Andrews's Nov. 6, 2015 opinion, RPX Insight, Law360, and LG Display's 20-F. Accused-model specifics and any settlement dollar figures are not publicly verified; some damage estimates circulating online (e.g., investor-board "multi-billion" figures in the parallel Apple/Google suits) are unreliable and should not be treated as case facts.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with broad searches.

Excellent material. Let me dig into the district court docket, Markman, and dispositive rulings.

Let me pin down the Delaware docket milestones and the dispositive rulings.

I've gathered substantial material but hit the research-step limit. Below is what is well-sourced versus what remains unverified.

---

Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line: This was an Acacia-backed NPE campaign over the Jeffery R. Parker "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" backlight patent family. The single most consequential development was PTAB cancellation of the asserted '547 patent claims in June 2015 via IPR2014-01357 — the IPR referenced in your case metadata. The district court then used the IPRs as leverage, refusing a full stay but forcing Plaintiffs to drop three IPR-tainted patents, which they re-filed in fresh suits with agreed stays. The Delaware case and its Lenovo sibling settled and were dismissed in April 2017; no trial or jury verdict appears to have occurred.

---

1. Parties, patents, and counsel

Provenance of the patent family: Lumitex / Solid State Opto → Rambus (2009) → Acacia (March 2013). All asserted patents share a 1995-06-27 priority date. (RPX; iKnow/STPI)

---

2. Chronology

Filing and initial pleadings

• 2013-12-31 — Complaint filed. DDG and IDT sued the four LG entities in D. Del., asserting the backlight patent family against LCD-containing products (TVs, monitors, laptops, phones, tablets). Jury demand. See the AO-120 form and docket sheet reproduced in PTAB exhibits (IPR2014-01359 Ex. 1002).
• 2014-01-06 / 2014-01-13 — Service. LG Electronics summons returned 2014-01-06 (D.I. 6); LG Display summons returned 2014-01-13 (D.I. 7) (Exhibit list, IPR2015-00506).
• Answers / counterclaims: I could not verify the answer date or the specific declaratory-judgment counterclaims from primary sources. Given the defendants' later invalidity and inequitable-conduct theories (see §4), DJ counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity were almost certainly pleaded, but I will not state dates I cannot source.

Claim construction (Markman)

• 2014-08-26 — E.D. Tex. claim construction order (transferred/parallel track). Judge Michael Payne in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-522 (E.D. Tex., lead consolidated case) construed the disputed terms of the seven IDT patents including the '547 — holding the term "a pattern of deformities on one side of the sheet or film having a width and length that is quite small in relation to the width and length of the sheet or film" indefinite. The court also struck plaintiff's Werner expert declaration (D.I. 85, 2014-07-11). This order was entered as evidence in the LG IPRs (IPR2014-01359 Ex. 2002). (Studicata summary; VLEX)
• Delaware Markman: Plaintiffs' April 2015 stay brief states that "the court in the Eastern District of Texas construed the claims of the patents-in-suit here" — i.e., as of April 2015 the Delaware court had not yet conducted its own Markman. A Delaware claim-construction order appears to exist in the record (referenced as an exhibit in IPR2015-00506, and a "Memorandum Opinion" at D.I. 146 in 13-2109), but I could not confirm its date, terms, or rulings within this research window. Treat the Delaware Markman outcome as an open item.

Parallel PTAB proceedings (the decisive parallel track)

• 2014-08-21 — LG Display filed three IPRs on the same day: IPR2014-01357 ('547, claims 1–4, 16, 26), IPR2014-01359 ('196), and IPR2014-01362 ('177). Petition art included Ciupke, Pristash, Ohe, Nishio, Kobayashi, Matsumoto, Miller, Ohtake, Winston, Hathaway, Ouderkirk, Konno, Takeuchi, Borchardt, and 3M's BEF brochure, with an Escuti declaration (Petition, IPR2014-01357).
• 2015-02-26 — Institution granted in IPR2014-01357 as to all challenged '547 claims. Panel: Giannetti, Powell, Bunting (Institution Decision, via IDT Ex. 2001).
• 2015-03-02 — Institution DENIED in IPR2014-01359 ('196) as to all challenges (Decision, Paper 12.
• 2014-12-29 — LG Electronics filed IPR2015-00492 on the '196 patent (claims 1–25) plus a motion for joinder to IPR2014-01359.
• 2015-07-13 — Institution DENIED in IPR2015-00492; joinder motion dismissed (Decision.
• 2015-07-06 — Institution GRANTED in IPR2015-00506 ('973 patent, at least one ground), and in IPR2015-01666 with joinder granted.
• 2015-05-28 — Patent Owner's Request for Adverse Judgment in IPR2014-01357. IDT effectively abandoned the '547 claims rather than defend them.
• 2015-06-10 — Judgment and Final Written Decision in IPR2014-01357, cancelling claims 1–4, 16, and 26 of U.S. Patent 6,755,547. Termination date 2015-06-10; status "Final Written Decision." (GreyB/IPVerse)
• Other LG petitions on the family included IPR2015-00487 ('660) and IPR2015-00489 ('177), both instituted (RPX). Third-party petitions on the '547 included IPR2015-00361 (Mercedes-Benz USA/US International) and related filings (-359, -360, -366, -368).

Effect on the litigation: The '547 — the patent flagged in your metadata — was dead by mid-2015; the '973, '660, and '177 were in instituted IPRs by July 2015. That directly drove the stay fight below.

Stay pending IPR and the "drop-or-stay" order

• 2015-04-22 — Plaintiffs' opposition to LG's motion to stay (D.I. 41). Plaintiffs argued: (i) all but one patent-in-suit expires within two months (i.e., ~2015-06-15); (ii) only one of six then-asserted patents was in an instituted IPR; (iii) defendants filed their IPRs late (near the one-year bar) while discovery progressed; (iv) trial was set for October 2016; (v) the E.D. Tex. court had already construed the claims and denied SJ on the same prior art (D.I. 41).
• 2015-10-19 — Stay hearing before Judge Andrews (LG's stay-hearing presentation is IPR2015-00506 Ex. 2002).
• October 2015 — Judge Andrews' ruling: he declined a flat stay but said he would stay the related cases entirely unless DDG/IDT dropped, without prejudice, their claims on the '177, '660, and '973 patents — each subject to an instituted IPR. Plaintiffs dropped them; the court then denied the stay, and the Delaware cases proceeded on the remaining patents. (RPX, 2015-12-29)
• Late December 2015 — Re-filed suits. On the dropped patents, DDG/IDT filed new actions against Lenovo (1:15-cv-01220), LG Electronics (1:15-cv-01221), and VIZIO (1:15-cv-01222), each asserting the '177, '660, and '973, and each expressly agreeing to a stay pending the instituted IPRs — the mirror image of the fight in 13-2109. (RPX)

Discovery milestone of strategic significance

• 2016-03-29 — Motion to compel granted in part (Judge Andrews) in 13-2109-RGA: Plaintiffs were ordered to supplement two RFPs and to produce "at least one piece of paper documenting the purchase of each of the 200…" accused products — i.e., the court forced Plaintiffs to back up the product-by-product infringement theory with actual purchase evidence. This is precisely the evidentiary gap LG/Lenovo later attacked on summary judgment. (Richards, Layton & Finger case note)

Dispositive motions

• 2016-08-26 — LG and Lenovo moved for summary judgment of non-infringement (the "lack of evidence" motion reported by Law360 on 2016-08-29: despite years of discovery, DDG had "not provided evidence showing LG and Lenovo used its backlight technology in hundreds of their products").
• The Delaware summary-judgment opinion (I located the text under Delaware Display Group LLC v. Lenovo Holding Co., No. 1:13-cv-02108-RGA, D.I. 351 — an opinion that expressly resolves LG Defendants motions as well, indicating coordinated pretrial proceedings across the two actions). Holdings:

Source: Justia, D.I. 351. Note the ownership holding turned on the Rambus International → Rambus Inc. → Rambus Delaware → Acacia chain (assignments executed Dec 2012; Patent Assignments 1 and 2 signed 2013-03-01/03-04, with an express grant of "all rights to sue and recover damages… for past, present, and future infringements").

Bottom line of the SJ round: nobody won dispositive relief — every merits motion was denied on fact disputes. That set up trial.

Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• No jury verdict or trial appears to have occurred. Trial had been calendared for October 2016 (per the 2015 stay briefing), but the April 2017 settlement intervened. I found no JMOL, new-trial, or fee motions, and no Federal Circuit appeal on this docket. I cannot positively rule out a pretrial-conference disposition, so treat "no trial" as strongly indicated rather than certified.

Final disposition

• 2017-04-10 — Settlement / dismissal. Law360: "Two patent infringement suits from Delaware Display Group against LG Display Group and Lenovo Inc. … reached a close on Monday when the parties told a Delaware federal judge they'd agreed to drop claims in one case and set the stage for dismissal papers in the other." (Law360 case page)
• 2017-04-13 — the parallel E.D. Tex. LG Display action, Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. LG Display Co., Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-00932 (Judge Rodney Gilstrap; filed 2016-08-24; two patents-in-suit), was closed. (RPX Insight)
• Net posture: terminated by settlement/dismissal in April 2017, with the key asserted claims of the '547 already cancelled by the PTAB in 2015.

---

3. Summary table — IPRs touching the 13-2109 patents

---

4. Assessment

1. The IPR track, not the district court, decided this case. IDT walked away from the '547 claims entirely (adverse judgment, 2015-05-28), and the three other patents driven into instituted IPRs were pulled out of 13-2109 under judicial pressure in October 2015.
2. The Delaware court's stay ruling was a hybrid — no general stay, but a de facto partial stay achieved through the "drop or I'll stay everything" condition. It produced a second wave of suits (13-15-cv-1220/1221/1222) that were stayed by agreement.
3. Plaintiffs survived the standing/ownership attack (the Rambus assignment chain) and all the equitable defenses, and defeated summary judgment across the board — a rare complete denial of both sides' merits motions. But the 2016-03-29 discovery order and the 2016-08 non-infringement motion show the case was evidence-poor on product-by-product infringement, which likely motivated the April 2017 settlement.

---

5. Explicitly unverified / open items

• Answer and counterclaim dates and their specific causes of action for the LG defendants in 13-2109.
• Any Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss or §1404/§1406 transfer motion — no evidence located; none should be assumed.
• The Delaware Markman order itself (date, terms construed, outcome). Referenced documents include a "Claim Construction Order, Innovative Display Technologies v. …" (IPR2015-00506 Ex. 2001) and a "Memorandum Opinion … No. 146" in 13-2109, but I could not retrieve either directly.
• Whether D.I. 351 is formally docketed in 13-2109 or only in the Lenovo action (13-2108); the opinion's text addresses both LG and Lenovo defendants.
• The exact dismissal mechanism and any settlement terms (Law360 reported an agreed dropping of claims but I could not verify a filed stipulation of dismissal or a Rule 54(b) judgment).
• Outcomes of IPR2014-01362 ('177), IPR2015-00487 ('660), IPR2015-00489 ('177), and IPR2015-00506/-01666 final written decisions.
• Existence of any Federal Circuit appeal.

Primary sources used: PTAB petition/institution/FWD papers via Docket Alarm, USPTO PTACTS and GreyB/IPVerse; the Delaware docket sheet as reproduced in IPR2014-01359 Ex. 2002/2004 and IPR2015-00506 exhibits; Justia (D.I. 351 SJ opinion); Law360 case page; RPX Insight; Richards Layton & Finger case notes; iKnow/STPI (Chinese-language analysis of the filing and patent-family chain).

I'll search several angles to find actual press coverage of this litigation.

Press coverage

Press coverage of this specific docket is thin and trade-press-only. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra article about DDG/IDT v. LG Electronics, No. 1:13-cv-02109. What exists is essentially one outlet's docket-level reporting plus a specialist litigation-analytics service. Law360 maintained a case page carrying three articles on the LG matter: a 2016-03-01 report, "LG Pushes PTAB To Toss Display Patent For Lack Of Invention," describing LG Display urging a PTAB panel "to invalidate as anticipated an LCD patent asserted against LG in Delaware federal court, maintaining the patent adds nothing novel to a similar 1997 patent"; a 2016-08-29 report, "LG, Lenovo Say LCD Patent Suit Lacks Evidence," describing LG and Lenovo asking Judge Andrews to dismiss because "despite years to put together their case Delaware Display has not provided evidence showing LG and Lenovo used its backlight technology in hundreds of their products"; and a 2017-04-10 report, "Lenovo, LG Settle Patent Suits Over Display Backlight Tech," stating that the two suits "reached a close on Monday when the parties told a Delaware federal judge they'd agreed to drop claims in one case and set the stage for dismissal papers in the other." Notably, Law360's abstract of the April 2017 item describes a procedural wind-down — dropped claims and forthcoming dismissal papers — not a signed settlement with disclosed consideration, and I found no outlet reporting any damages figure, license fee, or settlement amount for the LG case.

The most significant press-style coverage of the campaign (rather than the LG docket) is RPX Insight, which broke the filing itself: RPX Insight reported on 2014-01-09 that Acacia had created Delaware Display Group as a new subsidiary and filed seven coordinated Delaware suits on 2013-12-31 against Amazon, HTC, Lenovo, LG, Pantech, Sony and VIZIO, framing the move as an expansion of IDT's June 2013 East Texas campaign over the Lumitex/Parker "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents. RPX also reported the October 2015 stay maneuver — that Judge Andrews would stay the related cases unless plaintiffs dropped the three patents then in instituted IPRs, and that plaintiffs instead refiled against Lenovo, LG and VIZIO in December 2015 agreeing to stays — a sequence that is documented in the court record but that no general-interest outlet picked up.

Coverage that goes beyond the court record is mostly critical commentary at the portfolio level. Techdirt published "Know Your Troll: Innovative Display Technologies Targeting Any Company That Creates A Product With An LCD Screen" on 2014-08-12, cataloguing Acacia's holding-company structure (listing IDT at 37 suits), quoting Acacia's Marvin Key denying the suits were "frivolous," and characterizing the patents as tracing "back from IDT to Acacia to Rambus" with no entity in the chain having produced a product. That piece is campaign-level and does not name LG. On the monetization side, trade press carried the sibling settlements rather than the LG one — IP Frontline via CIP Lawyer reported in August 2015 that IDT and DDG "entered into a settlement and patent license agreement with Sony Corporation" resolving Delaware litigation, and M2 Communications reported a June 2015 settlement and license with Kyocera — both without financial terms.

Where accounts differ or the press record is incomplete. First, the "settled in April 2017" narrative that dominates secondary summaries sits awkwardly with a corporate disclosure the press did not cover: Acacia Research Corporation filed an 8-K reporting that on 2015-06-02 "Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC … entered into a patent license agreement with LG Display Co., Ltd." — i.e., a licensing event roughly two months after the Board instituted IPR2014-01357 and days after IDT's 2015-05-28 adverse-judgment request, well before the 2017 dismissal. LG Display's own Form 20-F (as reproduced at companiesmarketcap.com) states that the parties reached settlements in principle through mediation in March 2017 and filed a stipulation of dismissal in April 2017 covering "all claims asserted." These are reconcilable (a 2015 license as to some entities/patents; a 2017 global dismissal of the remaining claims), but no outlet I found reported or explained the relationship, and readers should not assume the 2015 8-K was the final resolution. Second, caution on numbers: the widely circulated "nearly $6 billion in accrued royalties" demand belongs to IDT's separate Apple litigation, as Techdirt noted, and should not be imported into the LG matter — for the LG case specifically, no publication reported a demand figure, award, or settlement amount, and none of the coverage claims a trial or verdict occurred.

Sources

• Delaware High Court Revives LG's $12.8M Patent Award - Law360
• Delaware : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis
• 1:15-cv-01221 | Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al | RPX Insight
• LG Display Co., Ltd. | CIK:0001290109 |
• LG Display - 20-F annual report - In December 2013, Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement action against ...
• In 2007, Anvik Corporation filed a patent infringement case against the Group, along with other LCD manufacturing companies in t...
• Complaint analysis | 2:16-cv-00932 | Innovative Display Tech LLC v. LG Display Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Innovative Display Technologies > Summary
• FORM 20-F - The rapid technological changes that characterize our industry require that we quickly implement new processes and components wi...
• We may be required to defend against charges of infringement of patent or other proprietary rights of third parties
• LG Display - 20-F annual report - The rapid technological changes that characterize our industry require that we quickly implement new processes and components wi...
• Ex. 1023 | IPR2015-01717 | LG Electronics Inc v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC | Ex Parte

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

Let me verify the counsel roster, firm details, and any later substitutions.

Let me check the full docket sheet and CourtListener/RECAP for any counsel changes or substitutions.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs — Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line (with sourcing caveat): Plaintiffs used a two-tier structure typical of Acacia-family NPE suits — a Wilmington local-counsel firm (Farnan LLP) acting as counsel of record/lead attorney of record, and a Dallas-based patent trial boutique (Bragalone Conroy P.C.) appearing pro hac vice and doing the substantive work. My roster below is drawn from the docket sheet for 1:13-cv-02109-RGA as captured in a November 2015 annotated docket exhibit filed with the PTAB (Ex. 2011 in IPR2015-01717), plus plaintiffs' own signed filings (e.g., Plaintiffs' Responsive Brief to Defendants' Motion to Stay, D.I. 41, dated April 22, 2015). I could not access PACER directly, and I found no evidence of a substitution or withdrawal of plaintiffs' counsel; if one occurred after late 2015 it is not reflected in the sources I could reach.

---

1. Local counsel of record (Delaware) — Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE

Docket-sheet note: the plaintiffs' local-counsel entry ties to D.I. 1 (complaint filed 12/31/2013, $400 fee receipt 0311-1433463) and D.I. 5 (Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying Acacia Research Group LLC as corporate parent and Acacia Research Corporation as affiliate for both plaintiffs).

2. Lead trial / pro hac vice counsel (Texas) — Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas, TX

All listed on the docket as PRO HAC VICE — ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED for the two plaintiff entities. Firm address as used in the case: Chase Tower, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500 West, Dallas, TX 75201; (214) 785-6670.

---

3. Who is not on the docket

• No in-house counsel for Delaware Display Group LLC / Innovative Display Technologies LLC appears on the 1:13-cv-02109 docket. Both plaintiffs are Acacia Research entities (D.I. 5), so the litigation was run entirely through outside counsel.
• Defendants' side is separately populated (Ross Aronstam & Moritz — Benjamin J. Schladweiler as Delaware lead; Mayer Brown — Robert G. Pluta, Jamie B. Beaber, Tiffany A. Miller, Kfir B. Levy, Michael L. Lindinger, Anita Y. Lam, Alison T. Gelsleichter, Baldine B. Paul, Amanda K. Streff; Steptoe — Mark H. Remus and Taras A. Gracey, both terminated 05/29/2014). Included only for contrast; the question concerns plaintiffs.

4. Verification notes and limits

• Source of the attorney list: annotated docket sheet for Delaware Display Group LLC et al v. LG Electronics Inc. et al, C.A. No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA (D. Del.), filed as Exhibit 2011 in IPR2015-01717 — docketalarm PDF; plaintiffs' April 22, 2015 signature block — PTAB filing.
• Do not conflate dockets: the very similar Justia page at No. 1:13-cv-02108 is the Lenovo case (Delaware Display Group v. Lenovo Holding Co.), which shares related-case status and a 2016 summary-judgment opinion addressing LG defendants' motions — see Justia D.I. 351. The LG-specific decisions include Delaware Display Group LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., 221 F. Supp. 3d 495 (D. Del. 2016) (Andrews, J.) (sealing/redaction order, Dec. 22, 2016) — CourtListener — and the March 29, 2016 discovery ruling summarized by Richards, Layton & Finger.
• Not verified from primary sources: (a) whether Farnan LLP's internal roster or firm name changed in this matter after 2015 (Farnan LLP later operated under different naming configurations, but I found no substitution filing here); (b) bar numbers/current employment for some Bragalone Conroy attorneys (Olejko's later firm affiliation comes from his own professional profile, not a court filing); (c) the case's ultimate disposition — related claims against LG under U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,384,177, 7,434,973 and 7,404,660 were dismissed without prejudice by order dated October 21, 2015, but I did not locate a final judgment/termination entry for the '547 patent claims in this docket.
• Nothing here is drawn from sealed material; the attorney roster is from public docket metadata and publicly filed signature blocks.

I'll research defendant counsel of record using multiple targeted searches.

Excellent — I found an annotated docket sheet. Let me pull more detail on individual attorneys and the firm transition.

Let me verify the local counsel and the early Steptoe involvement, plus a couple of attorney bios.

Defendant Counsel of Record — DDG/IDT v. LG Electronics, No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA (D. Del.)

Principal source. The best public record of the defendant-side appearances is the civil docket sheet for 1:13-cv-02109-RGA, which was captured and reproduced as Exhibit 2011 to Patent Owner's filing in IPR2015-01717 (Nov. 21, 2015) — an annotated copy of the docket identifying each attorney's firm, address, and role designation, available via Docket Alarm (PDF). I cross-checked names against Mayer Brown and other firm bios. That snapshot is dated November 2015, so it reflects the team as it stood during the merits phase; I could not verify later substitutions/appearances (2016–2017) before the April 2017 dismissal, and PACER itself was not directly accessible to me.

All four LG defendants — LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; LG Display Co., Ltd.; and LG Display America, Inc. — were represented by the same defense team.

---

1. Delaware local counsel

Note: the docket shows him under both firm names (the firm renamed from Seitz Ross Aronstam & Moritz to Ross Aronstam & Moritz; emails appear as both bschladweiler@seitzross.com and bschladweiler@ramllp.com). He is a Delaware Chancery/commercial litigator; this was a local-counsel role hosting the out-of-state Mayer Brown team pro hac vice.

2. National/lead trial counsel — Mayer Brown LLP

Every Mayer Brown attorney listed carries the docket notation "PRO HAC VICE — ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED," while Schladweiler is the Delaware "LEAD ATTORNEY."

Relevant experience:

• Pluta — Mayer Brown IP partner and trial lawyer; his bio expressly lists "LCD panels" among core technologies, states he has been lead counsel in 100+ IPR proceedings, and lists Delaware Display Group/Innovative Display Technologies v. LG Electronics (D. Del.) as a representative matter (Mayer Brown profile). He was also LG's lead counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings (see below) and in ATI Technologies ULC v. LG Electronics (Fed. Cir.) and Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. LG Electronics (E.D. Tex.).
• Michael J. Word — senior associate, patent litigation and PTAB practice, registered patent attorney; bio lists "optics and displays" and this case (bio).
• Michael L. Lindinger — senior associate, Washington DC IP group; bio states he "defended LGE and LG Display in a multi-patent case involving LED backlight technology in the District of Delaware" (bio).

3. Prior / terminated counsel — Steptoe & Johnson LLP

The docket shows two attorneys who appeared and were then terminated on 05/29/2014, with @steptoe.com email addresses — i.e., Steptoe & Johnson LLP initially staffed the defense before Mayer Brown took over as national counsel:

Gracey is a Chicago IP trial lawyer (now affiliated with Polsinelli per public directories), with pharmaceuticals, chipsets, and display-system patent litigation experience.

---

Cross-reference / correction to the earlier section

The prior "Case overview" listed the defense as "Mayer Brown (Robert G. Pluta, Jamie B. Beaber, Kfir B. Levy, Mark H. Remus, et al.) and Seitz Ross Aronstam & Moritz (Benjamin J. Schladweiler)." Two refinements:

1. Mark H. Remus was not at Mayer Brown — the docket shows his email as mremus@steptoe.com, i.e., Steptoe & Johnson LLP, and he was terminated from the case on 5/29/2014. He should be attributed to Steptoe's initial defense team.
2. The local firm appears on the docket under two names — Seitz Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP (early filings, seitzross.com) and Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP (ramllp.com). Both refer to the same Wilmington firm.

PTAB linkage (same counsel)

The Mayer Brown team that defended the district-court case also prosecuted LG's IPR petitions against the asserted patents — e.g., IPR2014-01359 (LG Display Co. v. DDG, '196 patent), where the Power of Attorney appoints "Practitioner(s) at Mayer Brown LLP, Customer Number 26565," and the LG Display IPRs naming Pluta as primary attorney with Streff, Paul, and Lam as secondary (PTAB filing).

---

Sourcing caveats

• No in-house counsel for the LG entities has appeared on the public docket or is otherwise identified in the sources I reviewed. If LG had in-house attorneys working the matter, they were not of record.
• The attorney roster above is a November 2015 snapshot. I did not independently verify the appearance roster for the 2016 merits/summary-judgment phase or the 2017 mediation and dismissal, so any counsel additions or substitutions in that window are unverified.
• Some filings in the case may be sealed; I did not identify any sealed appearance, but I could not confirm this against PACER directly. Names, firms, offices, and docket role designations above come from the reproduced docket sheet and firm/attorney bios, not from sealed material.