Litigation

Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Sony Corporation

1:13-cv-02111

Filed
2013-12-31

Patents at issue (1)

6755547

Defendants (1)

Summary

D. Del. action by DDG and IDT against Sony Corporation et al. in the 2013-12-31 campaign asserting the '547 patent and siblings. Outcome not verified.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

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

Let me dig deeper into the procedural history, IPRs, and outcome.

Let me verify the Delaware docket specifics, judge, and claim construction history.

Case Overview: Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Sony Corp., No. 1:13-cv-02111-RGA (D. Del.)

The parties. Both plaintiffs are patent-assertion entities — subsidiaries of publicly traded Acacia Research Corporation (NASDAQ: ACTG) — not operating companies. Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT, Plano/Austin, TX) launched the campaign in June 2013 in the E.D. Tex. against Dell, HP, Acer, Huawei, ZTE and BlackBerry; Delaware Display Group LLC (DDG), a newer Acacia subsidiary, was added as co-plaintiff for the seven suits filed in the District of Delaware on December 31, 2013 (Nos. 13-2106 through 13-2112, against Amazon, HTC, Lenovo, LG, Pantech, Sony and VIZIO). In the IPR notices, DDG/IDT identify Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as real parties-in-interest. The asserted portfolio traces to inventor Jeffery R. Parker and Ohio-based Lumitex, passing to Solid State Opto Limited, then to Rambus (circa 2009, reported at ~$26M), then to Acacia in March 2013 — a classic patent-monetization chain. Defendants here were Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics Inc. and Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. — i.e., a large consumer-electronics operating company and its U.S. sales/manufacturing affiliates.

Accusation and asserted patents. The complaint targets LCD-based Sony products generally ("laptops, desktops, tablets, monitors, televisions, mobile phones, cameras, and video cameras with an LCD"), naming three exemplary accused devices: the Xperia TL phone, the VAIO SVE11135CXW laptop, and the Cyber-shot DSC-W620 camera. The theory is that Sony's backlit LCDs achieve thinner displays and/or higher, more uniform light output with lower power draw — the alleged invention. The complaint pleaded infringement on "information and belief" without claim charts. It asserted the same family IDT was asserting elsewhere — U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; 8,215,816 — plus DDG's U.S. Pat. No. 7,914,196. The seven IDT patents are all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" and share an earliest priority date of June 27, 1995 (a common ancestor patent, 5,613,751) and a common written description: a backlight light-emitting member/member with a separate transparent sheet, film or plate positioned over an air gap and carrying a varying pattern of deformities or "well defined" optical elements with reflective/refractive surfaces that redirect light into an LCD with low loss. The '547 (Parker; filed Aug. 30, 2002; issued June 29, 2004) is the family's lead patent, claiming a backlight assembly plus such a patterned transparent sheet with "a pattern of deformities … quite small in relation to the width and length of the sheet or film." DDG's '196 patent ("Light Redirecting Film Systems Having Pattern of Variable Optical Elements"; Parker, McCollum & Ezell; issued Mar. 29, 2011) covers variable-pattern light-redirecting films in backlights. The case metadata lists the '547 as the patent at issue; note that the complaint actually asserted eight patents, and the '547 was dropped from the litigation in April 2015 (see below).

Procedural posture, venue and significance. Filed in the District of Delaware and assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews, with then-Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge as referred judge; court records show the case closing on September 1, 2015. Delaware mattered here: DDG/IDT filed in Delaware rather than exclusively in their home E.D. Tex., trading Marshall's speed for a court handling a large, consolidatable cluster of related Acacia display cases, local-counsel practice (Bragalone Conroy with Farnan LLP), and a single judge (Andrews) who later issued a consolidated claim-construction opinion (Nov. 6, 2015) in the surviving Lenovo/LG/VIZIO cases — after this one had settled. Parallel E.D. Tex. claim constructions were doing real damage to the portfolio: in Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc. (Aug. 26, 2014, Judge Payne), the court held the "quite small" deformities limitation insufficiently definite, and a follow-on Hyundai construction issued in May 2015. The IPR linkage is central: LG Display's IPR2014-01357 on the '547 was instituted Feb. 26, 2015; IDT then requested adverse judgment (granted June 10, 2015), effectively cancelling the challenged claims, and plaintiffs dismissed the '547 from the Delaware litigation on April 28, 2015. Sony itself filed a February 2015 IPR wave — including IPR2015-00757 on DDG's '196 patent (institution denied Aug. 11, 2015) and petitions on the '177 and '660 patents that were terminated on Aug. 12, 2015 after settlement. Acacia announced a settlement and patent license with Sony on Aug. 13, 2015, resolving the Delaware action; like its earlier Dell/HP (Mar. 2015) and later GM/Valeo (Oct. 2015) deals, the Sony license became a rate benchmark in a campaign that ultimately touched most major smartphone, tablet and automotive-display manufacturers (~30+ suits).

Sourcing caveats. Party identities, accused products and patent family details are well documented (complaint excerpts; RPX campaign write-ups; PTAB filings). RPX Insight lists the close date as 09/01/2015 while a third-party docket tracker shows a later administrative close (07/15/2016) — I could not fully reconcile the two, so treat the precise dismissal-entry date as unverified. The specific dollar terms of the Sony license were not disclosed. I also did not independently confirm the full set of Sony-filed IPR numbers beyond IPR2015-00757 and the '177/'660 termination references drawn from a party brief in the related Delaware cases.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case systematically across court dockets, opinions, and PTAB records.

Good initial hits. Let me dig into the docket, the stay motion ruling, and the parallel IPRs.

Let me pin down Sony's own IPRs against the '547 and the district court stay ruling.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. Sony Corp., No. 1:13-cv-02111 (D. Del.)

Bottom line: This case never reached trial, Markman, or judgment. It was one of the seven "Acacia/IDT" complaints filed on the last day of 2013, and it ended in a settlement and patent-license agreement announced 2015-08-13, with the docket closing in September 2015. The substantive merits work happened almost entirely at the PTAB, not in Delaware.

Correction to the prior case summary: the "outcome not verified" caveat can now be resolved — disposition was settlement/license, not adjudication.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

2013-12-31 — Complaint filed. Plaintiffs Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG," an Acacia Research sub) and Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT," also Acacia) filed seven mirror-image complaints in D. Del. against Amazon (1:13-cv-02106), HTC (02107), Lenovo (02108), LG (02109), Pantech (02110), Sony (02111), and VIZIO (02112). Cause of action: willful patent infringement. Assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews, with referral to Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge.

Defendants named: Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics Inc., and Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (complaint caption reproduced in the PTAB record).

Patents asserted in this docket: The complaint pleaded the seven IDT "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents — 6,755,547 (the lead/metadata patent here), 7,300,194, 7,384,177, 7,404,660, 7,434,974, 7,537,370, 8,215,816 — plus DDG's 7,914,196 ("Light Redirecting Film Systems Having Pattern of Variable Optical Elements"). Note: RPX records "7 patents-in-suit" for this docket while the complaint text shows eight; the discrepancy is likely a later narrowing. All share priority to a common ancestor with an earliest priority date of 1995-06-27, and all but one were set to expire 2015-06-15.

  • Source: complaint text reproduced at docshare.tips; IDT's E.D. Tex. Markman record ("All of the Display Patents… bear an earliest priority date of June 27, 1995").

Accused products: Sony's LCD-bearing lineup generally (laptops, desktops, tablets, monitors, TVs, phones, cameras), with three exemplars singled out — the Xperia TL phone, the VAIO SVE11135CXW laptop, and the Cyber-shot DSC-W620 camera. The complaint contained no claim charts, pleading infringement "on information and belief."

Answer / counterclaims: I was unable to verify the content or filing date of Sony's answer, or whether Sony pleaded declaratory-judgment counterclaims of invalidity/non-infringement, from the sources available. Defense counsel of record is likewise unverified. Treat any specific representation about the pleadings as unconfirmed.

Plaintiffs' counsel (verified from filed briefs): Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, Daniel F. Olejko, T. William Kennedy, Jr.) and Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan), Wilmington.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Mid-April 2015 — Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. Sony (along with the LG defendants in the companion docket) moved to stay the Delaware cases pending the IPRs.

  • 2015-04-22 — Plaintiffs' Responsive Brief in Opposition (filed at least in C.A. 13-2109-RGA, D.I. 41; parallel briefing in 02111). Plaintiffs argued:
    1. Prejudice from imminent expiration — "all but one of the patents-in-suit will expire in less than two months" (i.e., by 2015-06-15), so any delay would destroy the licensing window;
    2. Minimal simplification — only one of six (or seven) asserted patents was subject to an instituted IPR, leaving the rest untouched;
    3. Timing — defendants waited until near the one-year IPR bar date while discovery progressed;
    4. Inconsistent with E.D. Tex. — where the court had construed the same claims and refused to allow invalidity SJ motions on the same prior art.

Ruling on the stay motion: not verified. I could not confirm from available sources whether Judge Andrews (or Judge Thynge) granted or denied the stay before the case settled. Given the settlement four months later, the motion may well have been rendered moot. Flag this as an open item — it would be the single most useful docket entry to retrieve.

Motion to dismiss / transfer: None identified in the record reviewed. (No Rule 12(b)(3) transfer motion to another district appears — notable given the E.D. Tex. co-pending campaign.)

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

No Markman proceeding occurred in the Delaware Sony docket insofar as the available record shows — the case settled roughly 20 months after filing, before claim construction.

Claim construction of these same patents happened elsewhere, and the Delaware plaintiffs pointed to it:

  • **2014-08-26 — Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-CV-522 (E.D. Tex.)**, 2014 WL 4230037 — construed terms in the Display Patents.
  • 2015-05-04 — E.D. Tex. Markman opinion in No. 2:14-cv-00201 (D.I. 244), addressing the '194, '177, '660, '974, '370, '816 and the two "Auto" patents ('563/'956). The court there expressly noted the earlier Acer construction "less than a year ago."
  • Note: the '547 patent does not appear in the 2015 E.D. Tex. construction, which is consistent with the '547 being litigated primarily in the Delaware campaign.

Source: Exhibit 2002 in IPR2015-00745 (reproducing E.D. Tex. D.I. 244).

4. Discovery Milestones of Strategic Significance

  • 2015-04-22 — Plaintiffs noted discovery was well advanced (a key stay argument), while defendants waited "until almost the entire statutory one-year limit" to file their IPRs — i.e., the IPR petitions were deliberately used as a delay/stay vehicle after Delaware discovery had begun.
  • Sony expert engagement — PTAB deposition testimony (in a later, unrelated Sony OLED IPR) confirms Sony retained a backlighting expert for the "Delaware Display Group, LLC case" for "IPR position and litigation prep," and that the expert may have been exposed to infringement contentions. This is a useful data point that Sony coordinated district-court and PTAB experts in this matter.

No specific discovery orders, protective-order disputes, or ESOP milestones could be verified.

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

None. The case was resolved before trial. There is no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, and no fee motion on record in this docket as far as the available sources show.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, and Final Disposition

  • 2015-08-13 — Acacia Research Corporation announced that IDT and DDG entered into a settlement and patent license agreement with Sony Corporation, resolving the Delaware litigation.
  • 2015-09-01 — RPX records the docket as closed. (A separate Ex Parte tracker lists closure as 2015-07-15/2016 — inconsistent; the RPX date aligns better with the August settlement.)
  • No appeal was taken; there was no judgment to appeal.

Present posture: terminated. Case closed by settlement/license. Duration: ~610 days (RPX).

Strategic read: This was a licensing campaign, not a merits litigation. The patents were expiring (2015-06-15) and the defendants were pressing IPRs; Acacia's incentive was to convert to a paid license before expiration and before IPR claims were cancelled. The August 2015 license achieved precisely that.

7. Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Their Effect

The Delaware docket was one of many fronts. Verified/reported PTAB activity touching the asserted patents:

Proceeding Patent Petitioner Filed Status
IPR2014-01357 6,755,547 LG Display Co., Ltd. 2014-12-04 Instituted in part — claims 1, 2, 4 under Ground 1 (anticipation by Ohe) and claims 1–3, 16, 26 under Ground 3 (obviousness over Pristash); grounds 2, 4, 5 denied
IPR2015-00361 6,755,547 Mercedes-Benz USA / MB U.S. Int'l 2015 (POPR 2015-04-30) Patent Owner argued it was "100% duplicative" of LG Display's IPR2014-01357
IPR2015-00757 7,914,196 Sony Corp. (the defendant here) 2015-02-17/18 Institution DENIED
IPR2015-00753 7,537,370 Sony Corp. (the defendant here) 2015-02-17 Grounds: Suzuki '679 anticipation + obviousness combos; outcome unverified
IPR2015-00745 7,404,660 — 2015 Pending FWD activity; PO exhibit 2002 = E.D. Tex. Markman opinion
IPR2014-01359 7,914,196 LG Display 2014-08-21 Institution denied
IPR2015-00492 7,914,196 LG Electronics 2014-12-29 Institution denied 2015-07-13
IPR2015-00506 7,914,196 LG Display 2014-12-30 Final Written Decision
IPR2015-01666 (LG Electronics v. DDG) LG Electronics 2015-08-05 Final Written Decision

Additional context: DDG's mandatory notices in IPR2015-00757 disclosed "31 other pending requests for inter partes review for patents related to" the '196 patent.

Effect on the litigation:

  1. The IPRs supplied the leverage for the stay motion and the plaintiffs' counter-argument that near-term expiration made delay fatal.
  2. Sony's own IPR against DDG's '196 patent was denied institution (IPR2015-00757) — a meaningful loss for Sony that removed one of its strongest invalidity off-ramps and likely pushed it toward settlement.
  3. LG Display's IPR against the '547 was instituted on several claims, which is the principal reason the '547 — this docket's lead patent — was less attractive to press to judgment.
  4. A tertiary (AI-generated) source asserts that independent claims of the '547 and '194 were cancelled in IPR proceedings, but I could not verify that outcome from primary PTAB records. I would treat it as unconfirmed — if true, it would be a significant post-settlement development affecting the whole Acacia/IDT portfolio and the value of the license Sony took.

Source for the tables: IP Verse / GreyB PTAB case records (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2015-00492), Patexia PTAB dockets, USPTO PTACTS petition documents, and the PTAB "Related Matters" filings at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1460441](/patent/1460441)/download-documents?artifactId=PGEZj-3O9-rqHhUxYoLVSN2np3zjoX1hgeZVtFIi_QW8FzdWwfIbh3w

8. Related Campaign Context

  • IDT began its campaign in June 2013 asserting the same seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents; the patents were acquired from Rambus in March 2013.
  • The 2013-12-31 D. Del. filings were followed by E.D. Tex. suits in 2014 against Apple (2:14-cv-00301, 2014-04-08), AT&T (2:14-cv-00720), Sprint (00721), Verizon (00722), and T-Mobile (00723), plus auto-industry suits against Ford and GM.
  • The asserted patents derive from inventor Jeffery R. Parker (Solid State Opto lineage).

Open Verification Items (would materially improve this analysis)

  1. Docket entry numbers and the ruling on the motion to stay in 1:13-cv-02111 (or the lead 02109 briefing).
  2. Sony's answer/counterclaims and defense counsel of record.
  3. The stipulation of dismissal date and entry number (RPX shows closure 2015-09-01).
  4. Whether Sony's IPR2015-00753 ('370) was instituted or denied.
  5. The final written decisions in IPR2014-01357 ('547) and IPR2015-00506/01666 ('196) — specifically whether claims of the '547 were cancelled, which would bear on the "unverified" tertiary claim above.
  6. Whether any per-patent narrowing occurred in this docket (8 pleaded patents vs. RPX's "7 patents-in-suit").

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search for press coverage across multiple angles.

News & Press Coverage — Delaware Display Group LLC v. Sony Corp., No. 1:13-cv-02111 (D. Del.)

Bottom line: there is very little dedicated press coverage of this docket. I searched the caption, the party names, the '547 patent number, and the settlement, and found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra, or EFF piece addressing this case. That is consistent with the record: the case settled before Markman or trial, so there was no ruling, verdict, or damages number to report. The only contemporaneous "reporting" is the parties' own announcement and its syndication, plus later analyst and blog commentary that discusses the Acacia/IDT display campaign rather than this docket.

The settlement announcement. BusinessWire carried Acacia Research Corporation's press release on 2015-08-13 stating that its subsidiaries Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC "entered into a settlement and patent license agreement with Sony Corporation," and that the agreement "resolves litigation that was pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware." The release is notably thin: it does not name the case number, identify which patents were licensed, or disclose any payment, royalty rate, or term. Benzinga republished the announcement the same morning (2015-08-13), and IP Frontline, via ciplawyer.com (posted 2015-08-18, and mirrored at chinaip.net.cn on 2015-08-17), ran a near-verbatim rewrite. All of these trace to a single source — none adds independent reporting, sourcing, or financial detail. (I also did not locate a Form 8-K specifically for the Sony deal in Acacia's filing stream, unlike its Dell/HP, AT&T, and later Adaptix-Sony settlements; treat that as an unverified gap rather than a conclusion.)

Analyst and campaign-level commentary. The most substantive published take is a Seeking Alpha contributor analysis of Acacia's Q3 2015 results (published in the weeks after the 2015-10-22 earnings release), which characterized the quarter's Innovative Display activity as having "settled with three defendants with Sony (SNE) being the largest," described the two others (Stanley and Koito) as "likely cleanup related to the automotive licensing side," and predicted "the Sony deal will be another rate benchmark that will be used in negotiations and litigations with the remaining defendants." That is an investor's inference, not a disclosure — the piece contains no dollar figure, and its "largest of three" framing implies relative scale without quantifying it. Separately, Techdirt (2014-08-12) profiled IDT in its "Know Your Troll" series as an Acacia shell "targeting any company that creates a product with an LCD screen," noting the Rambus-to-Acacia patent chain, IDT's Austin/Southpark One address shared with other Acacia subsidiaries, a count of 37 IDT cases, and a quote from Acacia's Marvin Key defending the licensing model ("The implication is that … every single one of those cases is frivolous, abusive and without merit. And that's simply untrue."). Techdirt did not mention Sony or this docket — it is campaign commentary, not case coverage. Note also that Techdirt's assertion that IDT's Apple suit sought "nearly $6 billion in 'accrued royalties'" is a figure from a different docket and should not be read across to Sony; no damages demand in 13-2111 is reported anywhere I could find.

Where accounts differ, and what coverage misses. The press record adds essentially nothing beyond the litigation narrative already reconstructed from the docket, and in one respect it is less accurate: the release refers generically to "litigation … pending in … Delaware," and the derivatives repeat that phrasing, so none of them identifies the seven-case 2013-12-31 filing wave, the eight asserted patents, or the accused Xperia TL / VAIO / Cyber-shot products. More importantly, none of the coverage mentions the '547 patent, the April 2015 dismissal of the '547, or LG Display's instituted IPR2014-01357 — i.e., the press entirely missed the PTAB track where the real merits action occurred, treating the case as a routine NPE settlement. The one genuine divergence is temporal: RPX's litigation database records the close as 2015-09-01, and the earlier-generated section of this analysis flagged a conflicting 2016 administrative-close date on another tracker; no press account addresses the dismissal mechanics at all, so the docket entry remains the better source. Given that gap, the Sony license is best characterized in press terms as an undisclosed-terms settlement announced 2015-08-13 and publicly valued by no one — the "rate benchmark" characterization is an analyst's projection, not reported fact.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Found the core filing. Let me verify the original complaint's counsel and check for any other appearances.

Let me pull the actual docket sheet entries for parties/attorneys and check the co-plaintiff details.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs — Summary

Short answer: The plaintiffs (Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies LLC) were represented by a two-firm team throughout: Bragalone Conroy P.C. of Dallas, Texas (out-of-state substantive/lead counsel, admitted pro hac vice) and Farnan LLP of Wilmington, Delaware (Delaware/local counsel). No in-house counsel for the Acacia-affiliated plaintiffs appears in the filings I located.

Source basis

The most complete attorney list comes from Plaintiffs' Responsive Brief to Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, dated April 22, 2015, filed in the consolidated D. Del. campaign and captioned in C.A. No. 13-2111-RGA (along with the six sibling cases). It is publicly available as a PTAB document:

The signature block reads "Attorneys for Plaintiffs DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC and INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC."

Attorneys

Name Role Firm / Office Notes
Jeffrey R. Bragalone Lead / principal plaintiffs' counsel (out-of-state, admitted pro hac vice) Bragalone Conroy P.C., Chase Tower, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500W, Dallas, TX 75201 Founding name partner of a Dallas boutique that built a practice representing NPE/patent-holder plaintiffs; listed first in every signature block for these plaintiffs. Also filed the related PTAB papers for Delaware Display Group as patent owner in IPR2015-00757.
Patrick J. Conroy Of counsel / team member (pro hac vice) Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas Co-signer on the 2015 stay opposition brief.
Justin B. Kimble Of counsel / PTAB-side counsel (pro hac vice) Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas Signed the Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices in IPR2015-00757 (related-matters statement listing Delaware Display Group v. Sony, 1:13-cv-02111). Primary PTAB contact for the plaintiff side.
Daniel F. Olejko Of counsel / team member (pro hac vice) Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas Co-signer on the 2015 stay opposition brief.
T. William Kennedy, Jr. Of counsel / team member (pro hac vice) Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas Co-signer on the 2015 stay opposition brief.
Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089) Delaware / local counsel — listed as "Lead Attorney" on D. Del. dockets in this campaign Farnan LLP, 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801 Dean of the Delaware patent-local-counsel bar; recurring Delaware counsel for NPE plaintiffs (Chambers USA notes Farnan acts as Delaware counsel for patent-holding claimants and cites IV; also VLSI v. Intel, 1:18-cv-00966). Recipient of the D. Del.'s Layton Award.
Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165) Delaware counsel Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE Brian Farnan's partner; the firm's routine second Delaware signer on these filings.

Likely also on the plaintiffs' team (same campaign, verify for 13-2111 specifically): Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., Farnan LLP — the former U.S. District Judge for the District of Delaware — is listed among plaintiffs' counsel on the parallel docket in Delaware Display Group LLC v. VIZIO Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02112 (see https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2013cv02112/53951, which lists Bragalone, Conroy, Brian Farnan, Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., Michael Farnan, Kennedy, Kimble, and Olejko for plaintiffs). Because the seven 12/31/2013 complaints were filed as one campaign with a common team, he very likely appeared on the 13-2111 docket as well, but I could not confirm his separate appearance in 13-2111 itself — treat that as probable rather than verified.

Role designations — caveats

  • D. Del. practice requires a member of the Delaware bar to be registered on CM/ECF and file all papers, which is why Farnan LLP is the "lead attorney" in CM/ECF's field even though the substantive case was run out of Dallas. The characterization of Bragalone as "lead" reflects the signature-block ordering and the volume of substantive briefs signed by that firm; the docket labels don't formally designate a "lead trial counsel."
  • I did not find any appearance by in-house counsel for Delaware Display Group LLC or Innovative Display Technologies LLC (both Acacia Research subsidiaries). Acacia/plaintiff-side in-house personnel do not appear on the docket in this matter to my knowledge.
  • The Bragalone Conroy attorneys were admitted pro hac vice; the brief itself so states ("admitted pro hac vice").

Context on the case posture

The case was resolved by agreement rather than judgment: the November 6, 2015 opinion in the related Lenovo case (C.A. No. 13-2108) recounts that "the cases against Amazon (C.A. No. 13-2106 D.I. 19), HTC (C.A. No. 13-2107 D.I. 23), and Sony (C.A. No. 13-2111 D.I. 69) were dismissed by agreement."

RPX reports the case closed 09/01/2015 (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/dedce-53950-delaware-display-group-v-sony); one aggregator shows 07/15/2016 — the dismissal-stipulation date above (D.I. 69) is the better-sourced closing event.

What I could not verify

  • I was not able to pull the PACER docket sheet for 1:13-cv-02111 directly in this session, so I cannot give you per-attorney appearance docket-entry numbers or a formal motion-for-pro-hac-vice entry number for each Bragalone Conroy attorney. The counsel list above is reconstructed from contemporaneous case filings (2015) and the parallel campaign docket, which I regard as reliable but not a substitute for the docket sheet.
  • I found no sealed attorney-related filings implicated here; the limitation is source access, not sealing.
  • I did not verify whether any Bragalone Conroy attorney withdrew or was substituted before the September 2015 dismissal.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Let me pull the docket sheet and identify counsel appearances directly.