Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v. [Unknown Defendant]

The patent infringement litigation, Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v. [Unknown Defendant], Case 1:13-cv-02107, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The "Unknown Defendant" in this specific case (1:13-cv-02107) was HTC Corporation, along with other defendants in related suits filed by the same plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC, are widely considered to be Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs), asserting acquired patents rather than actively manufacturing products.

The patents asserted in this and related cases by the plaintiffs included U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, among others such as 7,434,974 and 7,537,370. While the technical details for 7,300,194 are not explicitly detailed as a one-liner in the provided search results, the broader context of the litigation suggests it relates to display technologies, particularly LCD and backlight technologies. Other patents asserted by Innovative Display Technologies in related cases (though not explicitly 7,300,194 in all instances) have related to "light emitting panel assemblies" and "transreflectors, transreflector systems and displays." The accused products in the broader campaign by these plaintiffs typically include consumer electronics featuring display technologies, such as smartphones, tablets, and televisions.

The case is venued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a popular forum for patent litigation due to its specialized patent bar, judges experienced in patent law, and fast-paced dockets. District Judge Richard G. Andrews has presided over related cases involving these plaintiffs. The litigation is notable for the plaintiffs' pattern of filing numerous, related patent infringement lawsuits against multiple technology companies, characteristic of NPE assertion strategies. Several of these related cases were dismissed by agreement or stayed pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), indicating a common strategy by defendants to challenge patent validity outside of district court.The patent infringement litigation, Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v. [Unknown Defendant], Case 1:13-cv-02107, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The defendant in this specific case (1:13-cv-02107) was HTC Corporation. The plaintiffs, Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC, are identified as Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs), focusing on licensing and enforcing patents rather than manufacturing products. This case was part of a broader litigation campaign initiated by these plaintiffs against multiple technology companies.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, is generally related to LCD and backlight technologies. While a precise one-line technical sketch for this specific patent is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, the plaintiffs' portfolio often includes patents covering innovations in light-emitting panel assemblies and display systems. The accused products are typically consumer electronic devices that incorporate such display technologies, including smartphones and other devices manufactured by the defendants in the overall litigation campaign.

The case is situated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a jurisdiction frequently chosen for patent disputes due to its experienced judiciary and efficient handling of patent dockets. District Judge Richard G. Andrews has overseen related cases involving these plaintiffs. This litigation is notable as an example of an NPE assertion strategy, where the plaintiffs have concurrently filed numerous related lawsuits against multiple defendants. The procedural history in related cases indicates a pattern of dismissals by agreement or stays pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), highlighting the strategic interplay between district court litigation and administrative patent challenges.

Case Name: Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v. HTC Corporation et al.
Case Number: 1:13-cv-02107
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Patents at issue: 7,300,194

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

This patent infringement suit was filed by Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC against HTC Corporation, among others. The litigation concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, related to LCD and backlight technologies.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

The lawsuit, Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. HTC Corporation et al., No. 1:13-cv-02107, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on December 31, 2013.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

A significant development in parallel to the district court litigation was the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194. IPR2014-01097 was filed challenging the validity of claims of this patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is the forum for such challenges.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

While specific details for a Markman order in 1:13-cv-02107 against HTC were not immediately found, general information suggests that claim construction often precedes other substantive motions. A favorable Markman order can sometimes lead to settlement.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

The district court case 1:13-cv-02107 was ultimately dismissed. The overall litigation involving Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC, including numerous other cases filed around the same time and concerning related patents, often resulted in settlements or dismissals following various pre-trial stages, including IPR proceedings. For example, some related cases settled after favorable Markman orders.

To provide a more precise outcome for this specific case (1:13-cv-02107), further detailed docket review would be necessary. However, the available information suggests that a definitive trial verdict or a Federal Circuit appeal specific to this case against HTC concerning patent 7,300,194 has not reached public search results that would typically highlight such an outcome. It is common for such cases to resolve through settlement or dismissal, often influenced by the outcomes of parallel IPR proceedings or claim construction rulings.## Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v. HTC Corporation et al.

Case Caption: Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v. HTC Corporation et al.
Case Number: 1:13-cv-02107
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Patents at issue: 7,300,194

Filing & Initial Pleadings

Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs") initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against HTC Corporation ("HTC") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, was filed on December 31, 2013.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

In parallel to the district court litigation, U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, asserted in this case, became the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The IPR was designated IPR2014-01097. This IPR was formally instituted by the PTAB.

Disposition

The district court case, Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. HTC Corporation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02107, was dismissed on March 29, 2017. This dismissal was stipulated by the parties, indicating a likely settlement.

Due to the dismissal, the case did not proceed to claim construction (Markman), significant discovery milestones, trial events, or post-trial motions within the district court. The settlement and dismissal of the district court case likely rendered the parallel IPR proceeding moot or influenced its resolution, though the specific outcome of IPR2014-01097 and its direct impact on the stipulated dismissal would require detailed examination of the IPR docket.

In patent infringement case 1:13-cv-02107, Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v. HTC Corporation, the plaintiffs have been represented by counsel from both Delaware and Texas.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

• Michael J. Farnan (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Brian E. Farnan, also of Farnan LLP, has appeared as local counsel for plaintiffs in related cases.
• Jeffrey A. Bragalone (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Bragalone & Conroy LLP, Dallas, Texas
  • Note: Patrick J. Conroy, James Perkins, and T. William Kennedy, Jr. are also listed as attorneys for the plaintiffs from Bragalone & Conroy LLP in related cases. Bragalone & Conroy PC is a firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.

It is important to note that a March 2020 memorandum order in a separate but related case involving Innovative Display Technologies LLC highlighted issues with plaintiff's counsel failing to comply with local rules regarding the disclosure of related cases, leading to a dismissal without prejudice. This indicates a potential pattern of procedural issues in the broader litigation campaign by these plaintiffs. Additionally, the broader litigation activities of Innovative Display Technologies LLC and its associated entities, particularly those involving Leigh Rothschild, have drawn scrutiny, including a recent decisive victory for Valve Corporation in a case that involved counterclaims alleging breach of a prior licensing agreement and led to the "piercing of the corporate veil" and holding the inventor personally liable.

The defendant in this case, HTC Corporation, has a history of patent litigation and employs a combination of in-house and external counsel for its defense. While specific counsel appearances for case 1:13-cv-02107 were not immediately available through direct docket searches, information from related cases and general HTC litigation practice provides insight into likely representation.

Based on available information, HTC Corporation's defense counsel in patent infringement cases often includes:

External Counsel

• Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP

  • Attorneys:
    • Alexandra (Lexie) White: Partner, Houston office. Leads Susman Godfrey teams representing clients in patent disputes.
    • Andres C. Healy: Partner, Seattle office. Experienced in drafting responses to petitions at the Federal Circuit in patent disputes.
    • Hunter Vance: Partner, Houston office. Has worked on responses to petitions at the Federal Circuit for patent cases involving HTC.
  • Note: Susman Godfrey has successfully represented clients against HTC in patent disputes, including securing a significant Federal Circuit ruling concerning venue for foreign entities in patent infringement suits.

• Firm: Bernstein IP Strategy

  • Note: This firm has provided lead counsel for HTC America and HTC Corporation in various patent litigations related to technologies such as audio playlists, controlling LED light sources, mobile image systems, virtual reality, caller-ID functionality, and wireless image distribution.

• Firm: Knobbe Martens

  • Note: Knobbe Martens has represented HTC Corporation in patent infringement cases, including a Federal Circuit case concerning standing in patent litigation.

In-house Counsel

HTC has an established in-house legal team dedicated to patent litigation. Key individuals identified from historical records (though roles and specific involvement in current cases may vary over time) include:

• Vince Lam: Chief Patent Litigation Counsel.
• Owais Siddiqui: Executive Director, Patent Litigation.

It is common for defendants in patent cases in the District of Delaware to also engage local counsel, although specific local counsel for HTC in 1:13-cv-02107 could not be definitively identified from the provided search results. Without direct access to the docket for case 1:13-cv-02107, it's not possible to provide an exhaustive list of every attorney of record and their specific roles (e.g., lead, local, of counsel) for this particular case. Filings are not sealed, but specific counsel appearances for this exact case number are not readily available in the general web search results.