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

This patent infringement litigation, Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC v. [Unknown Defendant] (Case No. 2:13-cv-00524), involves Innovative Display Technologies LLC as the primary plaintiff, and Hewlett-Packard Company as the defendant. The case is active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge J. Gilstrap. The plaintiffs, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT) and Delaware Display Group LLC (DDG), are non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs), as they are associated with Acacia Research Group LLC. Acacia Research Group is publicly traded and focuses on patent acquisition, development, licensing, and enforcement, having acquired patents from various sources, including Rambus International Ltd. and ultimately from Solid State Opto Limited. The litigation alleges infringement related to "backlighting for liquid crystal displays".

While the prompt listed U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, extensive searches for case 2:13-cv-00524, and related cases filed by the plaintiffs in the same timeframe (e.g., in the District of Delaware), primarily identify U.S. Patent Nos. 7,434,974 ("the '974 patent") and 7,537,370 ("the '370 patent") as the asserted patents, along with 8,215,816 and 7,914,196 in some of the broader, related litigations. There is no direct, verifiable information linking U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 specifically to case 2:13-cv-00524 against Hewlett-Packard in the Eastern District of Texas. The identified patents, such as the '974 and '370 patents, generally relate to light-emitting panel assembly configurations, specifically backlight units used in liquid crystal displays, aiming for better control of light output and more efficient light utilization.

The procedural posture highlights the Eastern District of Texas as the chosen venue, a district historically known for its plaintiff-friendly rules and juries in patent litigation, with Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding over a significant portion of the nation's patent cases. This venue choice was particularly notable before the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 and subsequent Federal Circuit rulings, which significantly narrowed the proper venue for patent infringement cases, limiting it primarily to where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business. The case is notable for reflecting the assertion patterns of NPEs like Innovative Display Technologies and Delaware Display Group, which are subsidiaries of Acacia Research Group, in targeting major technology companies over display technologies. The broader litigation campaign by these entities also saw parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against some of the asserted patents in related cases, indicating a multi-front litigation strategy.

The patent infringement litigation, Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 2:13-cv-00524, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case pertains to U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, related to LCD and backlight technologies.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2013-05-30): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Hewlett-Packard Company in the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. This case was part of a series of related lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs against various computer manufacturers concerning backlight technology for liquid crystal displays.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Specific details regarding motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR for this particular case (2:13-cv-00524) are not immediately available from the provided search snippets. However, it's common for such motions to be filed in complex patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Information on a specific Markman hearing or claim construction order for this case is not detailed in the provided search results.

Discovery Milestones:

• No strategic discovery milestones are explicitly detailed in the provided search results for this specific case.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• There is no indication from the provided information that this case proceeded to trial or resulted in a verdict.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The provided information does not contain the final disposition of this specific case (2:13-cv-00524). Many similar cases by these plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas often result in confidential settlements.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search for Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) or Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) related to U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 in the USPTO PTAB database (P-TACTS) did not yield specific results in the provided snippets. While the concept of IPRs as an alternative to district court litigation is mentioned, there is no direct evidence of an IPR filed against this particular patent that affected this specific lawsuit.

Present Posture:

• The status of the case is listed as "Active" in the prompt metadata (2026-05-30), but the provided search results do not offer recent updates or a final disposition. Without further docket access, the precise current posture beyond "active" is unclear.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s), Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC, in Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC v. [Unknown Defendant], Case No. 2:13-cv-00524 (E.D. Tex.):

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from filings and firm's focus)
  • Firm: Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey Bragalone is a patent litigator with experience representing patent owners in the Eastern District of Texas and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Justin B. Kimble

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Justin Kimble has represented Innovative Display Technologies LLC in patent litigation, including filings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

In the patent infringement case Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 2:13-cv-00524 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following counsel represented the defendant:

Michael J. Word

• Role: Counsel for the defendant (Hewlett-Packard Company). The available information indicates he represented multiple computer manufacturers, including Hewlett-Packard, in this multi-patent litigation. While a specific designation like "lead" or "local" counsel is not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this exact case, his involvement in a series of related cases suggests a significant role in the defense team.
• Firm: Dykema.
• Office Location: Chicago, Illinois.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Michael Word is the co-leader of Dykema's Artificial Intelligence and Innovation Group and has over 15 years of experience representing leading technology companies in various forums, including federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB). He has handled more than 40 federal district court patent litigation matters and ITC investigations, covering complex technologies such as wired and wireless communications, vehicle telematics, semiconductor devices, cloud computing, optics and displays (including LCDs), and data storage systems. Notably, he represented multiple computer manufacturers in multi-patent litigation directed to backlighting for liquid crystal displays, which explicitly includes Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 2:13-cv-00524.