Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al. v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly across multiple sources.

Let me dig into the docket specifics, judge, and disposition.

Let me pin down the disposition, lead case, and the full IPR picture.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Plaintiffs Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") and Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG") are, respectively, a Texas LLC and a Delaware LLC, both with a stated principal place of business at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, Texas — the same address, and both wholly owned licensing subsidiaries of Acacia Research Corporation (now Acacia Research Corp./ACTG). Acacia's own IPR filings identify Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as the real parties-in-interest behind IDT and DDG (DDG Mandatory Notices, IPR2015-00757). So this is a classic NPE/PAE enforcement campaign: neither plaintiff makes or sells anything. The patents themselves originate with inventor Jeffery R. Parker (of Solid State Opto Limited/Lumitex lineage); RPX reports the portfolio was previously owned by Rambus and transferred to Acacia in March 2013 (RPX Insight). Defendants T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. are the national wireless carrier and its operating subsidiary — i.e., the seller/reseller of accused devices, not the panel maker. The complaint was filed June 25, 2014 as No. 2:14-cv-00723-JRG, E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap ("JRG"), with lead counsel Jeffrey R. Bragalone of Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas) and T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith (Longview) (Southeast Texas Record).

Accused technology & asserted patents. The theory is that T-Mobile infringes by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing mobile phones and tablets with LCDs — expressly naming the Samsung Galaxy Exhibit and Samsung Galaxy Light — whose edge-lit LED backlights incorporate the patented light-guide architecture. The patents, all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," share a common ultimate parent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,613,751), virtually identical specifications, and sole inventor Parker; IDT's own claim-construction brief describes the field as LCD backlights in which an optical panel carries a pattern of light-extracting "deformities" that redirect LED edge-light toward the viewer (IDT Opening Claim Construction Br., No. 2:13-cv-522). One-line sketches:

• 6,755,547 (6/29/2004) — foundational panel: optical member with a pattern of deformities emitting light in a "predetermined output distribution."
• 7,300,194 (11/27/2007) — deformities of two or more different types/shapes, at least one varying along the panel.
• 7,384,177 (6/10/2008) — continuation on light-source/panel assembly combinations in the same family.
• 7,404,660 (7/29/2008) — deformities on one or both sides, differing in type/shape or variation from the other side.
• 7,434,974 (10/14/2008) — pattern-of-deformities variations directed to output-distribution control.
• 7,537,370 (5/26/2009) — claim 15/27-style assembly of a light source plus an optical panel with an input edge and pattern of deformities.
• 8,215,816 (7/10/2012) — last-issued member of the family, same disclosure. (Note: the complaint as filed also pleaded DDG's U.S. Pat. No. 7,914,196, "Light Redirecting Film Systems"; the authoritative patent list for this case is the seven IDT patents above, and I could not confirm whether '196 remained in the case.)

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. The suit is one of four coordinated "carrier" actions filed the same day — AT&T (2:14-cv-720), Sprint (2:14-cv-721), Verizon (2:14-cv-722) and T-Mobile (2:14-cv-723) — which the court consolidated for pretrial purposes (a consolidation order of Aug. 4, 2014 references a lead case, No. 2:14-cv-201, though I could not independently verify that lead-case identity) (consolidation order). They followed IDT's June 2013 EDTX wave (Acer, Dell, HP, Huawei, ZTE) and DDG/IDT's Dec. 31, 2013 Delaware filings (Amazon, HTC, Lenovo, LG, Pantech, Sony, VIZIO) — roughly 20-plus defendants across two districts (see the Stanford NPE database and RPX). The case is notable for several reasons: (1) it exemplifies the Acacia end-user/retailer targeting model — suing wireless carriers that resell handsets rather than the display manufacturers; (2) it sits atop a dense IPR track, most importantly IPR2014-01096 (LG Display) and joined IPR2015-00493 (LG Electronics) against the '370 patent, in which the Board's Final Written Decision of Dec. 18, 2015 held claims 15 and 27 unpatentable under § 103(a) (FWD); a later IPR2015-01867 (K.J. Pretech) against the same patent ended Mar. 9, 2017; and LG also petitioned on the '177 (IPR2015-00489) and '660 (IPR2015-00487) patents, with a parallel stay fight in Delaware in which Judge Richard Andrews forced IDT/DDG to drop the IPR-challenged patents (RPX); and (3) the campaign spawned collateral litigation — Samsung Display Co. v. Acacia Research Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01353 (S.D.N.Y.), in which SDC alleged Acacia breached a covenant-not-to-sue by suing SDC's customers, surviving a motion to dismiss (opinion) — which explains the T-Mobile complaint's careful limitation of Samsung-manufactured units to those made after March 2, 2014.

Sourcing caveats. The case number, court/division, judge, parties, patent list and accused products above are well documented. By contrast, I could not verify a docket disposition for 2:14-cv-00723 (no final judgment or public settlement terms found), nor T-Mobile's counsel of record. Acacia's public 8-Ks confirm settlements/licenses with AT&T Mobility (May 2015), Dell/HP (Mar. 2015) and Sony (Aug. 2015) — the pattern strongly suggests the T-Mobile action likewise resolved by license/settlement rather than judgment, but that specific outcome is unsourced here and should be confirmed on PACER/RPX before being stated as fact.

I'll research this case systematically across the docket, PTAB, and legal press.

Good — I've confirmed the docket number (2:14-cv-00723). Now let me dig into the T-Mobile docket itself and the related consolidated litigation.

Key lead: consolidation orders and a Markman ruling. Let me pin down the consolidation structure and what happened to the T-Mobile case.

Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al. v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00723-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Note on sourcing: The findings below are drawn from primary case documents (complaints, consolidation and claim-construction orders) surfaced through PACER mirrors, Justia/Docket Alarm, the PTAB's PTACTS petition file, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. Where a fact could not be corroborated within my search budget, I say so explicitly rather than inferring it. The case metadata in this prompt (seven asserted patents; T-Mobile US/T-Mobile USA as defendants) is treated as authoritative.

---

1. Case identification and context

The AO-120 form for this docket lists the '547, '194, '177, '660 and '974 patents (the form is truncated at five rows), and the complaint pleads the additional '370 and '816 IDT patents — matching the seven patents in the case metadata. The related DDG patent, 7,914,196 (Light Redirecting Film Systems), was asserted in the companion DDG cases but is not among the patents at issue in the T-Mobile matter as described in the metadata, so I treat it as outside this case.

Corporate structure / NPE status. IDT and DDG are Acacia Research Corporation affiliates. In the companion case against Sprint, the corporate disclosure statement identified "Acacia Research Corporation" and "Acacia Research Group LLC" as affiliates of both plaintiffs (Dkt. 3, 2:14-cv-00721). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies both entities as "acquired patents" asserters. Title was acquired as follows: IDT took the IDT patents by assignment dated 2013-06-26 (a differently dated 2013-07-26 assignment appears in another complaint in the family), and DDG took the '196 patent on 2013-12-20.

---

2. Chronology of legal developments

A. Pre-suit: the campaign (2013-2014)

IDT/DDG filed a broad, multi-front assertion campaign in two waves:

• 2013-12-31 — A Delaware cluster against OEMs: Amazon (1:13-cv-02106), LG Electronics/LG Display (1:13-cv-02109), Pantech (1:13-cv-02110), Sony (1:13-cv-02111), Vizio (1:13-cv-02112). Each AO-120 listed the same eight patents (the seven IDT patents plus the '196 DDG patent).
• 2013 — E.D. Tex. filings against Huawei (2:13-cv-00525), ZTE (2:13-cv-00527), and Acer Americas (2:13-cv-00522), with 2:13-cv-00522 designated the lead consolidated case under Judge Gilstrap for the OEM defendants (Acer, Dell, HP, Huawei, BlackBerry, Microsoft).
• 2014-06-25 — A second wave in Marshall Division against the mobile carriers: AT&T (2:14-cv-00720), Sprint (2:14-cv-00721), Verizon (2:14-cv-00722), and T-Mobile (2:14-cv-00723). A contemporaneous Southeast Texas Record report confirms the filing date, the seven IDT patents (including the '370), the accused product categories ("mobile phones and tablets with an LCD"), and the theory that the patents enabled "longer displays, thinner displays, higher light output… lower power requirement, and/or a longer battery life."

B. Filing and initial pleadings (2014-06-25 onward)

• 2014-06-25 — Complaint filed; jury demand; AO-120 mailed to the PTO; corporate disclosure statement identifying the Acacia affiliates.
  • Plaintiffs' theory: T-Mobile directly infringes under §271(a) and induces infringement under §271(b) by selling third-party-manufactured LCD phones/tablets — expressly identified as Samsung Galaxy Exhibit and Samsung Galaxy Light — and by maintaining distribution channels, advertising, manuals and support.
  • Strategically important limitation: IDT limited infringement allegations for Samsung-manufactured units to products manufactured after 2014-03-02 (Compl. ¶26), while reserving the full pre- and post-suit damages period for all other products. That carve-out strongly implies a pre-existing Samsung license or covenant, i.e., a licensing-driven damages theory aimed at the carrier's resale margin rather than handset manufacture.
  • Relief sought: compensatory damages and ongoing royalties, pre/post-judgment interest, a permanent injunction, and a §285 exceptional-case/fee finding.
• Answer / counterclaims: I could not locate or verify T-Mobile's answer, affirmative defenses, or any declaratory-judgment counterclaims of non-infringement/invalidity within my search budget. This is a genuine gap. Given the family pattern (defendants answered after extensions, then moved on venue and pursued IPR), an answer with invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims is likely, but I will not represent it as confirmed. Defense counsel for T-Mobile specifically is likewise unverified.

C. Consolidation (2014-08-04) — procedural pivot

An order signed by Judge Gilstrap on 2014-08-04 consolidated the carrier-wave cases, expressly naming 14-cv-00721 (Sprint) and 2:14-cv-00723-JRG (T-Mobile), "for all pretrial issues (except venue) with the LEAD CASE, Cause No. 2:14-cv-201." (Order text is reproduced in a PTAB petition exhibit.)

Caveat: the order recites lead case "2:14-cv-201," and I was not able to independently confirm what that docket is or whether the number is a transcription artifact (the OEM lead case was 2:13-cv-00522). What is clear and important is the mechanism: venue was carved out and litigated separately, while everything else — Markman, discovery, dispositive motions — was decided once for the whole carrier group. As a practical matter this means the T-Mobile case has no independent merits record; its substantive trajectory is the consolidated group's trajectory.

D. Claim construction (Markman) — the operative merits event

• 2014-06-16 — IDT's Opening Claim Construction Brief in lead case 2:13-cv-00522 (Dkt. 69), covering 12 disputed term groups. IDT emphasized that all seven patents share a common parent and "virtually the same written descriptions," which was the hook for construing the family collectively.
• 2014-06-24 — Defendants moved to strike IDT's previously undisclosed expert declaration (Mr. Werner) on indefiniteness (Dkt. 72).
• 2014-07-11 — Judge Gilstrap granted the motion to strike (Dkt. 85). The court held IDT had failed the Patent Rule 4-3 disclosure requirement that a party "clearly indicate" intent to rely on a sworn declaration, identify the declarant, and identify the precise disputed terms, and rejected IDT's argument that Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) created a "special circumstance." Strategic significance: this foreclosed IDT's expert-driven indefiniteness rebuttal at claim construction — a defense-side win on the eve of the hearing.
• 2014-07-30 — Markman hearing in 2:13-cv-00522.
• 2014-08-26 — Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 101, 58 pages). The court construed: "pattern of deformities"/"pattern of light extracting deformities"; "continuous side walls"; "transition region"; deformities "of a different type"; "air gap" terms; "desired light output"/"desired light output distribution"/"desired light output color or uniformity"; "predetermined"; "posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount"; "well defined optical elements or deformities"; "a pattern of deformities … quite small in relation to the width and length of the sheet or film"; "pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss"; and "to [suit/fit] a particular application."

Important limitation on this report: I retrieved the opinion's structure and record cites, but not the specific constructions adopted for each term, so I cannot characterize which side prevailed term-by-term. Anyone needing the substance should pull Dkt. 101 and the subsequent Dkt. 145/163 orders in 2:13-cv-00522. Several of the construed phrases (e.g., "quite small in relation to," "to suit a particular application") appear on their face vulnerable to indefiniteness or narrowness challenges, and the defendants plainly mined the order — it was later submitted as an exhibit in the PTAB.

E. Venue motions

The Sprint docket (the cleanest window into the carrier-group defense strategy) shows a fully briefed §1404(a) transfer motion:

• 2015-01-22 — Sprint's Motion to Change Venue (Dkt. 19), with a Lindstrom declaration and Exhibits A–M.
• 2015-02-09 — IDT/DDG opposition (Dkt. 20) with an 11-exhibit Kennedy affidavit; 2015-02-20 reply with Exhibits N–Q; 2015-03-03 sur-reply (Dkt. 22).

Because the 2014-08-04 consolidation order excepted venue from consolidation, each carrier — including T-Mobile — litigated venue in its own docket. I could not confirm whether T-Mobile filed a comparable transfer motion in 2:14-cv-00723; unverified. Note also that the venue activity here post-dates TC Heartland (2017) and therefore reflects ordinary §1404(a) convenience practice, not the later §1400(b) residence fight.

F. Discovery milestones

The only discovery-adjacent milestone I can verify with a citation is the 2014-06-24 → 2014-07-11 expert-declaration strike in the consolidated lead case, which turned on Patent Rule 4-3 disclosure compliance — a disclosure/discovery-sanction issue with direct claim-construction consequences. I did not find verified records of the Docket Control Order dates, PR 3-1/3-2 infringement and invalidity contentions, the damages expert reports, or any discovery disputes in 2:14-cv-00723 itself. Flagging as a gap.

G. Trial, verdict, JMOL, fees

No trial, verdict, or post-trial motion in this matter could be verified. This case does not appear in the universe of IDT-campaign cases that reached a jury. Given the plaintiff's damages posture (reasonable royalty against carriers, with a Samsung carve-out) and the family's disposition pattern, a negotiated resolution rather than a merits trial is far more likely — but that is inference, not record.

H. Disposition and present posture

• What I can confirm: The companion Sprint case, 2:14-cv-00721, was dismissed: an order signed 2015-08-04 by Judge Gilstrap granted dismissal with prejudice as to Sprint Solutions, Inc. and Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Dkt. 23). Unicourt's docket snapshot lists the case as "Disposed — Other Disposed," last updated 2016-06-09.
• What I cannot confirm: A docketed dismissal, settlement order, consent judgment, or appeal in 2:14-cv-00723 (T-Mobile). My searches for a T-Mobile-specific termination order returned no hits, and I exhausted my retrieval budget before I could pull the -723 docket sheet directly. I will not assert a disposition I have not seen. The correct next step is a direct PACER/docket pull on 2:14-cv-00723-JRG for a Rule 41 dismissal, a "Notice of Settlement," or a joint stipulated dismissal.

Practical assessment: The realistic final posture for -723 is dismissal following a license/settlement, consistent with (i) the Sprint dismissal with prejudice in the same consolidated group and on the same day, (ii) the campaign-wide pattern visible in the Stanford NPE database and the E.D. Tex. docket, and (iii) the absence of any trial record. Treat this as a well-supported working hypothesis, explicitly not a verified disposition.

---

3. Parallel PTAB proceedings

Parallel AIA review activity is documented and was plainly coordinated with the district court defense:

• IPR2014-01359 — U.S. Patent 7,914,196 ('196 patent, DDG). Petition materials are dated 2014-08-21, i.e., filed roughly two months after the carrier-wave complaints and within days of the E.D. Tex. Markman order. The '196 was the DDG-side patent asserted against OEMs/retailers (and listed in the Delaware complaints), not one of the seven T-Mobile patents — so this IPR is relevant background to the campaign but not directly to the T-Mobile asserted set. Petitioner identity and outcome: unverified.
• IPR2015-00745 — U.S. Patent 7,404,660 ('660 patent, IDT — one of the T-Mobile asserted patents). Petition filed 2015-02-17. Petitioner Exhibit 1012 is the Markman opinion from 2:13-cv-00522 (Dkt. 101), and Exhibit 1013 is IDT's Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 69) — direct proof that the consolidated E.D. Tex. claim construction was fed into the PTAB record. Petitioner identity, institution decision, and final written decision: unverified within my search budget.
• Related PTACTS petition files bearing the T-Mobile caption/-723 docket number and IDT's pleadings (e.g., petition artifacts reproducing the AO-120 for 2:14-cv-00723 and the T-Mobile complaint ¶¶10-20) confirm further petitions in the family were filed using this case's pleadings as exhibits.

Effect on the litigation: Across the IDT/Acacia campaign, the standard defense playbook was serial IPR filings by OEM and carrier defendants coupled with §1404(a) venue motions. That combination creates delay leverage and, if a patent is invalidated or narrowed, moots infringement theories for every downstream reseller — which is precisely the posture of a carrier defendant like T-Mobile, whose exposure depends entirely on third-party-manufactured handsets. I could not verify an instituted IPR, a stay motion, or a stay order in -723, so I cannot state that the T-Mobile case was stayed pending IPR.

---

4. Ledger of what is confirmed vs. unresolved

Confirmed with citation

• Docket, filing date, parties, patents, accused products, and the 2014-03-02 Samsung carve-out: 2014-06-25 complaint and AO-120 in 2:14-cv-00723.
• Consolidation of -723 for pretrial purposes (venue excepted): order dated 2014-08-04 (reproduced in PTAB petition exh.).
• Markman hearing 2014-07-30; Claim Construction Memorandum and Order 2014-08-26, Dkt. 101, 12 term groups (2:13-cv-00522).
• Grant of defendants' motion to strike IDT's expert declaration, 2014-07-11, Dkt. 85 (2:13-cv-00522).
• Sprint §1404(a) motion practice, Jan.–Mar. 2015; Sprint dismissal with prejudice 2015-08-04, Dkt. 23 (2:14-cv-00721).
• IPR2014-01359 ('196) petition materials dated 2014-08-21; IPR2015-00745 ('660) petition filed 2015-02-17.
• Plaintiff-side counsel: Jeffrey R. Bragalone (lead), Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William Kennedy, Jr., Daniel F. Olejko (Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas); T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry (Ward & Smith Law Firm, Longview).

Unresolved / needs primary-source verification

1. T-Mobile's answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims (and T-Mobile's counsel of record).
2. The specific constructions adopted in the 2014-08-26 Markman order, term by term.
3. Whether T-Mobile filed its own §1404(a) transfer motion, and its outcome.
4. Docket Control Order dates, PR 3-1/3-2 contentions, damages reports, and any discovery disputes in -723.
5. Institution and final written decisions in IPR2014-01359 and IPR2015-00745, and petitioner identities; whether any stay was sought or granted.
6. The disposition of 2:14-cv-00723 itself — the single most important open question, and the item the prior summary correctly flagged as missing. A direct PACER pull is required; on the current record I can state only that no trial or verdict is documented and that dismissal following license — as happened in the conjoined Sprint case on 2015-08-04 — is the most probable outcome.

Recommended next pulls: (a) the full docket sheet and last 20 entries for 2:14-cv-00723-JRG on PACER; (b) Dkt. 101 and any amended claim construction order in 2:13-cv-00522; (c) PTAB Patent Trial & Appeal Board docket pages for IPR2014-01359 and IPR2015-00745 (PTACTS), plus any IPR filed by T-Mobile or its handset suppliers on the '547, '194, '177, '660, '974, '370, and '816 patents; (d) the Stipulation of Dismissal in 2:14-cv-00721 to see whether it recites a license that would also cover T-Mobile.

I'll search several angles for press coverage of this specific case.

Let me refine — searching for trade-press and analyst coverage of the T-Mobile suit specifically, and any settlement reporting.

Press and media coverage — what actually exists

Short answer: coverage of this specific docket is extremely thin. I ran searches targeting the case caption, the party names, the asserted patent numbers, the settlement/verdict angle, and general outlet coverage (Reuters, Law360, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, Techdirt, regional legal trade press). I did not find a single article from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog or Patently-O that reports on Innovative Display Technologies v. T-Mobile, No. 2:14-cv-00723 — no verdict story, no settlement story, no damages figure. I also found no press account of the case's disposition, which is consistent with (though not proof of) the earlier sections' conclusion that -723 ended quietly. I hit my search-step ceiling before exhausting every angle, so treat this as "no coverage found" rather than "no coverage exists" — Law360 in particular sits behind a paywall and its docket-alert items would not surface in open search.

What the trade press did report, at filing. The only outlet I found that names this docket directly is the regional legal trade paper Southeast Texas Record, whose roundup of the June 25, 2014 Marshall Division filings lists "Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC v T-Mobile US Inc. et al Case No. 2:14-cv-723" alongside the AT&T, Sprint and Verizon suits filed the same day. Its account tracks the complaint closely: it recites the seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents ('547, '194, '177, '660, '974, '370, '816) with issue dates and Parker as sole inventor, notes separately that "Also named in the suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,914,196," describes the infringement theory as selling "mobile phones and tablets with an LCD that have longer displays, thinner displays, displays with higher light output, more uniform light output, lower power requirement and/or longer battery life," and identifies Jeffrey R. Bragalone of Bragalone Conroy PC as lead counsel with T. John Ward Jr. of Ward & Smith. Useful cross-reference: that contemporaneous listing independently confirms both the seven-patent IDT set in the case metadata and the earlier-flagged point that the '196 was pleaded in the complaint — it is not either/or.

Where commentary goes beyond the court record. The substantive commentary on this campaign is at the campaign level, not the docket level, and it is advocacy-inflected rather than analytical. Techdirt published "Know Your Troll: Innovative Display Technologies Targeting Any Company That Creates A Product With An LCD Screen" on 2014-08-12 — roughly seven weeks after the carrier suits were filed — framing IDT as an Acacia shell ("doesn't make any products or even have its own website") working patents "acquired from 'we're not a patent troll' Rambus," and reporting that "its latest targets are cell phone distributors like Verizon, AT&T and Apple." Two caveats on that piece: the excerpt I retrieved names Verizon, AT&T and Apple but does not expressly name T-Mobile, so it is campaign context rather than T-Mobile-specific reporting; and its numbers pertain to other defendants — it reports IDT's second Apple suit sought "nearly $6 billion in 'accrued royalties,'" that "IDT currently has 34 cases in litigation," and that IDT "has already secured a licensing agreement from Garmin." It also quotes Acacia executive Marvin Key defending the model: "The implication in almost everything you read is that there is nothing positive at all about licensing patents… that every single one of those cases is frivolous, abusive and without merit. And that's simply untrue." Techdirt's own tally listed "INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC – 37" suits within an Acacia stable of "63 subsidiaries. 669 lawsuits."

What no outlet has reported — and the divergence to flag. I found zero press reporting of any disposition, damages award, settlement term, or market impact specific to the T-Mobile action. The only public "reported numbers" in this campaign come from Acacia's own SEC disclosures rather than journalism: its Form 8-K (event date 2015-05-05, filed 2015-05-11) states that IDT and DDG "entered into a settlement and license agreement with AT&T Mobility LLC" resolving No. 2:14-cv-00720-JRG — notably silent as to T-Mobile, and silent as to terms. So the press record here diverges from the litigation record in a specific way worth stating plainly: the trade press documented the filing of this case and the tech press editorialized about the campaign, but neither has documented the outcome. Anyone characterizing T-Mobile's resolution — including the working hypothesis in the earlier sections that -723 was dismissed pursuant to a license — is operating from inference and docket silence, not from anything a news outlet has published. The related Samsung Display v. Acacia S.D.N.Y. action, which supplies the contractual backdrop for the complaint's post-2014-03-02 Samsung carve-out, appears in my searches only as court filings and opinions (e.g., the 12(b)(6) opinion); I found no press write-up of it in this pass, and I am not asserting one exists.

Bottom line for the report: cite Southeast Texas Record for the filing facts and Techdirt for the "patent troll" framing and campaign statistics; do not cite any outlet for a T-Mobile outcome, because on this record none exists.

Sources

• /s/ Jeffrey R

• DOCKET NO

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• T- Mobile does so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the '8...
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v
• Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 35 PagelD #: 907
• | PLAINTIFF | | DEFENDANT | |
• Innovative Display Technologies et. al. v. T-Mobile et. al. - Innovative Display Technologies Et. Al. v. T-Mobile Et. Al.
• UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D
• lcd screen – Techdirt
• innovative technologies – Techdirt
• Apple Federal Litigation Filings

I'll verify and expand the plaintiff-side counsel identification with targeted searches.

Let me find the complaint's signature block and counsel listings directly.

Plaintiff-Side Counsel of Record — IDT/DDG v. T-Mobile, No. 2:14-cv-00723-JRG

Bottom line: Both plaintiffs are represented by the same outside-counsel team that ran the entire Acacia IDT/DDG campaign: Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas) as lead/plaintiffs' counsel, with Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview) serving the local-counsel function in the Eastern District of Texas. No in-house counsel (Acacia/IDT/DDG) appears as counsel of record — consistent with the campaign's pure-outside-counsel staffing model. I found no sealed appearances and no gaps in the plaintiff-side appearance record, but I could not pull the -723 docket sheet itself within this search; the identifications below are grounded in the complaint signature block, the companion-case dockets, and PTAB filings in the same family, and I flag the one item that is inference rather than record.

---

1. Lead counsel — Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas, TX)

Verification and notes on each:

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone is the attorney identified on the Rule 7.1/AO-120 attorney block for the IDT family complaints — "Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500W, Dallas, TX 75201, 214-785-6670" — and the complaints carry his "SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Jeffrey R. Bragalone" (AO-120 and complaint signature blocks, reproduced as PTAB petition exhibits). Justia's docket for the companion T-Mobile-wave case, IDT v. Sprint, No. 2:14-cv-00721, lists "Jeffrey Ray Bragalone" among plaintiffs' counsel of record (Justia docket, 2:14-cv-00721) — and because -721 and -723 were filed the same day by the same plaintiffs and consolidated for pretrial purposes, the -723 appearance is the same. Experience: Bragalone is a long-time EDTX patent litigator with 26+ years of practice; he argued three patent appeals before the Federal Circuit — Greenliant Sys., Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012); United Access Techs., LLC v. Earthlink, Inc., 432 F. App'x 976 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BenQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) — and was on brief in Tegic Commc'ns Corp. v. Bd. of Regents, 458 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). He also served as lead counsel in Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Intersil Corp., No. 4:08-cv-451 (E.D. Tex.) and in HSM Portfolio LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., No. 1:11-cv-00770 (D. Del.) (IDT pro hac vice motion, IPR2014-01094).

• Justin B. Kimble is documented as IDT's PTAB lead counsel (registered practitioner, Reg. No. 58,591) across the parallel IPRs on the same patents — i.e., he was the prosecution-side counterpart while Bragalone was designated back-up on pro hac vice admission. This is the same division of labor likely reflected in the district-court team (pro hac vice motion, IPR2014-01094). Caveat: I verified Kimble's IDT-side role in the PTAB record; I did not independently confirm his specific appearance in the -723 docket itself, though he was consistently on the campaign-wide district-court team.

• Conroy, Kennedy and Olejko are identified as Bragalone Conroy plaintiff-side counsel across the IDT/DDG filings, per the prior section's compilation. These three I did not independently re-verify against the -723 docket sheet in this pass — treat their appearance in -723 specifically as probable-but-unconfirmed. Bragalone and Kimble are firmly sourced.

---

2. Local counsel — Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview, TX)

• Justia's docket entries for the IDT family list "Thomas John Ward, Jr" alongside Bragalone on the plaintiffs' representation — e.g., IDT v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-cv-00783 (Justia docket) — and the same pairing appears in the Sprint companion case, 2:14-cv-00721 (Justia docket). Ward & Smith is a well-known EDTX patent boutique; T. John Ward Jr. is the son of former EDTX Chief Judge T. John Ward and a fixture of Marshall patent practice.
• Claire Abernathy Henry (Ward & Smith) is listed among plaintiff-side counsel in the prior section's compilation. I did not independently re-confirm her -723 appearance in this pass — flag as probable, not verified.

---

3. Counsel NOT found / explicit negatives

• No in-house counsel of record. I found no Acacia Research Corporation, IDT, or DDG in-house attorney appearing as counsel. Acacia's model was to farm the campaign to Bragalone Conroy with local EDTX counsel; the disclosure statements list Acacia entities only as corporate parents/affiliates, not as counsel.
• No separate Delaware-side counsel in this matter. DDG's parallel D. Del. cluster (Amazon, LG, Pantech, Sony, Vizio; 1:13-cv-02106 through -02112) used the same team, but those attorneys are not counsel of record in -723.
• No sealed appearance order surfaced for the plaintiffs in -723. There is no indication any plaintiff-side attorney appeared under seal.

---

4. Confidence ledger

Confirmed with citation

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone (lead counsel; Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500W, Dallas, TX 75201; 214-785-6670) — from the complaint/AO-120 signature block (PTACTS exhibit) and Justia's docket for this case's filed-same-day/consolidated companion, 2:14-cv-00721.
• Bragalone's Federal Circuit and EDTX/D. Del. patent experience — from IDT's own PTAB filing (IPR2014-01094 pro hac vice motion).
• Justin B. Kimble as IDT's registered PTAB lead counsel (Reg. No. 58,591) — same source.
• Thomas John Ward, Jr. (Ward & Smith, Longview) on the plaintiffs' side of the IDT family — Justia, 2:13-cv-00783.

Unverified / should be checked against the -723 docket sheet

1. Whether Conroy, Kennedy, and Olejko were formally entered in -723 (vs. other IDT cases).
2. Whether Claire Abernathy Henry entered an appearance in -723.
3. Any withdrawal/substitution of counsel at the close of the case (a stipulation of dismissal often accompanies a withdrawal motion).

Recommended next pull: the -723 docket sheet on PACER for the attorney-appearance entries (Dkt. 1 signature block, any notices of appearance, and any motion to withdraw), which would convert items 1–3 above from probable to confirmed.

I'll research T-Mobile's defense counsel in this docket specifically. Let me run several targeted searches.

Note the complaint actually pleads eight patents (including the '196) — I'll flag that. Now to defense counsel.

Alston & Bird appears as a recurring T-Mobile defense firm in EDTX. Let me try to pin the specific 2014 docket entries.

Counsel of record for the defendant(s) — verification status

Bottom line: I could not verify T-Mobile's counsel of record in 2:14-cv-00723-JRG from the sources available to me in this search pass. The prior sections of this case flagged this as an open item (Unresolved item #1), and that remains true. I am not going to name attorneys as "counsel of record" on this docket without a docket sheet or appearance entry, because that is exactly the kind of fact that should not be guessed. What I can do is (a) report precisely what I searched and what came back empty, (b) give you documented leads on who represents T-Mobile in E.D. Tex. patent litigation generally, with the caveat that those appearances are in different cases, and (c) state the exact pull that would close this gap.

---

1. What the sources actually returned

So: no answer, no Rule 83.5 admission/designation of local counsel, no joint defense agreement filing, and no appearance entry for T-Mobile surfaced. The complaint document that circulates in PTAB exhibits ends before any defense filing, which is consistent with the earlier finding that the answering pleadings in -723 were never located.

Reason for the gap (stated as observation, not fact): this case was consolidated on 2014-08-04 with the other carrier-wave actions for all pretrial issues except venue, and the companion Sprint docket shows the defensive activity (venue motion, etc.) happening under each carrier's own docket number. Defense filings in -723 may be thin — possibly just an answer/counterclaim and venue papers — which makes them harder to surface through secondary aggregators than a merits-heavy docket.

---

2. Documented leads on T-Mobile's E.D. Tex. patent defense counsel (NOT this docket)

The only T-Mobile–specific defense counsel I can source with a URL are from other matters. Treat these as candidates to check against the -723 docket sheet — not as confirmed appearances here:

• Michael C. Deane — Alston & Bird LLP (Partner). His firm bio states he represents "T-Mobile US Inc., et al., Nos. 2:16-cv-00052, -00055, -00056, -00057 (E.D. Tex.)" and notes he clerked for the Hon. Rodney Gilstrap in the E.D. Tex. — the same judge assigned to -723. Focus: patent litigation and PTAB work for telecom/consumer-electronics clients (Alston & Bird bio).
• Theodore ("Ted") Stevenson III — Alston & Bird LLP (Partner, Dallas/Texas). Chambers Band 1 IP litigator, "Top 100" trial lawyer, 40+ patent trials including cellular-telephone technologies; Texas-barred and admitted in E.D. Tex. (Alston & Bird bio).
• Alston & Bird (firm-level). The firm publicly states it "represented T-Mobile and Ericsson" in an E.D. Tex. case brought by General Access, obtaining a complete defense verdict on April 11, 2025 ($253M sought) — evidence of an ongoing T-Mobile defense relationship in this district (firm press release, via bio page).

Caveat I want to be explicit about: the Deane/Stevenson T-Mobile appearances are dated 2016 and 2025. There is no source I found tying Alston & Bird (or any identified firm) to the 2014 -723 matter. Also, the 2016 case numbers in Deane's bio (2:16-cv-00052 etc.) do not match this docket, and the opposing-party identity in those cases is unstated, so I cannot even confirm they are the same litigation campaign. Do not treat Alston & Bird as established counsel of record for -723 on this record.

Local counsel: In E.D. Tex. practice, an out-of-district firm like Alston & Bird would ordinarily pair with a Marshall/Tyler local firm for pro hac vice and local-counsel designation. I found no local-counsel entry for T-Mobile in -723. Name any specific Marshall firm only after a docket pull; I will not guess one.

In-house: For a carrier reseller defendant in an NPE suit, in-house IP counsel (T-Mobile legal, Bellevue, WA) would have supervised, but in-house attorneys rarely enter an appearance. Unverified here.

---

3. Recommended pull to close this definitively

1. PACER docket sheet, 2:14-cv-00723-JRG — look for (a) a "Defendant's Answer/Answer to Complaint" with signature blocks, (b) a Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice, (c) a "Notice of Attorney Appearance," and (d) any "Designation of Lead Counsel/Attorney in Charge" under Dkt. Local Rule AT-2.
2. The joint defense / consolidation coordination filings in 2:13-cv-00522 and 2:14-cv-00721 — where lead counsel for the carrier group likely signed for multiple carriers. The Sprint docket (2:14-cv-00721) is the cleanest proxy; its venue-motion papers (e.g., Dkt. 19, filed 2015-01-22) will show which firm coordinated the carriers' defense and may name T-Mobile's counsel in the certificate of conference/service.
3. Cross-check the same firm across AT&T (2:14-cv-00720), Sprint (-721), and Verizon (-722) — if one firm appears for all four carriers, that is strong circumstantial evidence of who appeared for T-Mobile.
4. Alston & Bird press releases / Federal Circuit dockets circa 2014–2016 to test whether the firm had the T-Mobile relationship as early as mid-2014.

---

4. Sourcing-correction flag (contradiction found)

While researching, I found a contradiction with the earlier section's treatment of the '196 patent. The earlier "Case overview" treated U.S. Pat. No. 7,914,196 ("Light Redirecting Film Systems Having Pattern of Variable Optical Elements") as possibly outside the case, and the "Key legal developments" section stated the '196 "is not among the patents at issue in the T-Mobile matter as described in the metadata."

The primary complaint — reproduced in the PTACTS/PTAB exhibit of 2:14-cv-00723 — pleads the '196 as the "DDG patent" and groups it with the six IDT patents as the "patents-in-suit" (Compl. ¶¶15–21), and the Southeast Texas Record contemporaneous report likewise states: "Also named in the suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,914,196." So the complaint as filed asserted eight patents, not seven, and the '196 was within the case's pleading. The case metadata list of seven patents remains authoritative for the IDT patents at issue, but the earlier statements implying the '196 was not part of this case are inaccurate as to the complaint and should be corrected. Whether the '196 survived into the operative infringement contentions or any final disposition is still unverified.

---

Net answer to your question: I could not identify any attorney of record for T-Mobile in 2:14-cv-00723-JRG from the available sources, and I decline to name one without a docket or appearance entry. The strongest documented lead is Alston & Bird (Michael C. Deane and Theodore Stevenson III) as T-Mobile's E.D. Tex. patent defense counsel in other matters — but that attribution to this 2014 docket is unconfirmed and must be verified on PACER.