Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the Honda-specific allegations, the case outcome, and the IPR history.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") is a Texas limited liability company headquartered at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Plano, Texas — i.e., a non-practicing entity holding an acquired patent portfolio. USPTO assignment records show the patents came out of Jeffery R. Parker's Solid State Opto lineage (later Rambus), with the IDT entity taking title from Acacia Research Group LLC in a June 2013 assignment (Reel 030698/Frame 0633); IDT is best understood as an Acacia-backed assertion vehicle, and its suits were run as a coordinated licensing campaign rather than as operating-company enforcement. Defendants are four Honda entities: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Torrance, CA — sales/distribution); Honda of America Mfg., Inc. (Ohio — manufacturing); Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC (Lincoln, AL); and Honda Manufacturing of Indiana, LLC (Greensburg, IN). Notably, none of the manufacturing defendants is a Texas entity; Honda's only Texas contact was the sales/distribution channel, which is why venue in Marshall rested on in-district sales of accused vehicles. (Complaint, IDT v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. 2:14-cv-00222 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2014), reproduced as Ex. 1003 in IPR2015-00489.)

Accused technology and patent. The complaint targeted Honda vehicles whose exterior lighting — principally the tail lights and related light assemblies — allegedly practiced the asserted claims. The sole patent identified in the case record is U.S. Patent No. 6,508,563, "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like" (issued Jan. 21, 2003; inventors Parker, Miller, and Hough; earliest priority Jan. 16, 1996). In one line: it claims edge-lit light-guide "panel assemblies" in which light sources (LEDs) sit in a light transition area adjacent a light input surface of a transparent panel, including embodiments using a resiliently deformable elastomeric panel that absorbs impact without breakage — the classic automotive light-pipe/light-guide architecture behind modern thin tail lamps. IDT's own PTAB mandatory notices consistently describe the '563 as asserted against Honda in this docket (Notice of Related Matters, IPR2015-00933). One caveat on scope: Stanford's NPE Litigation Database also tags the '547, '177, and '956 patents to this case number, which almost certainly reflects the consolidated auto-litigation grouping rather than the Honda complaint itself — IDT's parallel auto complaints (e.g., against Mercedes-Benz, No. 2:14-cv-535) pleaded the '563, its continuation the '956, and six "Display Patents" together, and the '563 was carved out as one of the two "Auto Patents" in the court's claim-construction treatment. I did not locate a public copy of the Honda complaint showing more than the '563 count, so I would treat '563 as the operative asserted patent and flag the rest as docket-tagging artifacts.

Posture, venue, and significance. Filed March 13, 2014 in the Marshall Division before Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (No. 2:14-cv-00222-JRG-RSP), the case was consolidated for pretrial purposes into the Hyundai lead case (IDT v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 2:14

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the docket and any reported rulings.

Let me get the actual docket sheet and dismissal record.

Let me investigate the PTAB proceedings and the dismissal order in detail.

Summary of findings

Bottom line: This was a short-lived, settlement-driven case. IDT sued four Honda entities on 2014‑03‑13 in a wave of filings against automakers; the case was consolidated into the Hyundai/Nissan/Toyota lead case (2:14‑cv‑00201‑JRG) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap for coordinated claim construction; a Markman order issued 2015‑05‑04 construing terms in the '563 patent (among others); and the case ended on 2015‑07‑22 by an Order to Dismiss with Prejudice on a joint motion, with each side bearing its own fees. There was no trial, verdict, JMOL, fee motion, or appeal. Three IPRs on the '563 were filed in 2015; the Koito/Stanley IPR was terminated under § 317 as part of the same settlement.

A note on the metadata: the prompt lists only the '563 patent, but the complaint as reproduced in PTAB exhibit materials pleads the '563 and '956 "Auto Patents" plus the Display Patents ('547, '194, '177, '660, '974, '370, '816), consistent with the consolidated lead case. The '563 is the patent actually subjected to claim construction and IPR attack specific to this defendant group.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Parties and products. Plaintiff IDT is a Texas LLC at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Plano, TX. Defendants: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Torrance, CA); Honda of America Mfg., Inc. (Marysville, OH); Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC (Lincoln, AL); Honda Manufacturing of Indiana, LLC (Greensburg, IN). The accused instrumentalities were Honda vehicle lighting/display components; IDT's public campaign materials identify the Honda Civic Si among accused products. (Complaint text via PTAB Ex. 1003)

Patent. U.S. 6,508,563, "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like," issued 2003‑01‑21; inventors Jeffery R. Parker, Mark D. Miller, Thomas A. Hough; earliest priority 1996‑01‑16.

Plaintiff's counsel: Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. (Houston) — Demetrios Anaipakos, Amir Alavi, Brian E. Simmons, George W. Webb III.

Answer/counterclaims — sourcing caveat. I could not retrieve a PACER docket sheet for 2:14‑cv‑00222, so I cannot give docket numbers or a filing date for Honda's answer. That Honda pleaded counterclaims and affirmative defenses is, however, established by the dismissal order, which expressly dismisses "the counterclaims and defenses brought by Honda against IDT." Honda's likely counterclaim vehicle would have been declaratory judgment of noninfringement/invalidity.

2. Consolidation and coordination

The case was consolidated into the lead case No. 2:14‑cv‑00201‑JRG‑RSP (IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group et al.) before Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The dismissal order caption reads: "CASE NO. 2:14‑cv‑00201‑JRG‑RSP (LEAD CASE); CASE NO. 2:14‑cv‑00222‑JRG‑RSP (CONSOLIDATED CASE)." This is the single most consequential procedural fact in the case: Honda's '563 exposure was litigated inside a multi-defendant MDL-style structure, and the Markman ruling that governed Honda issued in the lead case, not in 2:14‑cv‑222.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• No motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR by Honda is confirmed in the materials I could retrieve. I found no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no § 101 motion, and no motion to stay in this member case. Given the case's 16-month life and consolidation, and that the first '563 IPR petition (Koito/Stanley) was not filed until 2015‑01‑15, a stay motion would have been late-arriving at best. Treat this as an unverified negative rather than a confirmed absence.
• The only substantive pre-trial motion documented is the joint motion to dismiss (mid-July 2015), granted 2015‑07‑22.

4. Claim

I'll research this case's docket and counsel records.

I'll research the counsel of record for the Honda defendants in this case.

Bottom line

I was unable to verify, from the sources I could retrieve, the name of any attorney of record for the Honda defendants in No. 2:14-cv-00222-JRG. The free-source record for this particular member case is thin: it was consolidated into the Hyundai lead case within five months of filing and dismissed with prejudice nine months later, and I could not pull a docket sheet or any Honda-signed filing or pleading caption through open-web search (PACER, CourtListener RECAP, Justia, Plainsite, Docket Alarm, Law360/Reuters Legal hits returned nothing on Honda's side of this case).

Rather than guess, I'm setting out below (1) what is verifiable about the case posture, (2) the adjacent counsel data points that are documented but which I will not attribute to Honda, and (3) exactly where the answer will be found.

---

1. Verified case posture affecting counsel identification

Practical research consequence: because of the August 2014 consolidation order, any notice of appearance, answer, invalidity contentions, or protective order signature by Honda's counsel after that date sits in the 2:14-cv-201-JRG docket, not the -222 docket. A search of only the -222 docket will show a truncated counsel list.

2. Documented, but NOT attributable to Honda

These names appear in the same consolidated IDT automotive/display litigation and are frequently mis-pulled when searching this case family. I list them only to flag false positives:

• Robert Smith-Gillespie (expert) — retained by Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Mazda, and the four Honda entities (American Honda Motor Co.; Honda of America Mfg.; Honda Manufacturing of Alabama; Honda Manufacturing of Indiana) in the consolidated case. His March 3, 2015 indefiniteness declaration confirms Honda participated in the shared defense group. That tells us Honda was actively defended in the consolidated proceeding — it does not identify its counsel. (Declaration filed in 2:14-cv-201 and reproduced as Ex. 2011 in IPR2015-00487.)
• Hunton & Williams LLP (now Hunton Andrews Kurth) — shown as defense counsel to Hyundai in 2:14-cv-201 and to Volkswagen in 2:14-cv-300 (Patexia firm profile). Do not assume this extends to Honda.
• Kenyon & Kenyon LLP (Michael J. Lennon, Susan A. Smith) and The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Deron R. Dacus, Tyler, TX — local counsel) — Volkswagen defendants in 2:14-cv-300. Again, a different defendant group.
• On the plaintiff side (for completeness, and to avoid confusion): IDT was represented by Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. (George W. Webb III, Amir H. Alavi, David E. Warden, Demetrios Anaipakos, Brian Simmons) and Ward & Smith Law Firm (Jack Wesley Hill, Thomas John Ward Jr., Claire Abernathy Henry — Marshall local counsel). In the PTAB proceedings IDT's '563 IPRs were defended against petitioners represented by Sughrue Mion PLLC (William H. Mandir, Steven M. Gruskin, John M. Bird) for Koito and Stanley Electric, and by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Thomas W. Winland, P. Andrew Riley) — those are petitioners' counsel, not Honda's.

3. Where the answer actually is

To close this out with a citable, non-speculative list, the following will resolve it definitively:

1. PACER — Docket Report for 2:14-cv-00222-JRG, filtered to entries between 3/13/2014 and 8/4/2014 (before consolidation): a "Notice of Attorney Appearance," "Answer," or "Corporate Disclosure Statement" filed by or for the four Honda entities, plus any pro hac vice motions (which list the attorney, firm, and office address).
2. PACER — Docket Report for 2:14-cv-201-JRG, entries 8/4/2014–7/22/2015, filtered on "Honda." Because of the consolidation order, Honda's appearances and its portion of the joint motion to dismiss will be docketed there.
3. The joint motion to dismiss (July 2015) in the lead case — the signature block will name lead counsel, any pro hac vice counsel, and Marshall local counsel, and will usually be filed as one block per defendant group.
4. Protective order / ESI order signature pages in the lead case, which enumerate every attorney bound.
5. PTAB check: I found no Honda-filed IPR against the '563 patent. The '563 IPRs (e.g., IPR2015-00574, -00575, -00895) were filed by Koito Manufacturing and Stanley Electric, not Honda. So there is no PTAB petition whose mandatory notices would list Honda's litigation counsel — a dead end I checked and am reporting as such.

4. Honest caveat

Nothing I retrieved was sealed — the problem is coverage, not sealing. Free aggregators (Plainsite, Docket Alarm, CourtListener RECAP) do not appear to have a populated docket for this member case, and I did not find a court opinion in -222 that carries a counsel caption. I am therefore declining to name any attorney as Honda's counsel of record rather than infer one from the co-defendant firms listed above. If you can pull the two PACER docket reports in items 1–2, I can turn this into a full counsel table with roles, firm offices, and experience notes within a single pass.