Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Dell et al.

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

Good foundational material. Let me dig deeper into the docket, judge assignments, IPR outcomes, and settlements.

Case Overview and Background — Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Dell, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00523 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties, plaintiffs, and the accused technology

Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") is a Plano, Texas limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of publicly traded Acacia Research Corporation (NASDAQ: ACTG), one of the largest U.S. patent-assertion entities. IDT is a classic non-practicing entity: it does not make or sell displays, but holds patent rights and monetizes them through licensing and litigation (Acacia's 8-K filings expressly identify IDT and its sister entity Delaware Display Group LLC as "subsidiaries of Acacia Research Corporation"). The defendants are a cross-section of the global device industry: Dell Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Company (U.S. PC/display vendors), Research In Motion Limited / BlackBerry and Acer Inc. (handset and PC makers), and China-based Huawei Investment & Holding Co. Ltd. and ZTE Corporation, each sued alongside U.S. affiliates.

The accused instrumentalities are the LCD backlight modules inside consumer devices — laptops, desktops, tablets, monitors, TVs, mobile phones, cameras, and printers. IDT alleged that the defendants' use of its "light emitting panel assembly" inventions let them build screens that were "brighter, sleeker, and more energy efficient," enabling thinner displays with higher/more uniform light output, lower power draw, and longer battery life — and that the defendants continued selling after being notified in August 2012 that they needed a license, supporting willfulness, treble damages, and injunctive relief. Notably, at least one line of accused products traced to third-party panel suppliers (LG Display, etc.) rather than the defendants' own fabrication, which is why the same patent family was litigated simultaneously against the panel makers themselves.

The patents-in-suit

All seven asserted patents are titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," share a common written description/specification and figures, name Jeffery R. Parker (an Ohio inventor with dozens of U.S. patents) as sole inventor, and claim priority to a common ancestor with an earliest priority date of June 27, 1995 — the family traces back to Lumitex's optical business (id. '370 priority, '547 filed 2002-08-30, '194 and '177 filed 2005-10-06, '660 filed 2006-06-16, '974 filed 2006-03-20, '370 filed 2006-10-11, '816 filed 2011-12-09). One-line sketches:

• U.S. 6,755,547 (iss. 6/29/2004) — backlight with a separate transparent sheet or film overlying the light-emitting member across an air gap, carrying a "pattern of deformities" that varies across the film to control light output so it passes through an LCD "with low loss."
• U.S. 7,300,194 (11/27/2007) — assembly with a film/plate near the emitting surface (air gap) bearing "well defined" reflective/refractive optical elements or deformities that redirect light through an LCD.
• U.S. 7,384,177 (6/10/2008) — a tray forming a cavity/recess holding the light source(s), with an overlying sheet/film and the tray acting as a back/side/edge reflector.
• U.S. 7,404,660 (7/29/2008) — planar optical conductor with greater width than thickness, an input edge coupled to a light source, and a "transition region" that mixes and spreads light before the output region.
• U.S. 7,434,974 (10/14/2008) — panel member received in a tray/housing, with a light source and light-extracting deformities; the tray/housing acts as an end or side edge reflector.
• U.S. 7,537,370 (5/26/2009) — optical panel with light-extracting deformities on one or both sides, where deformities on one side are of a different type/shape or vary differently than those on the other side (claims 29 and 47 are the key independent claims).
• U.S. 8,215,816 (7/10/2012) — panel in a tray with greater width than height, whose light input edge has a refractive surface redirecting the source output more in the width direction.

Provenance matters here: USPTO assignment records show the family passed Lumitex → Solid State Opto Limited (Mang-Shiang Lee) → Rambus International/ Rambus Inc./Rambus Delaware → Acacia Research Group → Innovative Display Technologies LLC, with the seven patents effective-assigned to IDT on June 26/July 26, 2013 — weeks before suit.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters

IDT filed six parallel complaints on June 28, 2013 in the Marshall Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: IDT v. Acer, No. 2:13-cv-522; IDT v. Dell, No. 2:13-cv-523; IDT v. HP, No. 2:13-cv-524; IDT v. Huawei, No. 2:13-cv-525; IDT v. RIM/BlackBerry, No. 2:13-cv-526; and IDT v. ZTE, No. 2:13-cv-527. The Acer case (2:13-cv-522) served as the lead consolidated case, and the August 26, 2014 Claim Construction Memorandum and Order issued there construes all seven patents. (Note on the judge: the consolidated Acer lead case caption appears as 2:13-cv-522-JRG — Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap — while Acacia's 8-K styles the Dell case "2:13-cv-523-RSP" and the HP case "2:13-cv-524-JRG," implying Judge Roy S. Payne handled the Dell member case; I could not independently confirm the judge assignments for each member case, so treat that detail as provisional.) Marshall/Tyler in that era was the nation's dominant patent venue because of its plaintiff-friendly local rules, speed to trial, and historically high plaintiff win rates — this is why Acacia selected it. IDT's litigation team was Bragalone Conroy PC (Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Justin B. Kimble, Patrick J. Conroy, et al., Dallas) with T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview) — Ward being the former E.D. Tex. chief judge turned plaintiff-side advocate, a signature of the 2013 Marshall NPE docket.

Why the case is notable

Three things make this case a bellwether for the 2013–2016 NPE era. First, it is Acacia's flagship display-backlight campaign: IDT and Delaware Display Group simultaneously sued HTC, LG, Lenovo, Amazon, Pantech, Sony, and Vizio in D. Del. on December 31, 2013, and later added AT&T and other defendants in E.D. Tex. — a coordinated, multi-front assertion program against the entire LCD supply chain. Second, it triggered an extraordinary IPR wave. LG Display and LG Electronics filed sequential IPR petitions against nearly every asserted patent (IPR2014-01357 ('547), -01359/'196, -01096 and -00493 ('370), -01097 and -00506 (the '194/'974), -01362/'177, -00487/'660, among others); Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Sony, and KJ Pretech filed additional petitions on the same patents. Those proceedings were decisive: the Board's Final Written Decision in IPR2014-01096/00493 (Dec. 18, 2015) held claims 15 and 27 of the '370 patent unpatentable; Judgment/FWDs issued on the '547 (June 10, 2015) and '194 (Sept. 15, 2015) patents; and numerous independent claims across the family — including the '194, '177, and '816 claim 1s — were cancelled, materially eroding the asserted portfolio. Third, the campaign largely monetized through settlements rather than judgments: Acacia's SEC filings confirm a March 6, 2015 settlement and license with Dell and HP resolving Nos. 2:13-cv-523 and -524, followed by licenses with AT&T Mobility (May 2015), Sony (August 2015, resolving the D. Del. case and terminating six Sony IPRs under 35 U.S.C. § 317), and Lenovo (December 2015). LG Display's own financial disclosures describe reaching settlements in principle through mediation in its IDT/DDG matters. As a result, the docket — including the Dell member case — appears to have ended in settlement/voluntary dismissal rather than trial; I was not able to locate a final judgment, trial verdict, or a post-2016 docket entry for 2:13-cv-523 in the public sources reviewed (PACER direct access was unavailable for full confirmation), so the precise termination date and dismissal terms are not well sourced and are likely confidential under the license agreements. The broader market significance is that these patents (a ~284-document INPADOC family with 60+ issued U.S. members) claimed foundational edge-lit LCD backlight architectures used in virtually every mobile and computing device of the period — making the case a test of whether a 1995-priority Lumitex/Rambus/Acacia chain could extract royalties from the entire consumer-electronics industry, and ultimately a leading example of PTAB invalidation plus early settlement collapsing an NPE campaign.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and party details.

Good initial picture. Now let me dig into the docket specifics, claim construction, and IPRs.

Now let me examine the district court docket and subsequent developments.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Dell et al. (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line up front: This was not one case but a six-case wave filed on a single day, consolidated into a lead case captioned IDT v. Acer Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-00522-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.). It was an Acacia Research NPE campaign asserting the "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" family (inventor Jeffery R. Parker; chain of title Lumitex → Solid State Opto → Rambus → Acacia → IDT). The litigation reached claim construction on 2014-08-26, survived a heavy parallel PTAB attack, and terminated by settlement and dismissal in March 2015 without trial, verdict, or appeal. The metadata's "outcome unknown" can be resolved: Acacia publicly confirmed a settlement-and-license with Dell and HP, and the consolidated docket was dismissed 2015-03-11.

⚠️ Sourcing note: the E.D. Tex. docket below is taken from the Plainsite mirror of PACER (which reproduces docket text and dates) and from Justia/Docket Alarm copies of the opinions. I have noted where a fact rests only on a secondary source.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2013)

2013-06-28 — Six complaints filed in E.D. Tex., Marshall Division. Filed by Innovative Display Technologies LLC (Plano, TX), an Acacia subsidiary. All seven patents-in-suit were asserted in each: U.S. 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and 8,215,816 — all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," all claiming priority to a common ancestor with an earliest priority date of 1995-06-27.

Source: Southeast Texas Record, "Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas" (listing all six filings and the seven patents); Acacia/PTAB mandatory notices listing the same six actions.

Substance of the complaint. IDT alleged that defendants were notified by letter in August 2012 that they were using the patented backlighting technology and continued selling accused products (laptops, monitors, smartphones, tablets, printers, calculators), supporting willful infringement. IDT sought damages (explicitly treble damages), interest, attorney's fees, and an injunction. Jury trial demanded.

Counsel. IDT: Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William Kennedy Jr., Daniel F. Olejko (Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas) and T. John Ward Jr. / Claire Abernathy Henry (Ward & Smith, Longview). Defense side included Winston & Strawn and Reed Smith (Dell), Goodwin Procter (HP), Morgan Lewis/Bingham (BlackBerry), Findlay Craft and Tung & Kwok (Acer), Steptoe & Johnson (Huawei), Sidley Austin (Microsoft).

Answers / counterclaims. Acer answered 2013-09-23 (Dkt. 16), with extensions for the others. IDT served P.R. 3-1/3-2 infringement contentions 2013-12-20 (Dkt. 25). The docket party table shows counterclaims by BlackBerry and Huawei (both listed as "Consol Counter Claimant"), i.e., declaratory judgment of non-infringement/invalidity. Microsoft was later pulled in (IDT v. Microsoft, 2:13-cv-00783, filed 2013-10-01) and filed an answer, counterclaim, and a third-party complaint against Acacia Research Corporation on 2014-07-01 (Dkt. 76, sealed); Acacia was served 2014-07-01 and obtained extensions (Dkt. 79, 87, 89).

---

2. Consolidation and pre-claim-construction motions

• 2013-12-18/19 — Consolidation (Dkt. 24). Judge Rodney Gilstrap consolidated the cases "for all pretrial issues (except venue)" into the first-filed 2:13-cv-00522, directing all future filings (other than venue) into the lead case. The venue carve-out reflects that the foreign/other defendants had venue questions pending; I did not verify any specific Rule 12(b)(3) or § 1400(b) ruling.
• 2014-01-23 — Docket Control/Discovery/E-Discovery Orders (Dkts. 35–37). Markman hearing set for late July 2014; dispositive motions due 2015-02-02; pretrial order 2015-02-16; pretrial conference 2015-02-23; jury selection 2015-03-09; mediation deadline 2014-08-25.
• 2014-02-14 — Defendants served P.R. 3-3 invalidity contentions (Dkts. 46–53).
• 2014-04-25 — Referral for claim construction (Dkt. 59). Case referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne for the limited purpose of conducting the Markman hearing.
• 2014-06-19 — Gilstrap denies defendants leave to amend invalidity contentions (Dkt. 71). Defendants sought to add four late-discovered references (U.S. 4,945,350; U.S. 5,592,332; JP H05-196820A; JP H06-242321). Applying the S & W Enterprises good-cause factors and P.R. 3-6, the court held that a unilateral "reservation of rights" buried in unfiled contentions cannot excuse untimeliness and that the importance of the art had been shown only conclusorily. Strategic effect: a significant early defense loss that froze the prior-art case for trial.
• 2014-06-24 to 2014-07-11 — Defendants' motion to strike IDT's claim-construction expert (Dkts. 72–85). The court struck the declaration of Kenneth I. Werner supporting IDT's opening Markman brief (Dkt. 85, 2014-07-11), and the Markman opinion expressly declined to consider it. A second early win for defendants.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2014-07-30 — Markman hearing held (Dkt. 92).
• 2014-08-26 — Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 101, ~58 pp., 2:13-cv-00522-JRG). Reported as authored by Judge Payne consistent with the referral (a Studicata case summary attributes the holding to "Payne, J."). The court construed twelve disputed term groups across all seven patents, including:
  • "pattern of deformities" / "pattern of light extracting deformities" — adopted IDT's construction: "a pattern of deformities, which may include a random placement pattern or a variable pattern" (rejecting defendants' plain-meaning proposal).
  • "continuous side walls" — plain meaning; defendants' narrower construction "expressly rejected."
  • "transition region" — construed as "an area used to make the transition from the light source to the light emitting area of the panel member ['370] / optical conductor ['660]."
  • "air gap" terms, "desired light output…" terms, "predetermined," "posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount," "well defined optical elements or deformities," "pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss," "to [suit/fit] a particular application."
  • Critical adverse ruling: for "a pattern of deformities on one side of the sheet or film having a width and length that is quite small in relation to the width and length of the sheet or film," the court found the limitation indefinite under Nautilus v. Biosig for lack of an objective standard for "quite small." Secondary summaries report this as the invalidation of a claim (appearing in claim 1 of the '547 patent and in related claims of the family). Because the order is available only as a reproduced opinion, I flag the precise claim-by-claim scope of that finding as reported rather than independently verified.

Net assessment: IDT largely won the disputed constructions (including the term it proposed for "pattern of deformities"), but lost its expert and took an indefiniteness hit on a core limitation.

---

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance (mid-2014 – early 2015)

• 2014-08-22 (Dkt. 99). Defendants' unopposed motion for a limited exception to the protective order to obtain license agreements from Rambus Inc. — i.e., damages/royalty-rate discovery into the prior Rambus-era licensing of the same portfolio. This is the classic reasonable-royalty attack on an NPE's licensing history.
• 2014-08-29 (Dkt. 109). IDT sealed motion for a protective order; resolved by the parties' agreement in September (Dkts. 127, 133).
• 2014-09-09/09-10 (Dkts. 117, 118). Appeals of magistrate judge decisions to the district court — discovery-magnitude disputes.
• 2014-10-27/28 (Dkts. 157–166). Cross-motions to compel: IDT's sealed motion to compel (including "certain financial documents") and Dell's/HP's sealed motion to compel with a Levy declaration and extensive exhibits. A motion hearing was held 2014-11-20 (Dkt. 201), after which the court terminated/mooted several sealed motions (Dkts. 203–207).
• Numerous Letter Brief discovery-dispute filings (Dkts. 149–153, 172–184, Oct.–Nov. 2014), reflecting intensive mid-discovery trench warfare.
• Mediation before former Judge David Folsom (E.D. Tex. mediator): reports filed 2014-03-17 (Microsoft — suspended), 2014-09-16 (three reports), 2014-11-12 (Dkt. 185), and finally 2015-02-03 (Dkt. 243) — result: "settled (Hewlett-Packard Company and Dell, Inc.)".

---

5. Late pre-trial motions and the end of the case (Dec. 2014 – Mar. 2015)

• 2014-12-15 — Wave of sealed motions and IDT's motion to strike invalidity contentions (Dkts. 218, 221–223), followed by sealed responses (2015-01-02) and sealed replies (2015-01-12) and a January 2015 sur-reply (Dkt. 240). Given the Docket Control Order's 2015-02-02 dispositive-motion deadline and the accompanying sealed exhibits, these appear to be dispositive/Daubert-type filings on invalidity/non-infringement; the documents are sealed and I could not verify their content — treat their subject matter as unconfirmed. None was decided on the merits because the case settled.
• 2015-03-06 — Notice of Settlement and agreed motion to extend the dismissal deadline (Dkt. 247, filed in error; refiled 2015-03-07).
• 2015-03-10 — Status conference before Magistrate Judge Payne (Dkt. 252).
• 2015-03-11 — Order dismissing the case (Dkt. 251). A further order issued 2015-03-24 (Dkt. 254) and a final order 2015-10-13 (Dkt. 255); the only later docket entry is a redacted transcript filed 2017-07-14 (Dkt. 256).
• Acacia's public confirmation: Acacia Research Corporation filed a Form 8-K (earliest event 2015-03-06; signed/filed 2015-03-11) stating:

"Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC, subsidiaries of Acacia Research Corporation, entered into a settlement and license agreement with Dell Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Company. This agreement resolves patent litigation, Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-523-RSP and Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-524-JRG, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas."

Individual defendant resolutions reflected in the record/secondary sources:

• ZTE — settled ~2015-01-06 (per attorney Bragalone's self-reported case list — secondary source, use with caution).
• Dell and HP — settled 2015-03-06, confirmed by the 8-K.
• Acer (the lead-case defendant) — "favorable settlement following mediation," 2015-03-11 (same self-reported source; consistent with the Dkt. 251 dismissal date).
• BlackBerry and Huawei — no separate settlement announcement located; their claims were resolved as part of the consolidated dismissal (Dkt. 251) or earlier stipulations (e.g., Dkt. 155, Stipulation of Dismissal, 2014-10-22). Microsoft's claims likewise resolved pre-trial.

No trial occurred — the case was dismissed roughly two weeks before the scheduled 2015-03-09 jury selection and before the 2015-02-23 pretrial conference. Consequently there was no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion under § 285, and no appeal. IDT's injunction and treble-damages demands were never adjudicated; the resolution was a paid license/settlement.

---

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

This portfolio was subject to one of the largest IPR clusters of the 2014–2015 period. IDT's own PTAB mandatory notices (dated 2015-03-02) list "28 other pending requests for inter partes review" on related patents, plus a second pending IPR on the '547 itself. Filers included LG Display and Mercedes-Benz, i.e., third parties rather than the E.D. Tex. defendants.

Key proceedings touching the asserted patents:

• LG Display Co., Ltd. v. IDT:
  • IPR2014-01357 ('547) — petition filed 2014-08-21; institution granted 2015-02-26 as to claims 1–4, 16, 26. The Board instituted on Pristash obviousness for claims 1–3, 16, 26, but refused institution on the Nishio grounds and on Kobayashi+Ohe, and declined to institute as to claim 4.
  • IPR2014-01359 ('196) and IPR2014-01362 ('177) — companion petitions filed the same day.
• IPR2014-01092 ('974), IPR2014-01094 ('660), IPR2014-01095 ('816), IPR2014-01096 ('370) — earlier-filed IPRs on the other asserted patents (petitioner not confirmed in the materials reviewed).
• IPR2015-00361 ('547) — filed by Mercedes-Benz USA / Mercedes-Benz U.S. International (pending as of 2015-03-02).
• IPR2015-00745 ('660), IPR2015-00753 ('370), IPR2015-00755 ('974), IPR2015-00756 ('177), IPR2015-00757 ('196) — additional 2015 filings.

§ 315(b) privity fight. IDT argued in its preliminary response to IPR2014-01357 that LG Display was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the petitioner was in privity with HP and Dell, both of whom were served with '547 infringement complaints on 2013-07-03 (more than one year before the August 2014 petition). The Board addressed the challenge but proceeded to the merits and instituted, effectively rejecting the privity theory on that record — an important procedural win for the petitioners and consistent with the pattern of third parties (LG Display, Mercedes-Benz) filing IPRs after the one-year bar had run against the served defendants.

Outcome of IPR2014-01357. The IPR was terminated by Patent Owner's Request for Adverse Judgment (2015-05-28) and a Board Judgment and Final Written Decision (2015-06-10); the case is recorded with a termination date of 2015-06-10. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a request for adverse judgment results in cancellation of the involved claims, so claims 1–4, 16, and 26 of the '547 patent were effectively cancelled/abandoned. I did not find a public explanation of IDT's motivation; the most likely reading (which I flag as inference, not verified fact) is that the '547's asserted claims had already been undermined by the district court's indefiniteness finding on the "quite small" limitation and/or that the move was part of the broader global monetization wind-down.

Effect on the E.D. Tex. litigation. Notably, no stay pending IPR was granted in the lead case. The IPRs did not decide the case; instead, the IPR pressure (LG Display's three petitions, Mercedes-Benz's '547 petition, and ~28 related filings) combined with the February 2015 mediation to drive the March 2015 global settlement and dismissal. The only district-court "Stay" entry (Dkt. 244, 2015-02-05) falls within the settlement sequence rather than reflecting an IPR stay.

---

7. Final disposition / present posture

• Disposition: All six E.D. Tex. actions terminated by settlement and dismissal, culminating in the 2015-03-11 dismissal of lead case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG (Dkt. 251) after the 2015-03-06 Dell/HP settlement and license publicly disclosed in Acacia's 8-K. No judgment on validity, infringement, or damages; no injunction; no fee award.
• No appeal to the Federal Circuit from the consolidated case (none appears on the docket or in the reported decisions reviewed).
• Posture today: Closed. The docket's last substantive entries are from 2015 (Dkt. 255, 2015-10-13), with only a redacted transcript filed in 2017.
• Campaign context: This case was the flagship of a much larger IDT/Delaware Display Group campaign — nearly 30+ suits by April 2014 against handset, tablet, PC, TV, GPS, printer, camera, and automotive defendants in E.D. Tex. and D. Del., plus the DDG '196 patent (7,914,196). The '547 patent's adverse-judgment cancellation in IPR2014-01357 blunted the portfolio's most-litigated patent, and the 2015 settlements effectively ended the campaign's major E.D. Tex. litigation.

---

8. Confidence and gaps

Well sourced: filing dates/case numbers and patents-in-suit; consolidation order; the 2014-06-19 invalidity-contentions opinion; the 2014-07-11 strike order; the 2014-08-26 Markman order and its key constructions; the mediation reports and 2015 settlement sequence; the Acacia 8-K; the IPR2014-01357 institution decision and adverse-judgment/FWD dates; the LG Display and Mercedes-Benz petitions; the § 315(b) privity argument.

Weaker/flagged: the precise party-by-party settlement dates for ZTE (2015-01-06), Acer (2015-03-11), BlackBerry, and Huawei (Bragalone's self-reported case list / inference from docket stipulations); the exact claim scope of the Markman indefiniteness holding; and the contents of the sealed December 2014 dispositive motions. The full dockets and opinions for the five non-lead case numbers (2:13-cv-0523 through -0527) were not individually retrieved, so any defendant-specific Rule 12 or venue rulings may be missing from this account.

I'll search for press coverage across several angles: the case caption, parties, patent numbers, and the IPR/settlement developments.

Good initial hits. Let me dig for trade-press coverage of the IPR decisions, the settlement, and commentary on the campaign.

Let me confirm the Techdirt piece and look for additional trade/mainstream coverage of the IPR rulings and Acacia's campaign.

Press and trade coverage — what was actually reported

The 2013 filing wave drew brief regional and trade attention, mostly rewritten from the complaint. The Southeast Texas Record covered the June 28, 2013 Marshall Division filings in its "Recent patent infringement cases" column, listing IDT v. Dell as No. 2:13-cv-00523 and IDT v. HP as No. 2:13-cv-00524, reciting all seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents with issue dates, describing IDT as "a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano," and reporting that "[t]he plaintiff is asking the court for an injunction and for an award of damages, treble damages, interest, court costs and attorney's fees," with a jury trial requested; it also named the Bragalone Conroy and Ward & Smith attorneys. A Mandour & Associates IP news post (datelined San Diego) added the substantive allegations — that IDT claimed its invention let the defendants "create brighter, sleeker, and more energy efficient screens," that the patents "are held by Ohio native Jeffrey Parker, who is named as the inventor on 85 patents," and that the defendants were put on notice in August 2012, making infringement willful and supporting triple damages plus an injunction. Taiwan's Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center (STPI/科技產業資訊室) published the most analytically ambitious early piece in July 2013, framing the case as "又是一件專利信託案件" (another patent-trust case) and tracing the chain Lumitex → Mang-Shiang Lee / Solid State Opto Limited → Rambus → Acacia → IDT. Notably, STPI reported a dollar figure that appears nowhere in the court record: that Lee's company sold part of the optical patent portfolio to Rambus for US$26 million while retaining rights to continue using the patents, with Rambus free to collect royalties from infringers. I could not corroborate that $26 million figure independently; treat it as STPI's reporting only.

The most substantive press treatment was Techdirt's campaign-level takedown, not case reporting. In a piece titled "Know Your Troll: Innovative Display Technologies Targeting Any Company That Creates A Product With An LCD Screen," published 2014-08-12, Techdirt characterized IDT as an entity that "doesn't make any products or even have its own website," located its "home" at 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 300, Austin — an address Techdirt said also houses a long list of other Acacia subsidiaries — and emphasized that "no one along this supply chain has ever produced a product utilizing these patents." The piece went well beyond the Dell/HP docket: it reported that IDT's targets had expanded to "cell phone distributors like Verizon, AT&T and Apple," plus automakers (Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Mazda), camera makers (Canon, Nikon), and GPS suppliers (TomTom, Garmin); that IDT "currently has 34 cases in litigation" and had "already secured a licensing agreement from Garmin"; and that IDT's second suit against Apple sought "nearly $6 billion in 'accrued royalties.'" It also carried industry reaction in the form of an on-record defense of Acacia's model from Marvin Key of Acacia, who said: "The implication in almost everything you read is that there is nothing positive at all about licensing patents… The implication is when someone is sued, whether a small or big company, that every single one of those cases is frivolous, abusive and without merit. And that's simply untrue." Techdirt also reported Acacia's own figures — more than $1 billion in generated revenue and more than $455 million returned to patent partners.

The PTAB phase was covered by practitioner commentary rather than news desks. The clearest example is a Drinker Biddle "IP Litigation" post in the National Law Review (Vol. V, No. 26) analyzing LG Display, Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies, IPR2014-01095, where the Board on 2015-01-13 denied institution on claims 1–4 of the '816 patent because the petition failed to explain why a skilled artisan would combine the references — the post's takeaway being that "[i]t is not sufficient to merely demonstrate that each of the components is known in the prior art." That practitioner framing is the closest thing to "analysis"

Sources

• ACACIA RESEARCH CORP - FORM 8-K - UNITED STATES
• 發光面板組件專利訴訟，Innovative Display Technologies 控告Dell等6間公司 - ︿Top
• Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 69 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 35 PagelD #: 907
• Delaware Display Group LLC et al v
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v
• Technology Company Accuses Dell, HP of Patent Infringement
• INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC's EXHIBIT 2001
• Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC
• Patent News | Page 2 of 22 | Intellectual Property News.com
• Case IPR2014- 01357 Patent 6,755,547
• acacia – Techdirt
• Acacia Subsidiaries Enter into Settlement and Patent License Agreement with Sony Corporation - Acacia Subsidiaries Enter into Settlement and Patent License Agreement with Sony Corporation

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel of record for this case, starting with the docket and firm sources.

Good start. Let me pull the specific docket entries and firm pages for the plaintiff's counsel.

Let me try to retrieve the actual docket sheets for the Dell and consolidated lead cases.

I hit the research-step limit before I could pull the individual PACER docket sheet for 2:13-cv-00523, so I'll be explicit below about what is verified vs. inferred.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Innovative Display Technologies LLC (E.D. Tex. No. 2:13-cv-00523, consolidated into 2:13-cv-00522-JRG)

IDT was represented by a two-firm team: a Dallas patent-litigation boutique (Bragalone Conroy PC) handling the substantive case and the parallel PTAB defense, plus an East Texas firm (Ward & Smith Law Firm, Longview) as local counsel. This is the standard division of labor in Marshall NPE cases of that era.

Lead / substantive counsel — Bragalone Conroy PC (2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500‑W, Dallas, TX 75201)

Local counsel — Ward & Smith Law Firm (1507 Bill Owens Pkwy., Longview, TX 75604)

In-house counsel (identified in the court record)

• Eric Lucas — described in a Delaware opinion in the sister IDT/DDG campaign as the lawyer "acting initially as counsel for Acacia and later as counsel for IDT and DDG" who directed Rambus's pre-suit teardown work under the March 25, 2013 consulting agreement. ⚠️ He is identified in the record as in-house counsel, but I did not verify a formal notice of appearance or signature by him on the 2:13-cv-523 / 2:13-cv-522 docket, so treat him as in-house counsel behind the campaign rather than counsel of record.

---

Verification, gaps, and caveats

• Primary source for the roster. The attorney lineup comes from the Southeast Texas Record's campaign-filing column covering IDT's E.D. Tex. filings, which lists "Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William Kennedy Jr., and Daniel F. Olejko of Bragalone Conroy PC in Dallas; and T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm in Longview." That listing is boilerplate used across IDT's E.D. Tex. complaints, and I corroborated the individual names independently against PTAB filings (IPR2014‑01357 mandatory notices and the IPR2014‑01094 pro hac vice motion, both signed by Bragalone/Kimble) and against the Justia "Represented By" fields for companion IDT cases (2:13-cv-00783 IDT v. Microsoft: Bragalone, Conroy; IDT consumer-electronics cases: Ward & Smith attorneys).
• What I could not confirm. PACER is paywalled and my search of the individual 2:13-cv-00523 docket sheet returned no results, so I could not confirm (a) which of the seven named attorneys formally filed notices of appearance in the Dell member case specifically rather than in the consolidated lead case 2:13-cv-00522, or (b) exact appearance dates and any withdrawals. Because the six actions were consolidated into 2:13-cv-522 for all pretrial issues, appearances were filed there; several of the lead-case filings from spring 2014 were sealed (e.g., the Dkt. 72–85 motion to strike IDT's claim-construction expert, which the court granted on 2014-07-11), so the full list of attorneys appearing in those sealed papers is not publicly visible.
• Related-case roster (context, not this case). Dockets in sibling IDT campaigns show additional Ward & Smith personnel appearing alongside Ward Jr. and Henry — e.g., Benjamin R. Askew, Jack Wesley Hill, Michael Patrick Kella, Timothy D. Krieger, Anthony G. Simon, and Stephanie H. To in IDT v. Nikon, 2:14-cv-00145. I did not verify any of them as counsel of record in the Dell/E.D. Tex. consolidated case.
• Firm name note. "Ward & Smith Law Firm" (the 2013 name) is the same Longview firm now known as Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC; Henry's current bar listings also associate her with Miller Fair Henry PLLC in Longview. That is a naming/affiliation evolution, not a second set of counsel.

Bottom line: Lead substantive counsel was Jeffrey R. Bragalone of Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas), supported by Justin B. Kimble, Patrick J. Conroy, T. William Kennedy Jr., and Daniel F. Olejko; local counsel were T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview). Eric Lucas served as Acacia/IDT in-house counsel on the campaign. I found no record of additional plaintiff-side firms appearing in this case.

Sources

• Southeast Texas Record, "Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas" (IDT E.D. Tex. filings; plaintiff's counsel listing) — https://setexasrecord.com/stories/510622374-recent-patent-infringement-cases-filed-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas
• IDT Mandatory Notices, LG Display v. IDT, IPR2014‑01357 (Mar. 2, 2015) (Bragalone/Kimble as counsel; lead/back-up counsel section) — USPTO PTAB
• Pro Hac Vice Motion to Admit Jeffrey R. Bragalone, IPR2014‑01094 ('660) (Aug. 11, 2014) (Bragalone's Federal Circuit argument history; Kimble as registered lead counsel) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2014-01094/
• Complaint civil cover sheet, IDT v. Apple Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00030 (E.D. Tex.) (Bragalone, Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500W, Dallas) — https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2014cv00030/[149779](/patent/149779)/1/1.html
• Docket entry, IDT v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-cv-00783 (E.D. Tex.) (Represented By: Jeffrey Ray Bragalone; Patrick Joseph Conroy) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2013cv00783/[147577](/patent/147577)
• Del. Display Grp. LLC v. Vizio, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02112 (D. Del.) opinion (Feb. 23, 2016) (identifying Eric Lucas as Acacia/IDT/DDG counsel) — https://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/Delaware%20Display.pdf
• Claire Abernathy Henry attorney profile (Ward, Smith & Hill; former briefing attorney to Judge T. John Ward; Stanford J.D.) — https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/claire-abernathy-henry/[159144](/patent/159144)

I'll research defense counsel of record across the six consolidated E.D. Tex. actions.

Let me try broader searches.

Let me check CourtListener/RECAP dockets and Justia for the consolidated case.

Defense Counsel of Record — Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Dell et al. (E.D. Tex.)

Verification status up front (important): I was unable to complete the research needed to give you a verified, name-by-name defense counsel roster. My searches in this session returned plaintiff-side information (the complaints' signature blocks identify Bragalone Conroy and Ward & Smith for IDT) and docket entries, but not the attorney-appearance data for the defendant side. PACER's attorney list, CourtListener/RECAP party-counsel fields, and firm-website "representative matters" pages are the sources that would carry that data, and I could not pull them here. Rather than fill the gap with invented names, I am separating what is documented from what is provisional.

---

What is actually documented from sources retrieved

1. Plaintiff's counsel (for contrast / docket-signature reference). Confirmed by the Southeast Texas Record filing report and corroborated by PTAB filings:

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William "Thomas" Kennedy Jr., Daniel F. Olejko — Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas.
• T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry — Ward & Smith Law Firm, Longview (local counsel).
• Docket signature blocks confirm this: e.g., the Plainsite docket for the lead case shows NOTICE by Innovative Display Technologies LLC re 109 SEALED MOTION ... (Kennedy, Thomas).

2. A structural fact that governs the answer. Because the six actions were consolidated into the lead case IDT v. Acer Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-00522-JRG, all defense appearances after the December 2013 consolidation order were entered in the lead case docket, not in 2:13-cv-00523. So the Dell-specific attorney list you asked for is physically located on the -522 docket, and any search restricted to the -523 docket sheet will under-report counsel.

3. Lead case docket sources that carry counsel fields. The docket sheets exist publicly at Plainsite and RPX Insight, and the individual filings are mirrored at Justia. I retrieved the docket index but not the per-entry filer attributions for the defense-side pleadings.

---

Firm-level associations carried in the earlier case file — provisional, not verified

The previously generated sections of this case state that the defense side "included Winston & Strawn and Reed Smith (Dell), Goodwin Procter (HP), Morgan Lewis/Bingham (BlackBerry), Findlay Craft and Tung & Kwok (Acer), Steptoe & Johnson (Huawei), Sidley Austin (Microsoft)." I was not able to corroborate these firm associations in this session, and the prior section did not cite a source for them. Treat them as leads to check, not established facts. I have no verified attorney names for any defendant, and I will not supply names I cannot source.

In-house counsel: none identified in any source reviewed. In-house attorneys for Dell/HP/Acer/Huawei/ZTE would generally not appear as counsel of record in E.D. Tex. unless admitted and appearing; none surfaced.

Of counsel: no "of counsel" designations could be identified without the appearance forms.

---

What I would need to close this out, and where it lives

To produce a defensible roster, these are the specific documents to pull (all publicly available; none sealed as far as I could tell):

1. Dkt. 16 (Acer's Answer, 2013-09-23) in 2:13-cv-00522 — the first defense pleading, with a full signature block and certificate of service listing each defendant's counsel.
2. Each defendant's Answer/Counterclaim in its member case (the prior section notes counterclaims by BlackBerry and Huawei, listed as "Consol Counter Claimant" in the lead-case party table) — signature blocks identify lead and local counsel.
3. The lead-case docket's attorney/party table on PACER (or the RECAP mirror via CourtListener) — this is the single best source, because after consolidation it aggregates all appearances.
4. Local counsel appearances — E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-2 requires a member of the bar of this district to be admitted to practice and to sign all pleadings, and the Marshall Division judges enforced a local-counsel requirement in that era. Expect one Tyler/Longview/Marshall-area local counsel per defendant (firms regularly filling that role in the 2013 Marshall NPE docket included Findlay Craft, Potter Minton, Gillam & Smith, and Capshaw DeRieux) alongside national counsel. I am not asserting any of those firms appeared here.
5. Motions to withdraw / substitute counsel in late 2014 — relevant for BlackBerry (Bingham→Morgan Lewis merger) and for any defendant whose national firm changed teams before the March 2015 settlement.
6. The 2014-08-26 Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 101) and the 2014-06-19 and 2014-07-11 orders — each lists appearing counsel in the caption/signature pages on the Justia and Docket Alarm mirrors. The Justia link retrieved above (Dkt. 85, the 07/11/2014 opinion) is exactly this type of document.
7. Transcripts — the redacted transcript filed 2017-07-14 (Dkt. 256) and the 2015-03-10 status conference transcript would identify who argued for each defendant.

---

Explicit caveats

• No defense attorney name in this response is sourced. Everything name-level above is either (a) plaintiff's counsel, or (b) flagged as unverified.
• The Dell docket alone is insufficient. Post-consolidation, Dell's counsel appear on the -522 lead docket. A search limited to 2:13-cv-00523 will look "empty" and is not evidence that no counsel appeared.
• The firm-level list in the prior section is a hypothesis. Winston & Strawn/Reed Smith for Dell and Goodwin Procter for HP are plausible given those firms' client relationships in 2013 and the prior section's assertion, but I could not confirm them. Do not rely on them for a filing or an appearance-of-counsel analysis without pulling Dkts. 16 and the lead-case attorney table.
• One contradiction to flag: the prior section's judge note (Dell as -RSP, HP as -JRG, Acer lead as -JRG) is consistent with a Payne referral for claim construction, but the consolidated lead caption is -JRG. Attorney-appearance data follows the lead case, so this matters for where you look — it does not change who the parties' lawyers were.

If you can grant PACER or CourtListener/RECAP access (or let me pull the Justia mirrors of Dkts. 16, 101, and the answers), I can convert the table above into a verified, per-attorney roster with roles, office locations, and experience notes.