Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Dell Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me dig deeper into the procedural history, rulings, and IPR linkage.

Let me verify the outcome, settlements, and the patent provenance chain.

Case Overview & Background — Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-00522-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

The parties. The plaintiff, Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"), is a Texas limited liability company that describes its principal place of business as Plano, Texas (per the complaint as reported by the Southeast Texas Record). IDT is not an operating company: it is a patent-assertion vehicle and an indirect subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation — the same Southpark One address in Austin associated with dozens of Acacia shell entities such as Database Sync Solutions, Cellular Communications Equipment, and Delaware Display Group (Techdirt company profile). IDT's sole business is licensing and litigating the patents it acquired. The defendants are all large consumer-electronics and OEM hardware makers: Dell Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Company; BlackBerry (then Research In Motion Limited/BlackBerry Corporation and BlackBerry Limited); Acer Inc. and Acer America Corp.; [[Huawei Investment & Holding Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Huawei%20Investment%20%26%20Holding%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-defendant/Huawei%20Investment%20%26%20Holding%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) (with [Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Huawei Device USA Inc.); and ZTE Corporation. Microsoft also appears as a defendant in the consolidated lead case, according to the court's opinion. IDT was represented by Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas) and Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview).

The accused technology and the asserted patents. IDT filed six parallel complaints on June 28, 2013, all in the Marshall Division: the Acer case became the consolidated lead case (No. 2:13-cv-522-JRG), with Dell (2:13-cv-523), HP (2:13-cv-524), Huawei (2:13-cv-525), BlackBerry, and ZTE (2:13-cv-527) filed the same day (a BlackBerry case number is reported as 2:13-cv-526 — I could not independently confirm that number). The accused products are ordinary LCD-based devices — desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, printers, and calculators — specifically their edge-lit LED backlight modules. IDT's own exhibits identified a Dell Inspiron laptop and an HP g6-2321dx laptop as representative infringing products. The theory is that the defendants' backlight light-guide panels, trays, and overlying films embody Parker's claimed arrangements of "light extracting deformities." The seven asserted patents are all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," all list the same sole inventor (Jeffery R. Parker), share a common ancestor (U.S. Pat. No. 5,613,751), and claim an earliest priority date of June 27, 1995, and the parties stipulated they share a common written description. In one-line technical sketches: the '547 patent claims a backlight with a separate transparent sheet or film overlying the light-emitting member across an air gap, carrying a pattern of deformities that varies by location to produce a desired output distribution; the '194 patent claims a light source plus a film/sheet/plate having "well defined" optical deformities with reflective/refractive surfaces controlling the light-output ray-angle distribution, optionally with an air gap or over a tray cavity; the '177 patent claims a tray forming a cavity or recess that holds the light source, with a sheet/film over the cavity and the tray acting as a back/side/edge reflector; the '660 patent claims a generally planar optical conductor with an input edge wider than it is thick, a wider-than-tall light source, a transition region spreading light to an output region, and faceted surfaces near the source; the '974 patent relates to panel assemblies producing an emissive panel for use as an LCD backlight; the '370 patent covers panel assemblies with light-extracting deformities on one side of a sheet/film with a width/length that is "quite small" relative to the sheet; and the '816 patent claims a light source with a panel member having an input edge, end- and side-edge reflectors, the panel seated in a tray cavity, and an additional overlying component. (Claim Construction Mem. & Order, Dkt. 101.)

Provenance, posture, and why the case matters. These patents are a licensed-out remnant of Lumitex's optical business: Lumitex → Solid State Opto Limited (Mang-Shiang Lee / GLT) → Rambus Inc./Rambus Delaware LLC → Acacia Research Group LLC → IDT (USPTO assignment records, summarized here). Crucially, Rambus announced the transfer of its display patent portfolio to an Acacia subsidiary on March 7, 2013 (Rambus press release) — roughly three and a half months before IDT filed these suits — with Rambus retaining a license and a right to future payments, an arrangement typical of Acacia's revenue-share model. Procedurally, the case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap (JRG) in Marshall, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne handling claim construction. On July 11, 2014, Judge Gilstrap struck IDT's expert declaration for failure to disclose the expert under Patent Rule 4-3 (Dkt. 85), and on August 26, 2014, Judge Payne issued a Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 101) construing twelve term sets, holding the "quite small" pattern-of-deformities limitation indefinite under Nautilus, treating the "low loss" clause as non-limiting, and construing "well defined" as "distinct" and "predetermined" as "fixed"; Judge Gilstrap later overruled all objections. The case is notable on several fronts. First, it is a textbook 2013-era Acacia/NPE campaign — the same seven patents were asserted across 30-plus suits against handset, PC, TV, automotive (Hyundai, Kia, VW, Mercedes, Mazda), camera (Canon, Nikon), and GPS (Garmin, TomTom) defendants, with sister plaintiff Delaware Display Group LLC adding the '196 patent in a parallel Delaware wave filed December 31, 2013 (RPX Insight). Second, the IPR linkage is significant: LG Display petitioned for review of the '547, '196, and '177 patents (IPR2014-01357, -01359, -01362, filed Aug. 21, 2014), the Board instituted on the '547 on Feb. 26, 2015, and Patent Owner then filed a Request for Adverse Judgment (May 28, 2015) with the judgment/final written decision terminating the proceeding on June 10, 2015 (IPR2014-01357 record); further petitions targeted the '660 (IPR2015-00487, IPR2015-00745) and the '547 (Mercedes-Benz, IPR2015-00361). Third, the case illustrates the risk-adjusted, settlement-driven economics of the model: Acacia's Form 8-K dated March 6, 2015 announced that IDT and Delaware Display Group had entered a settlement and license agreement with Dell and Hewlett-Packard resolving Nos. 2:13-cv-523-RSP and 2:13-cv-524-JRG (SEC 8-K). Because the patents cover core edge-lit LED backlight architecture now used in virtually every LCD, the campaign had broad market reach — but also drew substantial validity and indefiniteness challenges and IPR attrition. Caveats: the settlement terms are confidential and not public; I could not verify from primary sources the final dispositions of the Acer, BlackBerry, Huawei, or ZTE member cases, nor the ultimate outcomes of the '660-family IPRs; and the specific judge assignment for each individual member case (excluding the JRG/RSP pairings noted above) is not fully sourced.

I'll research this case systematically across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press.

Good start — I have the filing details and 2015 Dell/HP settlement. Let me dig into the lead case docket, PTAB proceedings, and later developments.

Excellent detail. Now let me pin down the PTAB proceedings, the remaining defendants' dispositions, and any stay/transfer motions.

I hit the research tool's step limit, so the following reflects what I could verify from the sources retrieved. I've flagged the points where the record is incomplete rather than guessing.

---

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — IDT v. Dell et al.

Correction / clarification of the case identity

The caption in the case metadata maps to a consolidated family of six complaints filed the same day, all in the Marshall Division of the E.D. Tex.:

Source: Southeast Texas Record, "Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas" (listing all six, all filed June 28, 2013); confirmed by IDT's own PTO mandatory notices in IPR2015-01113 (listing all six plus 28+ later IDT/Acacia suits).

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

2013-06-28 — Complaints filed. IDT, a Plano, Texas LLC (corporate disclosure identifies Acacia Research Corp. and Acacia Research Group LLC as affiliates), asserted all seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents: 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and 8,215,816. All share inventor Jeffery R. Parker and an earliest priority of 1995-06-27 (common ancestor, ultimately U.S. 5,613,751; originally Lumitex technology, later Solid State Opto → Rambus → Acacia → IDT).

• Relief sought: injunction, damages, treble damages for willful infringement (the complaint alleges the defendants were put on notice in August 2012), interest, fees. Jury demand filed (Dkt. 2).
• IDT counsel: Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William Kennedy Jr., Daniel F. Olejko (Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas); plus T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry (Ward & Smith, Longview).
• Accused products: laptops, desktops, tablets, phones, printers, calculators, and display panels/modules sourced from third parties — a classic upstream-component NPE theory. (IDT's IPR exhibits show it took photographs of e.g. a Dell Inspiron and HP g6-2321dx "LCM module.")

2013-07-17/18 — First extensions. Acer obtained an extension to 2013-09-23 (Dkt. 15).

2013-09-23 — Acer's answer (Dkt. 16), with jury demand and corporate disclosure — the first substantive answer in the lead case.

2014-07-01 — Microsoft's sealed answer, counterclaims, and third-party complaint against Acacia Research Corp. (Dkt. 76). Microsoft had been pulled into the consolidated case and brought Acacia Research Corporation itself in as a third-party defendant — a real-party-in-interest/standing and licensing-related maneuver. Acacia was served 2014-07-01, answer due 2014-07-22 (Dkt. 81), with extensions sought by both IDT and Acacia (Dkts. 87, 89).

Counterclaims. The docket party list shows BlackBerry Ltd. and Huawei Device USA as "Consol Counter Claimant[s]," confirming invalidity/non-infringement counterclaims by the handset defendants. I could not retrieve the full text or filing dates of each counterclaim.

---

2. Consolidation & the pretrial framework

• 2013-12-18 — Consolidation order (Dkt. 24): all six cases consolidated for all pretrial issues except venue into lead case 2:13-cv-00522, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. (The express carve-out for "venue" indicates transfer/venue motions were contemplated; I could not verify any § 1404(a) motion being filed or ruled on.)
• 2013-12-03 — Scheduling conference set (Dkt. 20).
• 2014-01-23 — Docket Control Order (Dkt. 37): Markman hearing 2014-07-28; 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. Discovery Order (Dkt. 36) and E-Discovery Order (Dkt. 35) entered the same day.
• 2014-02-04/05 — Stipulated protective order (Dkt. 45).
• 2014-04-25 — Reference to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne for the limited purpose of conducting the claim construction hearing (Dkt. 59).
• 2014-06-17 — David Keyzer appointed technical advisor (Dkt. 70) — Judge Gilstrap's standard practice in complex patent cases.

---

3. Pre-Markman motion practice of substance

2014-02-14/18 — Invalidity contentions served (P.R. 3-3) and document production (P.R. 3-4(a)) by the defendants.

2014-05-20 — Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. 63), seeking to add US 4,945,350; US 5,592,332; JP H05-196820A; and JP H06-242321.

2014-06-19 — Motion DENIED (Dkt. 71, Judge Gilstrap). Applying the S & W Enterprises four-factor test under P.R. 3-6(b), the court held defendants failed to explain why the art could not have been found earlier and failed to show importance, expressly rejecting the defendants' unilateral "reservation of rights" in unfiled contentions. Strategic significance: this froze the prior-art universe roughly nine months before trial and materially narrowed the invalidity case.

2014-06-24 — Defendants' expedited motion to strike IDT's expert declaration (Dkt. 72) — Morgan Werner's declaration on indefiniteness, attached to IDT's opening claim construction brief (Dkt. 69) despite IDT having told defendants in the P.R. 4-3 joint statement (Dkt. 61) that it would call no expert.

2014-07-11 — Motion to strike GRANTED (Dkt. 85). The court held IDT violated P.R. 4-3's disclosure requirement and that Nautilus v. Biosig did not excuse it, noting the indefiniteness burden lay with defendants anyway. Strategic significance: IDT lost its only extrinsic evidence on indefiniteness, and the defendants separately elected to prove indefiniteness without an expert — a decision that proved costly (see below).

No motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim appears in the docket; the docket entries of substance are the invalidity-contentions motion, the strike motion, and a series of discovery motions.

---

4. Markman

2014-05-05 — P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 61). 2014-06-16 — IDT opening brief (Dkt. 69). 2014-06-30 — Defendants' responsive brief (Dkt. 75). 2014-07-07 — IDT reply (Dkt. 82).

2014-07-30 — Markman hearing held (Dkt. 92) before Magistrate Judge Payne.

2014-08-26 — Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 101, 58 pages). Thirteen disputed term groupings across all seven patents. Key holdings:

• Most terms were construed from intrinsic evidence (specification + prosecution history), with dictionary extrinsic evidence rejected where inconsistent.
• Critical loss for IDT: the term "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" was held indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as applied in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) (decided 2014-06-02) — "quite small" supplied no objective standard, rendering the claim invalid.
• Other construed terms included "pattern of deformities," "continuous side walls," "transition region," "deformities ... of a different type," "air gap," "desired light output," "posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount," "well defined optical elements or deformities," and "pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss."

Strategic significance: Because all seven patents share a common specification, a single indefiniteness holding on a recurring limitation had family-wide reach. This was almost certainly the pressure point that pushed the case toward settlement — the Markman order issued roughly six months before the March 2015 trial setting.

---

5. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• 2014-08-22 — Defendants' motion for a limited exception to the protective order to permit production of license agreements by Rambus Inc. (Dkt. 99). This targeted the Rambus → Acacia → IDT license chain for damages/royalty-base purposes — the natural royalty-rate comparator set in an NPE case.
• 2014-08-29 — IDT's sealed motion for protective order (Dkt. 109); dispute resolved and motion mooted 2014-10-03 (Dkt. 133).
• 2014-10-27/28 — Cross-motions to compel (Dkts. 158–165): IDT moved to compel financial documents (Dkt. 158, sealed; Dkt. 159 filed in error, refiled as Dkt. 160); Dell and HP moved to compel (Dkt. 161, sealed, with a Levy declaration); a separate motion to compel (Dkt. 165).
• 2014-11-10 to 2014-11-20 — Letter-brief practice on discovery disputes (Dkts. 149–153, 173–184).
• 2014-11-20 — Motion hearing held (Dkt. 201), with stipulations filed (Dkts. 192, 199). 2014-11-21 orders (Dkts. 204–207) resolved or mooted the compel motions.
• 2014-11-12 to 2017-07-14 — Sealing/redaction practice: numerous sealed filings, notices of intent to request redaction (Dkt. 216), and a redacted transcript docketed only on 2017-07-14 (Dkt. 256) — evidence of long-running sealing of licensing and financial material.

Mediation (former E.D. Tex. Chief Judge David Folsom, mediator):

• 2014-03-17 — mediation suspended as to Microsoft (Dkt. 54).
• 2014-09-16 — three mediation reports filed (Dkts. 122, 124, 125); further report 2014-09-23 (Dkt. 130); 2014-11-12 (Dkt. 185).
• 2015-02-03 — Report of Mediation: "settled" as to Hewlett-Packard and Dell (Dkt. 243).

---

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents

This was one of the most heavily IPR-attacked portfolios in the 2014–2017 window.

A. LG Display Co., Ltd. — five petitions filed 2014-07-01 (all on IDT's LCD backlight patents):

The IPR2014-01095 denial (panel: Giannetti, Powell, Bunting; opinion by Bunting) is instructive: the Board found petitioner failed to supply a fact-based motivation to combine Pristash with Tsunoda/Imai, and because all four obviousness grounds used the same secondary-reference rationale, all failed for the same reason. Parallel LG petitions were also filed against the '547 patent (see below). The LG IPRs were tied to the Delaware front of the campaign — Delaware Display Group LLC v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.), No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del., filed 2013-12-31).

B. IPR2014-01357 — LG Display v. IDT, U.S. 6,755,547. Filed by LG Display against the '547 patent; IDT's Patent Owner exhibit list is dated 2014-11-28 (counsel: Bragalone Conroy; Petitioner counsel: Robert Pluta, Mayer Brown). Outcome not verified — this is a gap I could not close.

C. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l / Daimler North America / Daimler AG v. IDT — IPR2015-00745 and IPR2015-01113, both on the '660 patent, filed 2015 (the -01113 mandatory notices are dated 2015-05-15). These were tied to IDT v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l, No. 2:14-cv-00535 (E.D. Tex., filed 2014-04-24). Outcomes not verified.

D. K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd. v. IDT — IPR2015-01866, U.S. 8,215,816. Filed 2015-09-11; instituted 2016-03-17; Patent Owner Response 2016-07-01; oral hearing held 2017-02-17; Final Written Decision 2017-03-15. Petitioner counsel Robert Pluta; Patent Owner counsel Justin Kimble. In its papers IDT leaned on the district court stay fight from the parallel Delaware LG case (Exhibits included "Brief in Opposition to Stay Dkt 41," "Memorandum Opinion Dkt 146," and "LG – Reply in Support of Renewed Motion to Stay"). The substantive outcome of the 2017-03-15 FWD is not verified here.

Effect on the litigation: The petition wave (July 2014 LG petitions, 2015 Daimler and Pretech petitions) created the IPR-stay dynamic. The E.D. Tex. consolidated docket shows a "Stay" entry filed 2015-02-05 (Dkt. 244) and an amended scheduling order 2015-02-24 (Dkt. 246) — consistent with a stay request being briefed while the court pressed the March 2015 trial setting. I could not verify the disposition of Dkt. 244 (whether the stay was granted, denied, or mooted by settlement). In the parallel Delaware case, LG moved to stay, lost, and renewed after institution, resulting in a memorandum opinion (Dkt. 146) — a fact IDT used affirmatively in the PTAB.

---

7. Settlement, dismissal, and final disposition

• 2015-03-06 — Notice of Settlement and Agreed Motion to Extend Dismissal Deadline (Dkt. 247, initially filed in error and re-filed).
• 2015-03-06 — Acacia Research Corporation announced a settlement and license agreement with Dell Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Company, resolving Civil Action Nos. 2:13-cv-523-RSP and 2:13-cv-524-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Disclosed by Acacia on Form 8-K filed 2015-03-11 under Item 8.01. The named settling entities were Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC (both Acacia subsidiaries).
• 2015-03-10 — Status conference before Magistrate Judge Payne (Dkt. 252).
• 2015-03-11 — Order Dismissing Case (Dkt. 251).
• 2015-03-24 — Further order (Dkt. 254).
• Later activity: Order 2015-10-13 (Dkt. 255) and the redacted transcript 2017-07-14 (Dkt. 256). Third-party public docket trackers show the lead case last updated in July 2017 with no trial, verdict, judgment, or appeal.

Bottom line: no merits adjudication, no trial, and no jury verdict. The case terminated by settlement and license, with dismissal. I found no Federal Circuit appeal on this docket (unsurprising given dismissal-by-settlement and no adverse judgment against a party). The one substantive merits ruling that survived in public form is the Markman indefiniteness holding of 2014-08-26.

Precise dismissal dates for Acer, Huawei, ZTE, and BlackBerry in the consolidated lead case are not verified in the sources I retrieved. The docket shows dismissal-related entries on 2014-08-22 (Dkt. 100), 2014-10-08 (Dkt. 144), 2014-10-22 (Dkt. 155, stipulation of dismissal), and 2014-12-01 (Dkt. 213), which are consistent with sequential defendant-by-defendant resolutions during the campaign, but I cannot assign specific defendants to specific entries from the record I have.

---

8. Present posture

Closed. All six Marshall Division complaints (2:13-cv-00522 through -00527) resolved through settlement/license and dismissal. The operative public settlement is the 2015-03-06 Dell/HP license. Acacia's broader IDT/Delaware Display Group campaign — the same seven-patent family asserted against Microsoft, Nokia, Apple, Google, Amazon, HTC, Lenovo, LG, Pantech, Sony, VIZIO, Best Buy, Garmin, TomTom, Nikon, Canon, MiTAC, the automotive OEMs (BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, Volkswagen, Mazda), and the four major U.S. carriers, per IDT's PTAB mandatory notices — was separately settled or litigated.

---

9. Explicit gaps (not verifiable from the sources retrieved)

1. Outcome/disposition of IPR2014-01357 ('547) and of the other four LG Display IPRs (‑01092, ‑01094, ‑01096, ‑01097).
2. Substance of the 2017-03-15 Final Written Decision in IPR2015-01866 ('816) — i.e., whether any claims were cancelled.
3. Outcomes of the Daimler IPR2015-00745 / ‑01113 ('660).
4. Disposition of the 2015-02-05 stay motion, Dkt. 244.
5. Whether any § 1404(a) transfer motion was filed (the consolidation order's "except venue" carve-out implies venue was live).
6. Filing dates/text of the BlackBerry and Huawei counterclaims, and the resolution of Microsoft's third-party complaint against Acacia (Dkt. 76).
7. The exact dismissal date and terms for each of Acer, Huawei, ZTE, and BlackBerry.
8. The court's claim-construction rulings on the eleven non-indefiniteness term groups in the 2014-08-26 opinion (I confirmed the term list and the indefiniteness holding only).

If you want, I can target any of items 1–8 in a follow-up research pass (PACER for the lead case, PTAB Final Written Decisions, and the Acacia 10-K/10-Q litigation footnotes for settlement amounts and defendant-by-defendant dismissal dates).

I'll search several angles to find published coverage of this case.

Let me dig into specific outlets and outcomes.

I found industry-trade and specialist coverage, but very little from the mainstream/legal outlets you named. Here's what the press has actually reported.

What the coverage says happened

Trade coverage of the filing itself is thin and largely derivative. Southeast Texas Record, in its regular "recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas" roundup, reported the June 28, 2013 Marshall Division complaints and — importantly — that they were filed as six separate suits, not one multi-defendant action: Acer (2:13-cv-00522), Dell (2:13-cv-00523), Hewlett-Packard (2:13-cv-00524), Huawei (2:13-cv-00525), Research In Motion/BlackBerry (2:13-cv-00526) and ZTE (2:13-cv-00527). The Record listed all seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents (6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; 8,215,816), noted that plaintiff IDT is a Plano, Texas LLC, that it sought an injunction plus damages, treble damages, interest, costs and fees, and identified plaintiff's counsel as Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William Kennedy Jr. and Daniel F. Olejko of Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas) and T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview). A short item on Intellectual Property News framed the same filing as "7 major technology corporations got hit with a patent infringement lawsuit Friday involving technology for sleek computer screens," and a firm blog post at Mandour Law carried the allegation that the defendants were put on notice in August 2012 and continued selling, making infringement "willful" and supporting triple damages — a characterization that tracks the complaint's pleading rather than any court finding.

Campaign context and deal coverage

The most substantive analysis came from RPX Insight, which reported on 2014-01-09 that IDT was an Acacia Research subsidiary and that the seven asserted patents "were previously owned by Rambus and transferred to Acacia in March 2013." A separate RPX item dated 2014-03-06 described IDT's follow-on filings against BMW, Canon, Garmin, MiTAC, Nikon and TomTom, bringing fifteen patents into play across the campaign. A Chinese-language industry analysis by Taiwan's 科技產業資訊室 (STPI/iKnow) went further than any U.S. outlet, tracing the chain of title — Lumitex → Solid State Opto → Rambus → Rambus Delaware → Acacia → Innovative Display Technologies — and asserting that part of the optical patent portfolio had been sold to Rambus for US$26 million. That figure appears only in this trade analysis (translated), not in any court record I located, and I'd treat it as unverified reporting rather than established fact.

Outcomes reported

The clearest disposition reporting is a securities filing, not a news story: Acacia Research Corp.'s Form 8-K (event dated 2015-03-06, filed 2015-03-11) disclosed that IDT and Delaware Display Group entered a settlement and license agreement with Dell Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Company resolving Civil Action Nos. 2:13-cv-523-RSP and 2:13-cv-524-JRG. Terms were not disclosed. Related settlements were reported piecemeal: IP Frontline, via CIP Lawyer, reported in August 2015 that Acacia's IDT and Delaware Display Group subsidiaries signed a settlement and patent license with Sony resolving Delaware litigation; and an LG Display quarterly filing referenced "[s]ettlements in principle … through mediation" covering IDT litigations, without dollar figures. Attorney-profile data on Avvo lists Bragalone's docket outcomes for this campaign as settlements (Acer, 2015-03-11; ZTE, 2015-01-06; and a "favorable settlement following mediation" against Mercedes-Benz, 2015-06-22), but that is self-reported attorney marketing data, not press coverage, and should be weighted accordingly. Parallel PTAB activity got no press but is well documented in records: IPR2014-01357 (LG Display v. IDT, '547 patent), IPR2015-00487/01717 ('660 patent), IPR2015-01113/01114 (Mercedes-Benz, '660 and '816 patents — institution denied), and IPR2015-01868 ('974 patent). The '660 IPR ended in a final decision of no claims unpatentable, with a later Federal Circuit appeal (17-1413).

Where reporting is thin, differs, or goes beyond the record

Two caveats matter for anyone relying on this. First, I could not find coverage of this case in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra. The campaign was covered by patent-analytics shops (RPX, Patexia, Docket Alarm/Ex Parte in document form) and small trade outlets, and the plaintiff-side notice was recycled through law-firm blogs — the Mandour Law piece reads as a press release (it opens with a "San Diego –" dateline) rather than independent reporting, and it inconsistently calls the plaintiff both "Innovative Display Technologies, Inc." (San Diego) and "based in Plano, Texas," whereas the court filings identify a Texas LLC. That entity-name/location discrepancy is a good illustration of how the secondary coverage repeated plaintiff framing without checking the record. Second, no outlet reported a damages award — no verdict, no trial, no disclosed settlement number. The public record shows consolidation of the six 2013 complaints into the 2:13-cv-00522 action (Judge Rodney Gilstrap's 2014-08-26 claim construction order, Dkt. 101, construes terms across all seven patents), a 2015 Markman ruling, and a wave of confidential settlements; everything beyond that — willfulness, the $26M portfolio figure, and the "sleek screens" framing — comes from party pleadings or industry analysts rather than from adjudicated findings or named-outlet reporting.

Sources

• Technology Company Accuses Dell, HP of Patent Infringement
• 發光面板組件專利訴訟，Innovative Display Technologies 控告Dell等6間公司 - ︿Top
• INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC's EXHIBIT 2006
• ACACIA RESEARCH CORP - FORM 8-K - UNITED STATES

• DOCKET NO

• Case IPR2014- 01357 Patent 6,755,547
• Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC
• Search Cases by Codes - Search Cases by Codes
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc. et al
• Case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG Document 101 Filed 08/26/14 Page 1 of 58 PageID #: 2241
• 2:13-cv-00522 | Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc. et al | RPX Insight
• are Blackberry | Intellectual Property News.com

I'll verify the plaintiff-side roster against the docket and firm sources.

Let me pull the docket sheet and confirm local counsel and any later appearances.

Plaintiff-side counsel of record — Innovative Display Technologies LLC

Important structural note first: the plaintiff's side is the same in all six June 28, 2013 complaints (Acer 2:13-cv-00522, Dell 2:13-cv-00523, HP 2:13-cv-00524, Huawei 2:13-cv-00525, RIM/BlackBerry 2:13-cv-00526, ZTE 2:13-cv-00527), which were later consolidated under the Acer lead case, 2:13-cv-00522-JRG. The roster below is the filing-time roster reported by the Southeast Texas Record's case roundup and independently corroborated by PTAB filings in the parallel IPRs (IPR2014-01357, IPR2015-00487/01717, IPR2015-01866/01867/01868) and by the attorney-appearance lines in the related D. Del. Delaware Display Group v. Lenovo opinion.

Related in-house / campaign counsel (not district-court counsel of record here)

• Eric Lucas — appears in the record as Acacia/IDT-side in-house counsel (the D. Del. opinion quotes a consulting agreement calling him "COMPANY counsel" for Acacia Research Group and notes that he "may serve as counsel for IDT and DDG"). He directed the Rambus teardown work at issue in the Delaware Display Group discovery fight. Treat as in-house/corporate counsel, not an attorney of record in 2:13-cv-00522.
• James R. Perkins and Stephanie Wood (Bragalone Conroy) — listed for IDT/DDG in the D. Del. actions; no confirmation they entered an appearance in the Texas case, so I would not list them as Texas counsel of record without a docket check.
• Wesley Hill (Ward & Smith) was the firm's other frequent E.D. Tex. local counsel in that period (e.g., Wi‑LAN, Smartflash), but I found no filed appearance by him in 2:13-cv-00522 and am not asserting it.

Verification gaps — stated explicitly

• I could not open a full PACER docket sheet for 2:13-cv-00522 within this analysis; Plainsite and the Docket Alarm/JUSTIA mirrors return only partial entries, and much of the IDT docket is sealed (sealed motions for protective order, sealed motions to compel, protective-order filings). Where the docket is opaque, the roster above rests on the filing-time trade report plus PTAB/D. Del. corroboration rather than a docket attorney list.
• The roles "lead" vs. "of counsel" are my characterization, not stated in a court order. The Southeast Texas Record roundup lists the seven attorneys without designating lead; the local/lead split is inferred from firm geography and from which attorneys signed the complaints and PTAB papers.
• Any roster is time-stamped to 2013–2014. I did not verify later substitutions or withdrawals before the 2015 settlements (Dell/HP settled 2015‑03‑06 per Acacia's 8‑K; other defendants settled on various dates). If you need a current-of-record list, a PACER attorney query on 2:13-cv-00522-JRG is required.

Cross-reference to the existing summary

This confirms — and firms up — the counsel identification already reported in the "In the news" section (Bragalone, Conroy, Kimble, Kennedy, Olejko of Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas; Ward and Henry of Ward & Smith, Longview). One clarification to that earlier section: the Record's roster and the PTAB papers show Kimble — not Bragalone — as the designated lead counsel before the PTAB, while Bragalone is the district-court lead. That lead/back-up reversal is a common source of error in secondary coverage of this campaign.

Sources

• Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Southeast Texas Record)
• IDT mandatory notices, IPR2014-01357 ('547) — lead/back-up counsel designation
• IDT power of attorney, IPR2015-00487 ('660) — Kimble lead, Bragalone and Saad back-up
• IDT pro hac vice motion, IPR2015-01868 ('974) — Bragalone experience and Federal Circuit appeals
• Plainsite docket, IDT v. Acer Inc. et al., 2:13-cv-00522 (Kennedy filing noted)
• Delaware Display Grp. LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd. (D. Del.), counsel listing and Eric Lucas findings
• Ward & Smith announcement re Claire Abernathy Henry (Longview; former briefing attorney to Judge T. John Ward)
• Ward & Smith co-counsel in Smartflash v. Apple verdict release
• Core Wireless v. Apple, Notice of Appearance of Claire Abernathy Henry (Ward & Smith)

I'll research defense counsel across the six IDT complaints. Let me search several angles in parallel.

The first pass gives me plaintiff's counsel (already known) but not defense counsel. Let me look at docket sheets and firm-level sources directly.

Counsel of Record — Defendants

Important procedural note first. This research is incomplete, and I want to be explicit about why rather than paper over it: I hit a tool-call ceiling before I could pull the individual docket sheets for the six 2013 complaints. The free docket aggregators I could reach (PlainSite, Justia, Docket Alarm/Ex Parte, RPX Insight, Stanford NPE) index party and case data well but exposed almost no attorney-appearance entries for these dockets, and PACER itself is paywalled. So the verified roster below is short, and the bulk of the defense-side representation is a documented gap rather than something I can responsibly fill in.

What I can actually source

Ellen Sue Robbins — Microsoft Corporation (consolidated defendant).

• Role: Counsel for Microsoft Corporation, listed as a Consolidated Defendant in the lead case.
• Firm: Sidley Austin LLP (Austin, Texas, per PlainSite's firm-page grouping).
• Source: PlainSite attorney–docket table for Robbins, which lists "6/28/2013 | 2:13-cv-00522 | Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc. et al | Microsoft Corporation | Consol Defendant." (PlainSite)
• Note: This is a secondary aggregator page, not a PACER docket entry, so treat the firm attribution as reported rather than confirmed by a filed appearance. Sidley Austin is a large IP-litigation shop; I did not independently verify Robbins's other patent cases before running out of searches.

Coordination evidence (not a name, but useful). The June 19, 2014 opinion in the lead case shows that Acer Inc., Acer America Corp., Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Huawei Investment and Holding Co., Huawei Technologies Co., Huawei Device USA Inc., BlackBerry Corporation, BlackBerry Limited, and Microsoft Corporation jointly moved for leave to amend invalidity contentions (Dkt. 63), which the court denied. Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00522-JRG (E.D. Tex. June 19, 2014) (vLex). The fact that these parties filed a single joint motion is consistent with a coordinated defense group and shared or aligned counsel — but the opinion names the parties, not their attorneys, so it does not itself establish any individual's appearance.

What I could not verify

I found no reliable source identifying lead counsel, local counsel, or in-house counsel for:

I am not going to infer defense firms from the defendants' general litigation habits or from other E.D. Tex. cases — that would be exactly the kind of fabrication the record here doesn't support. Note also that under the E.D. Tex. Local Rules these defendants would each have needed local counsel admitted in the district, so for each of the six suits there should be at least one Texas-bar local-counsel appearance on the docket; those entries simply aren't surfacing in the free sources I reached, and the Dkt. 109 sealed protective-order activity in the lead case suggests at least some filings are sealed.

The most direct way to close this gap is the PACER docket sheets for 2:13-cv-00522 through -00527, sorting the attorney/participant list, or the E.D. Tex. CM/ECF "attorney" report for each case. Firm websites (Sidley, and whatever firms represented Dell/HP/Huawei/BlackBerry/ZTE) would likely also list the engagements, but those are self-reported.

Contradictions with the case metadata (flagged, per instructions)

1. Caption. The metadata caption is "Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Dell Inc. et al.," but the cases were filed as six separate suits — 2:13-cv-00522 (Acer, lead/consolidated), -00523 (Dell), -00524 (HP), -00525 (Huawei), -00526 (RIM/BlackBerry), -00527 (ZTE). There is no single "Dell Inc. et al." action; Dell is the -00523 defendant. (Southeast Texas Record roundup; Stanford NPE database.)
2. Defendant list. The metadata lists Dell, HP, BlackBerry, Acer, Huawei, and ZTE. The docket and the 2014 opinion add Microsoft Corporation as a party in the lead case (appearing as a consolidated/added defendant). The metadata omits it.
3. The prior "In the news" section said "no docket number or disposition is provided" while reporting specific docket numbers and a consolidation date — internally inconsistent; the June 19, 2014 opinion does confirm the "LEAD CASE" designation for 2:13-cv-00522, supporting the consolidation characterization.

Bottom line: the only defense-side individual I can substantiate is Ellen Sue Robbins (Sidley Austin) for Microsoft, and even that rests on a secondary aggregator page. The remaining defendant counsel are currently unverified on the public record I could access, not "none" — I simply don't have the PACER appearances in front of me.