Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC et al.

I'll research this case through docket records, related litigation, and patent materials.

Case Overview

Parties. Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") is a Texas LLC (principal place of business in Plano, TX, per its parallel complaints) that owns no manufacturing operations and acquired its portfolio rather than developing it — the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies IDT as an "acquired patents" asserter. IDT is a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation, which disclosed the outcome of this very case in a Form 8-K, and it litigated alongside affiliate Delaware Display Group LLC in companion suits. The patents trace to inventor Jeffery R. Parker and to Lumitex's solid‑state backlight business (PTAB briefing in the related IPRs describes Lumitex commercializing the technology from the mid‑1990s). Defendants were General Motors LLC, the OEM, and Valeo North America, Inc., a Tier‑1 automotive lighting/interior supplier; Valeo's inclusion in both the caption and the settlement strongly suggests it was the supplier/indemnitor for the accused lighting and display hardware, but I could not verify from a primary docket document whether Valeo was named in an amended complaint or brought in as a third‑party defendant — treat that as inference, not a sourced fact.

Accused technology and patents. This was not a typical consumer‑electronics backlight case: IDT pressed a 1990s LCD backlighting family into the automotive infotainment and exterior‑lighting market. The complaint (reproduced as an exhibit in PTAB filings) accused GM vehicles carrying LCD navigation/display units — specifically identifying the 22997866 navigation display unit used in model years of the GMC Yukon and Sierra and the Chevrolet Silverado, Suburban and Tahoe — and, under the automotive patent, light‑emitting assemblies for exterior components such as headlamps and taillamps. Although the case metadata supplied to me identifies U.S. Patent No. 6,886,956 ("Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like," issued May 3, 2005; Parker, Miller and Hough) as the patent at issue, the docket's AO‑120 Report to the Commissioner (D.I. 52, 10/23/2015) lists seven patents: the "Display Patents" 6,755,547, 7,300,194, 7,384,177, 7,404,660, 7,434,974 and 8,215,816 (all "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," sharing a June 27, 1995 priority date, claiming a light source plus a film/sheet bearing shaped optical "deformities" that control the output ray‑angle distribution, often across an air gap, to illuminate an LCD), plus the '956 "Auto Patent" (a continuation of the '563 patent, January 16, 1996 priority) claiming a light guide that receives LED light at one end and redirects it out through the side of the guide via optical elements to illuminate part of a headlamp or taillamp. That discrepancy is worth flagging: the '956 was the patent that drew the automotive‑supplier IPR fire, so it functions as the signature patent, but the case as filed was a seven‑patent assertion.

Posture, venue and significance. IDT filed on June 30, 2014 in the District of Delaware before Judge Richard G. Andrews, the same day it filed the companion IDT v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:14‑cv‑849 — while filing its other automaker suits (BMW, Hyundai, Mazda, Mercedes‑Benz, Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagen) in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before Judge Gilstrap. Delaware was the natural forum for GM and Ford as Delaware entities, and the GM and Ford cases proceeded in parallel on shared claim construction (the Joint Claim Construction Brief and Appendix at D.I. 46–47 were filed by GM and Ford jointly; a claim construction/Markman hearing was set for October 28, 2015 per D.I. 49). Before any construction issued, GM notified the court of a settlement (D.I. 48, 10/15/2015); the parties stipulated to voluntary dismissal (D.I. 50), which Judge Andrews so ordered on October 23, 2015 (D.I. 51), terminating the case. Acacia's October 2015 Form 8‑K confirmed that IDT and Delaware Display Group entered a settlement and license agreement with GM and Valeo resolving Civil Action No. 1:14‑cv‑00850. The case is notable for three reasons: (1) it is a clean example of an Acacia‑backed PAE running a coordinated multi‑front campaign — 2013 consumer‑electronics suits (LG, Sony, Vizio, Lenovo, Pantech) plus 2014 automotive suits — against an entire industry rather than a single target; (2) it illustrates the 2014–2015 IPR‑then‑settle dynamic, with Toyota (IPR2015‑00895/‑896/‑897), Koito/Stanley (IPR2015‑00575) and Mercedes‑Benz (IPR2015‑01044) challenging the '956 and the family, and the Toyota and Koito/Stanley proceedings being **terminated by settlement in mid‑2015 without any final written

I'll research this case and its related proceedings.

Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00850 (D. Del.) — Litigation Timeline & Outcome

Bottom line: This was a short-lived (≈16-month), settlement-driven case. It never reached a Markman ruling, summary judgment, or trial. The only merits activity of substance was claim-construction briefing, which was overtaken by the Acacia/IDT–GM/Valeo global settlement announced 2015-10-15 and formalized by voluntary dismissal on 2015-10-23. Several parallel IPRs on the same patent family (filed by OEMs and tier-one suppliers) were running concurrently and were likewise resolved by settlement/termination rather than by the Board on the merits (at least as to the petitions tied to this dispute).

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2014-06-30 — Complaint filed (D.I. 1). IDT, an Acacia Research Corporation subsidiary, sued in the District of Delaware; case assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews. Filed the same day as the companion case against Ford, IDT v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:14-cv-849 (D. Del.).

• Patents asserted. The complaint pleaded counts on seven patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 8,215,816; and 6,886,956 ("Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like," issued 2005-05-03; inventors Parker, Miller, Hough). This is confirmed both by the complaint text (available as an exhibit in the related PTAB filings) and by the Court's closing Report to the Commissioner (D.I. 52, 2015-10-23), which lists all seven patents. Note the discrepancy with the case metadata supplied to me, which lists only the '956 patent — the '956 was the "auto" patent in the family (exterior headlamp/taillamp light guides), while the '547/'194/'177/'660/'974/'816 ("Display Patents") covered LCD backlighting; the complaint accused GM navigation/LCD units (e.g., GM part no. 22997866 used in the 2007–2014 GMC Yukon/Sierra, Chevrolet Silverado/Suburban/Tahoe) and exterior lighting.
• Remedy sought: damages "no less than a reasonable royalty," injunction; willfulness was expressly reserved, not pleaded ("IDT is not presently asserting willful infringement"). Jury demand by plaintiff.
• Defendants. General Motors LLC (docketed initially as "General Motors Company") and Valeo North America, Inc. — Valeo being the relevant tier-one lighting/display supplier. I could not verify from the sources available to me the precise date or vehicle (amended complaint vs. Rule 20 joinder) by which Valeo entered the case, so treat that as unsourced.
• Answer / counterclaims. The Unicourt docket index for this case lists GM as "Counter Claimant and Defendant" and IDT as "Counter Defendant," confirming GM asserted counterclaims (in this period, typically declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity). I was unable to retrieve the answer/counterclaim docket entry number or date, and I will not guess. Defense counsel of record included Arthur G. Connolly, III, Ryan P. Newell, James F. Kamp, Jamie B. Beaber (K&L Gates / Connolly Gallagher), and Charles W. Duncan, Jr.; plaintiff's counsel included Brian E. Farnan (Farnan LLP) and Demetrios Anaipakos (Ahmad, Zavitsanos).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, and no motion to stay pending IPR appears in this docket. That is notable given that (a) IDT was simultaneously fighting transfer motions in E.D. Tex. (e.g., IDT v. BMW of North America, No. 2:14-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex.), where Judge Gilstrap denied BMW's transfer motion in 2015), and (b) multiple IPRs on the '956 were on file by mid-2015 (see §6). The absence of a stay motion is a real strategic data point: the D. Del. case was on a claim-construction track and defendants apparently chose to press claim construction rather than seek a stay.
• No summary judgment practice — the case settled roughly two months after the joint claim construction brief and before the Markman hearing.

3. Claim construction (Markman) — briefing completed, hearing never held

• 2015-08-11 — D.I. 43: Notice of service of GM's responses to IDT's First Interrogatories (Nos. 1–2) — the last clearly visible discovery event on the indexed docket.
• Spring–summer 2015: Opening and answering claim construction briefs exchanged (implied by the later extensions).
• 2015-09-04 — D.I. 44: Stipulation extending IDT's reply CC brief to 2015-09-09 and defendants' sur-reply to 2015-09-30.
• 2015-09-29 — D.I. 45: Further stipulation (filed by Ford) extending defendants' sur-reply to 2015-10-05 and the joint CC brief to 2015-10-07.
• 2015-10-07 — D.I. 46 & 47: Joint Claim Construction Brief and Joint Appendix (Exhibits A–DD) filed. The appendix was filed by GM and Ford Motor Company, evidence that the GM and Ford Delaware cases were consolidated or at minimum coordinated for claim construction purposes.
• Markman hearing set for 2015-10-28 — never held. On 2015-10-15 GM wrote the Court regarding the settlement agreement (D.I. 48), and on 2015-10-16 the Court granted GM's request to be excused from the 10/28 hearing (D.I. 49). No claim construction order or opinion ever issued in this case. This matters for the record: there is no D. Del. construction of the '956 (or the Display Patents) in this action to cite.
• Relevant comparator constructions (not binding here). The '956 and its sibling '563 were construed by Judge Gilstrap in IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group, No. 2:14-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex.), claim construction order dated 2015-05-04 (Dkt. 244), and the Display Patents had been construed earlier in IDT v. Acer, No. 2:13-cv-522 (E.D. Tex.) (2014 WL 4230037). Those orders are the substantive claim-construction law on this family from this era. The likely disputed terms in Delaware — including "overlying" for the '956 auto patent (physical contact or not) — were the same terms driving the IPRs.

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

The indexed docket shows a conventional but compressed discovery track: written discovery served and responded to in summer 2015 (D.I. 43, GM's interrogatory responses, 2015-08-11), followed by expert/claim-construction discovery culminating in the joint appendix (D.I. 47, 2015-10-07). I did not find docketed discovery motions, protective-order disputes, or sanctions activity. Given the ~16-month life and the absence of any contested discovery order, the fair inference — stated as inference, not fact — is that the case settled before fact discovery closed and before damages discovery (royalty base, GM unit volumes, Valeo indemnity) became contentious.

5. Trial, verdict, JMOL, new trial, fees

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 50 or Rule 59 motion, no fee motion under § 285. The case terminated before dispositive motion practice.

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '956 patent

The '956 was the most heavily challenged patent in IDT's automotive campaign. Confirmed petitions:

Effect on this litigation: none adjudicated. The Board never reached a final written decision that bound the Delaware court as to the '956 within the life of this case; instead the petitions were terminated by settlement (IPR2015-00575 expressly so, with a joint termination request in July 2015) or ran on a separate track. The practical effect was leverage, not preclusion: the IPR pressure on the '956 from Koito/Stanley, Toyota, and Ford, combined with the parallel E.D. Tex. automotive cases (e.g., IDT v. Nissan, 2:14-cv-202; IDT v. Hyundai, 2:14-cv-201), created the conditions for the family-wide settlement and license deal announced in October 2015.

7. Final disposition

• 2015-10-15 — Settlement and license agreement. IDT and Delaware Display Group LLC (both Acacia subsidiaries) entered a settlement and license agreement with General Motors LLC and Valeo North America, Inc., expressly resolving Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00850. Disclosed in Acacia Research Corp.'s Form 8-K, Item 8.01, dated/filed 2015-10-15 ("Other Events").
• Same day, GM's counsel notified Judge Andrews of the settlement (D.I. 48).
• 2015-10-23 — Voluntary dismissal. Stipulation of voluntary dismissal (D.I. 50) so ordered by Judge Andrews (D.I. 51), with the case marked "Civil Case Terminated" and D.I. 52 Report to the Commissioner listing all seven patents.
• No appeal (no judgment to appeal); no consent judgment or injunction, and the terms of the license (including any payment) were not disclosed in the 8-K beyond the fact of the agreement.

Present posture: closed. The docket has been inactive since 2015-10-23, and Unicourt's last update of the record was 2018-12-10.

---

Sourcing and gaps to flag

• Well sourced: filing date and court/judge; the seven asserted patents (complaint text plus D.I. 52); the claim-construction briefing sequence and content (D.I. 44–47); the 2015-10-28 Markman date and GM's excusal (D.I. 48–49); the dismissal (D.I. 50–52); the settlement and its parties (Acacia 8-K, 2015-10-15); the IPR numbers, petitioners, filing dates, grounds, and the requested termination of IPR2015-00575 (PTAB petition papers, including IDT's 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 notices dated 2015-07-21).
• Not verified / do not treat as fact: the exact date and docket entry of GM's answer and counter

I'll search multiple angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me search press-specific angles.

Let me dig for GM-specific coverage and settlement reporting.

Press coverage of Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00850 (D. Del.)

Bottom line: there is very little case-specific press coverage of this docket. I was unable to locate any Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra article addressing the GM action by caption or case number. IDT's automotive campaign was covered in general terms and at the campaign level, and the resolution of this particular case appears to have been reported publicly only through Acacia Research Corporation's own securities filing rather than through journalism. What follows distinguishes campaign-level reporting from case-specific reporting.

Techdirt published a critical profile of the plaintiff on 2014-08-12 — roughly six weeks after this suit was filed — framing the campaign as an Acacia Research subsidiary weaponizing patents acquired from Rambus against "anyone who utilizes an integrated LCD screen." Techdirt reported that IDT had filed suits against auto manufacturers (it named Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and Mazda), camera makers Canon and Nikon, and GPS suppliers TomTom and Garmin, and stated that IDT had "34 cases in litigation" at the time, with a licensing agreement secured from Garmin as essentially its only conversion. Notably, the article does not mention GM by name, and it refers to the plaintiff throughout as "Innovative Technologies, LLC" rather than Innovative Display Technologies LLC — an apparent imprecision worth flagging, since the entity, its Austin address, and its Acacia parentage otherwise match. Techdirt also quoted Acacia's Marvin Key defending the licensing model: "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." That quotation is a general industry-response statement, not a comment on the GM case, and readers should not treat it as such.

Coverage that does exist of the automotive campaign is about sibling dockets, not this one. Courthouse News Service reported on 2014-03-12, under the headline "Car Tech," that IDT had accused Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai/Kia of infringing six light-emitting-panel-assembly patents in three Marshall, Texas suits — the wave of filings that preceded the Delaware GM and Ford complaints. Law360 covered the parallel IDT v. Volkswagen AG matter, reporting on 2014-04-07 that Volkswagen AG and Audi AG had been sued over seven light-emitting-panel patents used to display speed and other dashboard information, and on 2014-06-03 that VW units had urged a Texas judge to dismiss on the ground that the allegations were so broad they swept in "essentially every Volkswagen and Audi" vehicle sold in the U.S. That breadth argument is the closest thing in the press to the substance of the GM dispute, in which IDT's complaint targeted specific GM part numbers — the 22997866 navigation display unit used in the GMC Yukon and Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado, Suburban and Tahoe — but it was made in the VW case and should not be attributed to GM or Valeo.

On outcome, no outlet reported damages, royalties, or settlement terms. The only public disclosure of the resolution located is Acacia Research's Form 8-K (date of earliest event reported 2015-10-13, filed 2015-10-15), which states in Item 8.01 that IDT and Delaware Display Group LLC "entered into a settlement and license agreement with General Motors LLC and Valeo North America, Inc." that "resolves patent litigation, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00850." The filing discloses no financial terms, no royalty rate, and no admissions. That silence is consistent with the docket: GM's counsel filed a letter regarding the settlement agreement on 2015-10-15 (D.I. 48), and Judge Richard G. Andrews entered the stipulated voluntary dismissal on 2015-10-23 (D.I. 50–51), with the patent report at D.I. 52 listing all seven asserted patents, including the '956 patent. Anyone characterizing the settlement's value would be going beyond both the press record and the court record — a gap likely attributable to the size of the case relative to the broader IDT auto campaign and to the fact that it settled before claim construction and before the October 28, 2015 hearing.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. General Motors LLC - This case was last updated from U
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. General Motors Company
• UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC
• ACACIA RESEARCH CORP - FORM 8-K - UNITED STATES
• 7384177 | NPE Litigation Database - 7384177
• 6886956 | NPE Litigation Database
• Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC > Related Cases
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC > Related Cases
• **B
• Patents Assigned to Valeo - Abstract: A collector plate for a motor vehicle heat exchanger may include a first receiving zone for tubes of a first tube bund...

I'll research the counsel of record for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in this D. Del. case.

I have some leads. Let me pull the actual docket and firm details.

Let me verify the full docket and check for any later counsel changes.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT)

IDT LLC v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00850-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line: IDT's team was a two-firm structure typical of Acacia-family NPE campaigns: Farnan LLP (Wilmington) as Delaware local counsel of record, and Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. ("AZA"), Houston as the substantive/lead patent team appearing pro hac vice. All four pro hac vice attorneys were moved for admission on D.I. 6 (July 15, 2014) — a docket entry that names them expressly.

---

1. Delaware counsel of record (local counsel)

Source: D.I. 1 (complaint signature block), D.I. 50 (stipulation of dismissal, filed by "Farnan, Brian"), D.I. 51; Justia docket listing plaintiff representation by Brian E. Farnan, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2014cv00850/55278.

2. Lead / merits counsel (pro hac vice, Houston)

Admitted on motion at D.I. 6 ("MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Demetrios Anaipakos, Amir H. Alavi, Brian E. Simmons, and George W. Webb III"), and listed in the complaint's "Of Counsel" block at the same Houston address (1221 McKinney St., Suite 3460, Houston, TX 77010).

Sources: D.I. 6 (PHV motion); complaint "Of Counsel" block reproduced in the IPR petition exhibits at ptacts.uspto.gov (IDT v. GM complaint, dated June 30, 2014, signed "/s/ Brian E. Farnan" with AZA of counsel); Justia docket, supra.

3. No in-house counsel appeared

IDT is an Acacia Research Group entity (its Rule 7.1 disclosure at D.I. 4 identifies Acacia Research Group LLC as corporate parent and Acacia Research Corporation as affiliate). No IDT/Acacia in-house attorney entered an appearance on this docket; the litigation was outsourced entirely to Farnan + AZA.

---

Caveats and verification notes

• Aggregator noise. Third-party scrapers (e.g., UniCourt's page for this case number, https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-innovative-display-technologies-llc-v-general-motors-llc-[190273](/patent/190273)) present a single undifferentiated attorney list that mixes plaintiff and defense counsel and appears to bleed in attorneys from related IDT suits. Names such as Ryan P. Newell, Kenneth Dorsney, Arthur G. Connolly, III, Charles W. Duncan, Jr., James F. Kamp, and Jamie B. Beaber / Kfir B. Levy / Tiffany A. Miller are defense-side (GM/Ford and LG) counsel in the IDT matters, not IDT's counsel — e.g., D.I. 46–48 (joint claim construction brief and settlement letter) were filed by GM/Ford counsel, not plaintiff. I have not treated them as plaintiff counsel.
• Unconfirmed additional plaintiff counsel. David E. Warden (AZA) handled IDT's PTAB work in 2015 and Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Dallas) took over plaintiff-side briefing in the parallel 13-21xx cases — but I found no docket entry in 1:14-cv-00850 confirming either appeared here. Treat them as not of record in this case absent a PACER pull of the full docket.
• Nothing appears sealed as to counsel identity; the appearances are public docket entries (D.I. 1, 6, 50). The settlement itself was referenced only by letter (D.I. 48) and stipulation (D.I. 50) — the agreement terms are not on the docket.
• Patent-scope discrepancy worth flagging: the case metadata lists only U.S. Pat. No. 6,886,956, but the complaint asserted seven patents and the dismissal-period Report to the Commissioner (D.I. 52, Oct. 23, 2015) lists '547, '194, '177, '660, '974, '816, and '956 — with the '956 ("Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like") among them. Metadata is treated as authoritative for the patent at issue, but the docket reflects the broader assertion set.
• Procedural posture for context: Judge Richard G. Andrews; joint claim construction brief filed Oct. 7, 2015 (D.I. 46–47, with Ford Motor Co. as a co-defendant in the consolidated briefing); settlement letter Oct. 15, 2015 (D.I. 48); voluntary dismissal so ordered Oct. 23, 2015 (D.I. 50–51). Plaintiff-side claim construction briefing and the dismissal were signed by Farnan, confirming he remained counsel of record through termination.

If you need courtroom-grade confirmation (bar numbers, PHV order dates, any withdrawal entries), the next step is a PACER docket report for the case — the free aggregators I could reach reproduce D.I. 1–52 but not always the full attorney/party block.

I'll research the counsel of record for General Motors LLC and Valeo North America in this D. Del. case.

Bottom line

The only defendant-side counsel I could verify from the docket record of IDT v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00850-RGA (D. Del.) are General Motors LLC's Delaware counsel at Connolly Gallagher LLP (Arthur G. Connolly III, Ryan P. Newell, Mary I. Akhimien). I could not verify any appearance by counsel for Valeo North America, Inc., and I could not confirm GM's lead/pro hac vice trial counsel in the district court from the records I was able to retrieve. Details and caveats below.

---

Verified counsel of record — General Motors LLC (Delaware counsel)

Sources: aggregated docket for 1:14-cv-00850 (docket entries 43, 44–48, 50–52) at unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-innovative-display-technologies-llc-v-general-motors-llc-190273; GM–IDT stipulation signature block reproduced in USPTO PTAB petition papers (ptacts.uspto.gov, petition 1461334 document set); Acacia Research Corp. Form 8-K filed 10/13/2015 (settlement with GM and Valeo North America resolving Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00850).

---

Probable but not verified — GM's national/lead patent counsel

• Scott W. Doyle (Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, 801 17th Street NW, Washington, DC) and Jonathan R. DeFosse appear as lead and back-up counsel in a PTAB petition whose mandatory notices list IDT v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00850 (D. Del.) as the co-pending litigation. That is consistent with Fried Frank serving as GM's patent-side counsel, but the document I retrieved does not itself identify GM as the petitioner, and I found no Fried Frank pro hac vice entry or notice of appearance in the district court docket excerpts available to me. Treat as a lead to confirm, not a finding.

---

Caution: a name that can be misattributed

Kenneth L. Dorsney (Morris James LLP, 500 Delaware Ave., Suite 1500, Wilmington, DE — registered patent attorney, chair of Morris James's IP practice, Band 2 in Chambers USA for Delaware IP) appears as the ECF filer of the Joint Claim Construction Brief (D.I. 46) and Joint Appendix (D.I. 47), both of which name both General Motors LLC and Ford Motor Company. Those were consolidated/common claim-construction filings, and Justia's docket for the companion case IDT v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:14-cv-00849-RGA lists Dorsney as counsel. Dorsney therefore appears to be Ford's Delaware counsel, not GM's. Because several aggregated dockets merge the two cases' entries, he should not be listed as GM's counsel without checking the actual ECF header on D.I. 46–47.

---

Valeo North America, Inc. — no counsel identified

• Valeo is named in the case caption and is a party to the October 2015 settlement and license agreement (per Acacia's 8-K), but I found no notice of appearance, answer, or signed filing by any Valeo attorney in the docket material I could access.
• Two possibilities, neither verified: (a) Valeo was named/added and appeared through the same Connolly Gallagher team (GM as indemn