Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Google Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build an accurate overview.

Overview and Background

Parties. Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") is a Texas limited liability company with no operating business — it exists solely to hold and assert patents. Its principal place of business appears in its complaints as 2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, TX (see the parallel IDT v. Hewlett-Packard complaint, Dkt. 1, reproduced in PTAB filings), though it is also associated with Acacia's Austin, TX holding-company address (1701 Directors Blvd.). IDT is a wholly owned subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation / Acacia Research Group — one of the most prolific patent assertion entities of the era; third-party tallies put IDT at roughly 34–37 suits in this campaign (Techdirt, Aug. 12, 2014: https://www.techdirt.com/2014/08/12/know-your-troll-innovative-display-technologies-targeting-any-company-that-creates-product-with-lcd-screen/). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies IDT under "Acquired patents" (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/innovative-display-technologies-llc). Defendants are Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC — at filing, Motorola Mobility was still a Google subsidiary (Google announced its sale to Lenovo in January 2014; the transaction closed in late October 2014). Notably, the case was docketed closed on October 30, 2014 (RPX Insight, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-[151426](/patent/151426)-innovative-display-technologies-v-google-et-al) — the same day the Lenovo–Motorola deal closed. I could not source any causal link between the two events, so that temporal coincidence should be treated as just that.

The technology and accused products. IDT's campaign targeted the LCD backlight stack: light-emitting panel assemblies that conduct light edge-wise from LEDs through a transparent panel/light-guide and extract it through patterned surface "deformities" (prisms/microstructures) toward the display, sometimes with a tray and a transition region between the source and the output area. The accused products in this case were Google's tablets and smartphones (RPX, "Smartphones and Tablets Continue to be Targets of Innovative Display Suits," Apr. 10, 2014, https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/3810), with Motorola Mobility's handset line adding a second defendant group. The 2013–2014 campaign also swept in Apple, Samsung-competitors, PC makers (Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer), automakers (Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Mazda), camera makers (Canon, Nikon), and GPS vendors (Garmin, TomTom) — any product with an LCD.

Patents. The asserted family is captioned "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," all naming Jeffery R. Parker as sole inventor and claiming priority to June 27, 1995; the family originated with Parker's Solid State Opto/Lumitex entities, was transferred to Rambus (2009), and then assigned to Acacia/IDT in March 2013 (RPX news, Jan. 9, 2014, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/3720). This case's complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 4/8/2014) attached Exhibits A–G — seven patents — and RPX records 7 patents-in-suit for the docket, while RPX's contemporaneous write-up lists eight in the April 2014 Google filing (adding U.S. 5,613,751). The patent highlighted in the case metadata, U.S. 7,404,660, issued July 29, 2008 from App. No. 11/454,822 and claims a light-emitting panel assembly with a transparent optical conductor, one or more light sources (e.g., LEDs or "focused light sources") arranged along a light input surface, and a pattern of reflective/refractive deformities that redirect light out an output area, plus variants reciting a tray and a plurality of light sources "configured to generate light having an output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component" (see the Mercedes-Benz IPR2015-01113 petition ground mapping, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01113/). A related claim-construction order describes the Display Patents as sharing a common written description directed to "the field of backlights, which can be used, for example, to illuminate LCDs" (IDT v. Acer, No. 2:13-cv-522, 2014 WL 4230037 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014) (Payne, J.), objections overruled by Gilstrap, J.).

Posture, venue, and notability. The case was filed April 8, 2014 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap (RPX lists a "+1" referred judge per local practice). Venue mattered enormously: in 2014 the Marshall Division and Judge Gilstrap were the leading destination for high-volume patent plaintiffs, with plaintiff-friendly procedures and a heavy patent docket; IDT's complaints argued personal jurisdiction through stream-of-commerce sales plus local offices (e.g., HP's Plano office). The docket closed October 30, 2014, after roughly 206 days — consistent with the early dismissal/settlement pattern that dominated Acacia's campaign. I did not find a publicly reported Google–Acacia license or the specific dismissal instrument for this docket, so the precise resolution basis (license, covenant, or voluntary dismissal) is unsourced; the reported resolution for the broader campaign is mostly confidential licenses plus a few early dismissals (Garmin was an early licensee).

The case is notable less for its own trajectory than for its role in a coordinated assertion campaign and the resulting IPR wave against the '660 patent. At least five IPRs were filed by downstream display/device manufacturers within about a year: LG Display (IPR2015-00487, instituted and carried to oral hearing on obviousness over Oe in view of Etsuo, with a Phillips/expired-patent construction dispute), Mercedes-Benz USA (IPR2015-00363 and IPR2015-01113, the latter filed 4/24/2015 relying on Pristash, Ciupke, Kisoo, and Seraku), LG Electronics (IPR2015-01717, filed 8/13/2015), and a Toyota filing (reported at IPR2015-00897) — see https://ptacts.uspto.gov and the PTO Litigation Center Report, https://natlawreview.com/article/pto-litigation-center-report-march-23-2015. The proceedings also produced a secondary-indicia fight over whether Lumitex solid-state backlights practiced the '660 claims, with Patent Owner relying on a Parker declaration asserting commercial success and petitioners attacking the nexus (LG Display IPR2015-00487, Ex. 1030/Patent Owner Response, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00487/). One practical detail worth flagging: several family members share the 1995 priority and appear to have expired or neared expiration in 2015–2016 (Unified Patents lists US 7,703,967 with an expiration of 2015-10-12, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[7703967](/patent/7703967)-B2), which explains why the IPR record contains expired-patent claim-construction arguments and why the campaign's window was closing. The net picture: a short-lived EDTX suit that fed a much larger Acacia monetization program which, in turn, triggered serial IPR challenges that outlasted the district court case itself.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the docket and the patent at issue.

Let me pull the docket and related proceedings.

Bottom line up front

IDT v. Google, No. 2:14-cv-00302 (E.D. Tex.) was a short-lived case. Filed 2014-04-08 before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (Marshall Division), it was closed on 2014-10-30 — 206 days after filing — with no Markman order, no summary-judgment ruling, no trial, and no merits judgment reflected in the records I could access. It was one of roughly 30+ complaints in Acacia's Innovative Display Technologies ("IDT") backlight campaign, and it was the litigation that fizzled, not the patent: the real fight over U.S. 7,404,660 happened at the PTAB, where the Board ultimately upheld the challenged claims and petitioners appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Because PACER itself is paywalled and the free mirrors (Justia, RPX Insight, CourtListener) expose only partial dockets for this docket number, I flag below which links I could verify and which steps remain unverified.

---

1. The patent and the parties

• U.S. Patent 7,404,660, "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," issued 2008-07-29, sole inventor Jeffery R. Parker. Earliest priority 1995-06-27; all the "Display Patents" share a common written description and figures. (Source: PTAB filings, e.g., IPR2015-00487 Petition; IDT's Markman brief reproduced at 2:14-cv-00201 Dkt. 244.)
• Chain of title: Solid State Opto → Rambus (2009) → Acacia Research Group (March 2013) → IDT, assigned 2013-06-26 with the exclusive right to sue. IDT is a Texas LLC at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Plano; Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation are its disclosed real parties-in-interest (IDT's mandatory notices in IPR2015-00363). (RPX, 2014-04-10.)
• Plaintiff's counsel of record: Jeffrey R. Bragalone (Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas) — the same firm that represented IDT across the campaign and in the IPRs.

2. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2014-04-08 — Complaint filed against Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC. Justia's Filing 1 entry confirms the complaint and seven exhibits (A–G), i.e., a multi-patent assertion; the civil cover sheet recites 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, 285 and a jury demand. (https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2014cv00302/151426/1/3.html)
• Patents asserted per RPX (2014-04-10 news item): U.S. 5,613,751; 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and 8,215,816 — with accused products identified as Google's tablets and smartphones (the Nexus line) plus, by the caption, Motorola Mobility devices. RPX's docket page for this case lists 7 patents-in-suit and 5 accused products. The case summary supplied to me frames the '660 patent as the patent at issue; note that the complaint as filed in April 2014 was broader than the '660 alone.
• Answer/counterclaims: I could not verify any answer, counterclaim, or Rule 12 motion by Google/Motorola on the public record for 2:14-cv-00302. Given the October 2014 closure, it is plausible that the case was voluntarily dismissed before (or shortly after) responsive pleading practice matured — but that is inference, not a sourced fact.

3. Pre-trial motion practice

No motion to dismiss, § 1404(a) transfer motion, § 1406 venue challenge, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary-judgment motion in this docket is documented in the accessible records. The case closed too quickly. Note the venue context: this suit was filed roughly four months before TC Heartland reasoning began percolating and in a district where Google routinely litigated; the absence of a transfer fight here contrasts with the parallel D. Del. exposure IDT had on the same patents (see §7).

The most substantive "pre-trial" rulings affecting this patent family were issued in other IDT cases and were effectively imported as persuasive authority:

• *2014-08-26 — Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00522, Dkt. 101, 2014 WL 4230037 (E.D. Tex.) (Payne, J.)* — first construction of the Display Patent terms.
• 2014-12-15 — objections overruled, Dkt. 219 (Gilstrap, J.) — the same constructions adopted by Judge Gilstrap.
• 2015-05-04 — Claim construction order, 2:14-cv-00201, Dkt. 244 — a full Markman order construing the '194/'177/'660/'974/'370/'816 Display Patents (including the '660-specific terms "deformities," "a plurality of light sources configured to generate light having an output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component," "focused light sources," and "one or more light emitting diodes along said light input surface…"). This order was later filed as an exhibit in PTAB proceedings on the '660 (e.g., IPR2015-00745, Ex. 2002), confirming it is the operative construction of the '660 terms.

4. Markman in 2:14-cv-00302 itself

Not reached. Google's case closed 2014-10-30, i.e., before the 2014-08-26 Acer construction was finalized and long before the 2015-05-04 consolidated construction order. So the answer to "did this case reach Markman?" is no — the '660 terms were construed only in the companion IDT actions, which is strategically significant: IDT never had to litigate Google's validity/contentions on the record in this docket, and Google never obtained a case-specific construction.

5. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance identified. With a 206-day lifespan and closure in October 2014, the case did not reach the E.D. Tex. scheduling-order discovery milestones (typically infringement contentions at ~6 months and claim-construction discovery thereafter). No discovery motions, protective-order disputes, or § 101/§ 112 contentions briefing appear in the accessible record.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion under § 285 is documented. There is no judgment on the merits of the '660 patent from this docket.

7. Final disposition / present posture

• RPX Insight docket summary: filed 2014-04-08, closed 2014-10-30 (206 days in litigation), Judge Rodney Gilstrap +1 (the "+1" reflects the magistrate/referred judge designation). (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-151426-innovative-display-technologies-v-google-et-al)
• The precise closing instrument (voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), dismissal with or without prejudice, or a transfer/consolidation) is not verified. A sub-seven-month termination with no merits orders is the classic profile of a voluntary dismissal, often following a license/settlement or the plaintiff re-filing or consolidating elsewhere — but I cannot source a settlement agreement or license between Acacia/IDT and Google for this case, and I will not assert one.
• Worth verifying on PACER: (a) the closing docket entry on 2014-10-30 and its stated basis; (b) whether any dismissal was with or without prejudice (which would matter for whether the '660 patent could be re-asserted against Google); (c) whether the case was consolidated into or refiled as a Delaware action by IDT or its affiliate Delaware Display Group LLC. IDT's campaign included a parallel D. Del. track against display makers (e.g., Delaware Display Group LLC & IDT v. LG Electronics et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del.), identified as a related matter in the IPR2015-00487 petition). IDT's E.D. Tex. dismissals in fall 2014 are consistent with a Delaware-centric re-filing, but I could not confirm that for the Google/Motorola docket specifically.

Present posture: Inactive/closed since 2014-10-30. No live appeal was identified from 2:14-cv-00302.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings on U.S. 7,404,660 — and their effect

This is where the '660 patent was actually adjudicated. At least six IPRs were filed against it, mostly by the same defendants IDT was suing in the district courts:

Outcome and effect on the litigation:

1. The '660 patent survived PTAB. In IPR2015-00487 the Board issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Oe+Etsuo obviousness challenge to all challenged claims. IDT's practice of steering district-court defendants into IPRs that it then won (or that were not instituted) is the defining feature of the '660 story.
2. Appeal to the Federal Circuit: Petitioners (LG Display Co. Ltd. and LG Electronics, Inc.) filed a Notice of Appeal on 2016-12-23, asking the court to review (i) the Board's finding that petitioners had not shown unpatentability by a preponderance under §103 over Oe+Etsuo, (ii) the legal standard for obviousness applied, and (iii) the Board's claim interpretation and treatment of the references. (Notice of Appeal, IPR2015-00487.)
   • Unverified: I could not confirm the Federal Circuit's disposition (docket number, affirmance, or Rule 36 summary affirmance). Given the Board's fact-bound, substantial-evidence-supported reasoning, affirmance would be the expected result, but I am not asserting it as fact. This should be confirmed on the CAFC docket.
3. Impact on the district litigation: Because the Board upheld the '660 claims, PTAB stays, had any been sought, would not have produced invalidation leverage for Google. But the leverage never got used in this docket, which closed months before the first '660 final written decision.
4. Relationship between the IPRs and 2:14-cv-00302: Google/Motorola filed no IPR on the '660 patent that I could identify — the petitioners were LG Display, LG Electronics, and Mercedes-Benz. That is a notable feature: Google exited via dismissal rather than through an IPR of its own.

9. Confidence, gaps, and recommended docket checks

• High confidence: filing date (2014-04-08), court/judge, caption and co-defendant Motorola Mobility, closing date (2014-10-30) and 206-day duration, the '660 patent's identity/ownership chain, the existence and rough substance of IPR2015-00487, IPR2015-01113, IPR2015-01717 (and dismissal-stage findings in IPR2014-01094), and the 2016-12-23 Federal Circuit notice of appeal.
• Low confidence / unverified: the exact closing instrument (Rule 41(a) dismissal vs. transfer/consolidation), whether any settlement or license occurred, whether Google/Motorola answered or counterclaimed, and the Federal Circuit's appellate outcome.
• To close the gaps, pull: PACER docket for 2:14-cv-00302 (entries around 2014-10-30; check for a Rule 41 stipulation and any consolidation order); PTAB P-TACTS for the final written decisions / institution denials in IPR2015-00363, -00745, -01113, -01717; and the Federal Circuit docket for the appeal noticed 2016-12-23 (captioned against IDT; petitioners LG Display/LG Electronics).

Note also a citation caveat: secondary sources describe the IDT campaign as asserting seven or eight patents depending on the case and date (the RPX news item lists eight for the Google complaint; RPX's case page lists seven patents-in-suit). The '660 patent is the constant across all of them and is the patent your case summary identifies as controlling.

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

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record for this docket.

Let me pull the actual docket records and look for defense-side appearances.

Bottom line

I could not verify — from any free, accessible source — a single defense-side counsel appearance in IDT v. Google, No. 2:14-cv-00302 (E.D. Tex.). The docket mirrors I can reach (Justia, RPX Insight, UniCourt, CourtListener/RECAP, dockets.justia.com) expose the complaint and its exhibits only; the docket closed 206 days after filing (2014-10-30), and the records I can see contain no answer, no corporate disclosure statement, no Rule 7.1 filing, and no notice of appearance by any attorney for Google Inc. or Motorola Mobility LLC.

I am therefore not going to name a lead counsel, local counsel, or firm for this docket, because doing so would mean inventing it. What I can do is (a) state precisely what is and is not on the record, (b) give the adjacent record evidence that identifies Motorola Mobility's counsel in a companion IDT case, and (c) list the firms that recur as EDTX defense counsel for Google and Motorola in this era — flagged as unverified background, not appearances in 2:14-cv-00302.

---

1. What the accessible record actually shows

So the honest answer on the record as I can access it: no attorney for Google or Motorola is identified as having appeared in 2:14-cv-00302. This is consistent with the case's profile — a sub-seven-month lawsuit with no merits practice would often end on a Rule 41(a) stipulation signed by plaintiff's counsel alone, or with defense counsel appearing only for the limited purpose of a dismissal stipulation, and such entries are frequently behind the PACER paywall.

Caveat on the mirror incompleteness: the free dockets for this case are truncated. The absence of a defense appearance in the sources I reached is not affirmative proof that no appearance was ever filed on PACER.

---

2. Adjacent record evidence: Motorola Mobility's counsel in the companion IDT EDTX case

The best-sourced defense-side lead I have is not from this docket but from IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group et al., No. 2:14-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex. Gilstrap) — the consolidated IDT EDTX case in which Motorola Mobility LLC appears as a consolidated defendant/counter-defendant (the same '547/'194/'177/'660/'974/'370/'816 patent family; its Dkt. 244 claim-construction order is the operative construction I cited in the earlier section and is filed as an exhibit in multiple '660 IPRs).

UniCourt's attorney roster for that case lists:

• Jose Luis Patino — Defendant Attorney
• Robert William Weber — Defendant Attorney
• Nicola Anthony Pisano — Defendant Attorney
• Brian P. Biddinger and Susan A. Smith — "Consolidated Defendant and Counter Defendant Attorneys"

(Source: https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-innovative-display-technologies-llc-v-hyundai-motor-group-et-al-[840989](/patent/840989))

Important limits on that list: (i) it is UniCourt's automated roster for a multi-defendant consolidated case, so it does not attribute any of those five names to Motorola specifically; (ii) it mixes many defendants (Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Stanley Electric, Koito, and others), and I could not confirm which firm each name belongs to; and (iii) none of these names is tied by any source to 2:14-cv-00302. Treat this as a lead to check, not a finding.

Similarly, the same UniCourt page lists other roster attorneys from the broader IDT EDTX campaign (Amir H. Alavi, James Kenneth Cleland, Jamie Alan Aycock, Benjamin K Jordan, Ryan J McBrayer, Brian Ervin Simmons, Scott W Doyle, Allen Franklin Gardner, Jonathan R DeFosse, and "63 more") — again, not attributable to this docket or to these two defendants without the actual PACER docket sheet.

---

3. Google and Motorola EDTX defense counsel in this era — unverified background

These are the firms that recur in E.D. Tex. patent litigation for Google and for mobile-handset defendants around 2013–2015. I have no source connecting any of them to 2:14-cv-00302, and I am listing them only as the searches I would run next:

• Google Inc.: Google's patent defense in EDTX in this period was typically split between national patent litigation firms and a Marshall/Tyler-based local counsel for the local-rule and courtroom appearances. Google also used in-house counsel to supervise. I could not source the specific 2014 EDTX roster for Google, and I will not name names.
• Motorola Mobility LLC: as of the April 2014 filing Motorola Mobility was still a Google subsidiary (the Lenovo sale closed 2014-10-30), so Motorola's defense would likely have been coordinated with Google's — which is one reason no separate Motorola appearance may exist on this docket.

A pattern note grounded in what I did retrieve (not an appearance): a contemporaneous EDTX docket in which Fish & Richardson + Quinn Emanuel + Potter Minton (Michael E. Jones, Shaun W. Hassett, Tyler, TX) and Gillam & Smith LLP (Melissa Richards Smith, Marshall, TX) appear together shows the standard E.D. Tex. defense configuration for a large tech defendant — national IP firm for substance, Marshall/Tyler firm for local counsel. (Retrieved from a PTAB exhibit reproducing a Texas EDTX docket attorney roster, indexed at the PTO's P-TACTS document repository, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558188](/patent/1558188)/.) That is context, not a 2:14-cv-00302 appearance.

---

4. What I checked and what remains open

Checked (no defense counsel found): Justia docket for 2:14-cv-00302; RPX Insight case page; UniCourt; dockets.justia.com; Stanford NPE Litigation Database; RECAP/CourtListener documents surfaced in search; P-TACTS/PTAB filings referencing the IDT EDTX campaign.

Not verified / still open:

1. Whether any attorney filed a notice of appearance, answer, or corporate disclosure statement for Google Inc. or Motorola Mobility LLC before the 2014-10-30 closure.
2. The identity and firm of defense lead counsel and local counsel for each defendant.
3. Whether Google/Motorola appeared only through the stipulated dismissal instrument (which would usually bear the signature of defense counsel even if scarce elsewhere).
4. Whether the dismissal was entered on plaintiff's motion alone (Rule 41(a)) — consistent with no defense appearance at all.

To close these gaps, in priority order:

• PACER docket sheet for 2:14-cv-00302, entries 5–30 (spring–fall 2014): look for "Notice of Attorney Appearance," "Defendant's Unopposed Motion," "Corporate Disclosure Statement," and the closing entry around 2014-10-30, and read the signature blocks.
• RECAP/CourtListener full docket pull (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%222%3A14-cv-00302%22) — RECAP often has the dismissal stipulation even when the rest is thin.
• The dismissal stipulation PDF itself, which is where a "counsel for Defendants Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC" signature line would appear.
• Cross-reference the IDT v. Hyundai (2:14-cv-00201) docket to attribute the UniCourt attorney roster to specific defendants — that will tell you who Motorola used against this patent family and make the 2:14-cv-00302 answer much easier to spot.

If the PACER docket shows no defense appearance at all, the correct entry for this section is: "counsel of record for defendants: none identified — case terminated on stipulation/voluntary dismissal before defense-side appearances are reflected on the public docket." I would rather give you that than a fabricated name.