Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co.

I'll research this case to provide an accurate overview.

Let me verify the case outcome and the IPR linkage.

Let me confirm the disposition of this specific case and its relationship to the consolidated proceeding.

Case Overview and Background

Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:13-cv-00525 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., filed June 28, 2013), was one front of a coordinated NPE campaign. The plaintiff, IDT, is a Texas LLC with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas, and — per RPX and contemporaneous reporting — an Acacia Research Corporation (NASDAQ: ACTG) subsidiary, i.e., a patent-assertion vehicle rather than an operating company. The patents trace back to Lumitex's light-emitting-panel work (inventor Jeffrey Parker); they passed through Solid State Opto Limited to Rambus, and were transferred to Acacia in March 2013, which then pushed them into litigation. The named defendants were Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. (the parent holding company), [Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.), and Huawei Device USA Inc. — i.e., a Chinese multinational telecom/consumer-electronics group and its U.S. device affiliate. The complaint targeted Huawei's LCD-bearing products (smartphones, tablets, laptops and similar displays), alleging both direct and willful infringement on the theory that the patents' claimed backlight architectures enabled thinner, brighter, lower-power screens, and that Huawei had been on notice since roughly August 2012. [AO-120 notice, docket 2:13-cv-00525; RPX, Jan. 9, 2014; Southeast Texas Record]

Patents and technology. The case metadata in this prompt lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 ("Light Emitting Panel Assemblies"), but the contemporaneous filing records show IDT asserted a family of seven patents against Huawei (all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," all claiming priority to a June 27, 1995 ancestor): the '547, plus 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and 8,215,816. In one line each: '547 — a backlight with a light-emitting member and a separate transparent sheet/film overlying it across an air gap, with a varying pattern of light-extracting "deformities" on the film; '194 — a film/sheet near the emitting surface separated by an air gap and bearing "well defined optical elements or deformities"; '177 — a tray with a back wall and continuous side walls forming a cavity, with secondary reflective/refractive surfaces; '660 — a planar optical conductor fed by multiple light sources, with a "transition region" and deformities; '974 — a panel assembly including posts/tabs/structural features providing a mount; '370 — a panel with light-extracting deformities on both front and back sides, of differing types; '816 — a further light-extracting-deformity panel variant. These are backlight/light-guide patents for LCDs. The single most important technical term in the family — and the agreed construction — was "deformities" ("any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of the light to be emitted").

Procedural posture. Filed in the Marshall Division of the E.D. Tex. — the leading NPE venue of the pre-TC Heartland era — this case was part of a six-complaint, same-day wave (against Acer, HP, Huawei, BlackBerry/RIM, ZTE and Dell at case numbers 2:13-cv-522 through -527, the last filed early July). The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes under Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-522-JRG (lead case), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (JRG), with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne handling claim construction. IDT's counsel included 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). On August 26, 2014, Judge Payne issued the consolidated Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 101 in the lead case), construing terms across all seven patents and holding Claim 1 of the '547 patent invalid as indefinite under § 112 for the "quite small in relation to the width and length of the sheet or film" limitation. [Justia Docket, Dkt. 101]

Why it matters. Three things make this case notable. First, it illustrates the classic Acacia/PAE "acquire-and-assert" model applied to display technology, and the accompanying forum strategy (E.D. Tex. Marshall, fast-track and plaintiff-friendly, before TC Heartland shifted venue options). Second, it is a textbook example of IPR linkage defeating a district-court campaign: the '547 patent faced a wave of PTAB challenges — IPR2014-01357 (LG Display, instituted Feb. 26, 2015), the near-duplicate IPR2015-00361 (Mercedes-Benz), and numerous related petitions (IPR2014-01092, -01094 to -01097, -01359, -01362, and IPR2015-00359 through -00368) — and in IPR2014-01357 IDT filed a Request for Adverse Judgment (May 28, 2015), with the Board entering a Final Written Decision on June 10, 2015 cancelling the challenged '547 claims (claims 1–4, 16, 26), independent of the district court's indefiniteness ruling on Claim 1. Third, the "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" portfolio was widely asserted across the LCD supply chain (Delaware suits against LG, Sony, Lenovo, Pantech, Vizio, Amazon, HTC; automotive suits against Ford and GM), making the family a significant, if ultimately vulnerable, feature of mid-2010s LCD/panel licensing. [IPR2014-01357 institution decision; IPR2014-01357 docket, GreyB/IPVerse; IPR2015-00361 patent-owner response]

Caveats / unverified points. I could not independently confirm a docketed termination order, judgment, or settlement figure for 2:13-cv-00525 itself; the case was rolled into the 2:13-cv-522 lead-case structure, and contemporaneous Acacia materials show a pattern of confidential settlements and dismissals across the campaign (e.g., a later Sony settlement and license agreement announced by Acacia in August 2015 covering its IDT and Delaware Display Group suits). Counsel for Huawei, the exact identity of any U.S. manufacturing/importing entities accused, and whether Huawei's case resolved by settlement versus dismissal are not verified here and should be confirmed against PACER.

I'll research this case thoroughly across multiple sources.

I hit the search-step limit before I could pull the actual docket, so I want to be candid up front about what I could and could not verify. Below I separate verified facts from items I could not source.

---

1. Verified case facts (filing stage)

Patents asserted in the complaint. Although the case metadata in this assignment flags only U.S. 6,755,547, the contemporaneous press report on the Marshall Division filings states that the complaint in 2:13-cv-00525 asserted seven patents, all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies":

• 6,755,547 ('547) — issued 2004-06-29
• 7,300,194 — issued 2007-11-27
• 7,384,177 — issued 2008-06-10
• 7,404,660 — issued 2008-07-29
• 7,434,974 — issued 2008-10-14
• 7,537,370 — issued 2009-05-26
• 8,215,816 — issued 2012-07-10

Relief sought: injunction, damages, treble damages for willful infringement, interest, costs, and attorney's fees; jury demand. The willfulness theory rested on an allegation that defendants were put on notice in August 2012 that IDT held the display technology and continued to sell anyway.

Plaintiff's counsel of record: Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William Kennedy Jr., Daniel F. Olejko (Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas); T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry (Ward & Smith Law Firm, Longview). — SE Texas Record.

Scope note: The 2013-06-28 filing was part of a coordinated multi-defendant Marshall Division campaign filed the same day against Acer, Dell, HP, BlackBerry, Huawei, ZTE and others. Press coverage of the batch (e.g., the Mandour note listing Dell, HP, BlackBerry, Acer, Huawei, ZTE) should not be read as naming all of those entities in this docket — the Huawei docket named the Huawei entities.

---

2. Claim construction (Markman) — related docket, high confidence but not this docket

I could not retrieve a Markman order in 2:13-cv-00525 itself. What I did find is a claim construction ruling in the **companion IDT case, Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc., E.D. Tex. (2014)**:

• Markman hearing: 2014-07-30
• Claim Construction Memorandum and Order: 2014-08-26
• The court construed the disputed terms using intrinsic evidence and held one claim indefinite — specifically 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," which the court found lacked an objective standard (subjective "quite small"). The court also struck an IDT expert declaration before the hearing.

Because the IDT Marshall Division campaign shared the same patent family (all claiming priority to a common ancestor), the '547 and its siblings would almost certainly have been construed on a common or coordinated schedule. I cannot confirm whether 00525 was consolidated with 00522 for Markman purposes, nor whether Judge Gilstrap (who held 2:13-cv-00522-JRG) or a magistrate handled 00525.

---

3. What I could NOT verify (and you should pull from PACER/CourtListener directly)

I want to avoid filling these gaps by inference. The following are unverified:

• Defendant's answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims (invalidity, non-infringement, inequitable conduct, licensing/FRAND-type defenses) — no docket entry located.
• Any motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper service on the foreign Huawei entities (a very common early motion in this campaign).
• Any § 1404(a) transfer motion, or transfer to N.D. Cal./N.D. Tex.
• Any motion to stay pending IPR or CBM review.
• Any summary judgment motion (invalidity, non-infringement, no willfulness) and its disposition.
• Discovery milestones (ESI orders, protective orders, discovery disputes) — nothing surfaced.
• Trial date, verdict, damages award — no trial or verdict located for 00525; I found no evidence this case reached trial.
• JMOL / new trial / § 285 fee motions — none located.
• Appeal to the Federal Circuit — none located.

---

4. Final disposition / present posture

Not verified for 2:13-cv-00525 specifically. What I can offer as adjacent evidence:

• An attorney profile for Jeffrey R. Bragalone (IDT's lead trial counsel) lists, under case 2:13-cv-00522-JRG (IDT v. Acer Inc. et al.), an entry dated 2015-03-11 with the notation "Favorable settlement following mediation." That is the Acer docket, not the Huawei docket, so it cannot be imported wholesale — but it establishes that IDT's Marshall Division campaign was resolving by mediated settlement in early-to-mid 2015, consistent with a portfolio-wide settlement pattern rather than trials.
• The Stanford NPE database entry for the '547/Huawei case carries no listed outcome, and the assignment's own case summary already flags "Outcome not verified."

My assessment (labeled as inference, not fact): Given (a) the 2014-08-26 Markman ruling knocking out a claim as indefinite across the family, (b) the absence of any trial or verdict for 00525, and (c) contemporaneous mediated settlements in the companion Acer case, the most likely disposition is a confidential settlement and stipulated dismissal in 2014–2015. I have not found the dismissal order, so treat this as a hypothesis to confirm on PACER.

---

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings

None verified. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition on the '547, '194, '177, '660, '974, '370, or '816 patents attributable to Huawei, ZTE, Acer, Dell, HP, or BlackBerry in connection with this campaign. Note that CBM review was available for these financial/display-type challenges only in a narrow window (through 2020), and the 2013-2015 timing here would have made IPR the only realistic vehicle. Absence of evidence in my searches is not proof of absence — run a PTAB party-name and patent-number search for "Innovative Display Technologies" and each patent number on the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End system before relying on this.

---

6. Recommended next steps to close the gaps

1. PACER / CourtListener RECAP for 2:13-cv-00525 — pull the docket sheet (complaint, answer, any transfer/stay orders, the Markman order if any, and the dismissal/settlement entry).
2. Check whether 00525 was consolidated with 2:13-cv-00522-JRG (Acer/Microsoft) or with the Dell/HP/BlackBerry/ZTE dockets for Markman and discovery.
3. Verify the '547's role: the metadata flags only '547, while the complaint asserted seven patents — determine whether the others were dropped, or whether the database simply keyed the lead patent.
4. USPTO PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm for IPR petitions naming the seven patent numbers.
5. Federal Circuit docket for any appeal from 2:13-cv-00525 or the consolidated judgment.

Bottom line: I can confidently date the filing (2013-06-28), the parties, the seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents (including the '547), the damages/injunction relief sought, and IDT's counsel; and I can point to a family-wide 2014-08-26 Markman ruling in the companion Acer case that invalidated a claim as indefinite. I cannot verify anything from pleading-through-disposition in 00525 itself, and I found no PTAB proceedings. The final disposition is unconfirmed — most likely a confidential 2014–2015 settlement, but that needs PACER confirmation.

I'll research this case's docket and counsel through multiple searches.

Initial hit. Let me verify against the docket and firm sources.

Let me check the actual docket (CourtListener/RECAP) and any later filings.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC

Verification status (read first): I was unable to pull the actual PACER/RECAP docket sheet for 2:13-cv-00525 within this research window (PACER is paywalled; no CourtListener/RECAP docket page surfaced for this specific case number). The attorney roster below is drawn from two well-sourced contemporaneous records — the Southeast Texas Record's filing report for the June 28, 2013 Marshall Division complaints and PTAB filings in which IDT's counsel of record appear — not from the docket sheet itself. Treat the roster as reliable but unverified as to later substitutions, withdrawals, or pro hac vice admissions, which I could not confirm. I found no evidence of sealed filings or of counsel appearing under seal. No in-house counsel for IDT or its parent, Acacia Research Group LLC / Acacia Research Corporation (the real parties-in-interest identified in IDT's PTAB mandatory notices), appears in any source I reviewed.

Core roster (per complaint filing report, June 28, 2013)

How to characterize the structure

• Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas) was the substantive/lead firm — it ran the IDT assertion campaign generally, including the IPRs, and supplied the attorney whose PTAB power-of-attorney filings in the same patent family list Bragalone and Kimble as IDT's designated practitioners.
• Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview) served as local counsel for the Eastern District of Texas filing requirement.
• The complaint as filed actually asserted seven patents, not just the '547 patent in the case metadata: U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and 8,215,816 (all "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies"). The '547 patent was one of several.

Caveats and open items

• Docket-level confirmation is missing. I have not verified the appearance entries (Dkt. 1‑filed complaint signature block, any Dkt. notices of appearance, pro hac vice motions, or substitutions) on the 2:13-cv-00525 docket. The roster above should be confirmed against the docket sheet before being cited as docket-of-record.
• Roles are inferred, not docket-labeled. Bragalone's "lead counsel" status is inferred from firm hierarchy, his PTAB back-up/lead designations across the IDT portfolio, and his own declaration; the district court docket may designate differently.
• The Jr. on "T. John Ward Jr." is reported as such by the Southeast Texas Record; I did not independently confirm whether this refers to the former judge or a same-named family member at the firm. Flagging rather than asserting.
• No in-house counsel identified for IDT or Acacia in any source reviewed.
• Case outcome not verified — I could not confirm whether 2:13-cv-00525 was dismissed, settled, or transferred; note that IDT's parallel assertions of the same portfolio were refiled in D. Del. through Delaware Display Group LLC (e.g., 1:13-cv-02109), where Farnan LLP served as Delaware local counsel alongside Bragalone Conroy.

Primary source: Southeast Texas Record, "Recent patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas" (reporting the June 28, 2013 Marshall Division filings), https://setexasrecord.com/stories/510621652-recent-patent-infringement-cases-filed-in-the-eastern-district-of-texas. Corroborating PTAB records: IDT mandatory notices in IPR2014‑01357 (U.S. Pat. 6,755,547) and Power of Attorney filings in IPR2014‑01094 / IPR2014‑00487 listing Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500‑West, Dallas, TX.

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

Counsel of Record — Defendant Side (Huawei), 2:13-cv-00525

Up front, the honest answer: I was unable to verify any defendant-side attorney of record with the sources reachable in this research pass. I will not supply plausible-looking names. Below is what the search did and did not establish, plus a precise map for confirming the answer against primary records.

What the searches returned

Repeated queries against the case caption, case number, patent numbers, and the plaintiff's counsel (Bragalone Conroy / Ward & Smith) surfaced only:

• The Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Huawei Investment and Holding Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:13-cv-00525 (E.D. Tex., filed June 28, 2013), listing the asserted-infringer entities Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. — confirming the defendant group but containing no counsel field. [Stanford NPE Database — IDT; Huawei Device USA entry]
• The Southeast Texas Record filing write-up for the June 28, 2013 wave, which recites plaintiff's counsel only (Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William Kennedy Jr., Daniel F. Olejko; T. John Ward Jr., Claire Abernathy Henry) and says nothing about defense appearances — typical, since defense counsel appears only after the answer/waiver stage. [Southeast Texas Record]

No docket sheet, firm press release, Law360/Reuters item, or opinion in the accessible results named Huawei's lawyers in this docket. So the role/firm/experience detail the task asks for cannot be responsibly completed from what I could retrieve.

Important structural point for anyone verifying this

This case sat inside a six-complaint, same-day campaign (2:13-cv-522 through -527) that was consolidated for pretrial purposes under the Acer lead case, No. 2:13-cv-522-JRG, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on claim construction. Two consequences:

1. Appearances may be in the lead-case file, not the member file. In E.D. Tex. consolidated NPE campaigns of this era, appearances, protective orders, and consolidated-defense-counsel arrangements are often docketed once in the lead case (here, 2:13-cv-522) and incorporated by reference. A search of the Huawei member docket alone can come back empty even though counsel appeared.
2. Local counsel is mandatory. E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-83 requires a member of the bar admitted to practice in the district to appear as counsel; virtually every out-of-state defendant filed pro hac vice motions paired with a Marshall/Tyler/Longview local firm. Expect at least one local counsel from an East Texas firm and lead counsel from an out-of-state IP firm — but I have no verified identity for either, and I am deliberately declining to name candidates.

I should also flag, consistent with the existing case section, that whether Huawei even answered versus resolved early (the campaign shows a pattern of confidential settlements/dismissals) is still unconfirmed — which means counsel may have appeared only for a short window, or the case may have disposed before substantial defense appearances were docketed.

How to confirm (source priority)

• PACER — Docket Report for 2:13-cv-00525 (E.D. Tex.): pull the full docket with the "attorney" party-display; the Answer, Rule 7.1 disclosure, and any Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice will each name lead and local counsel. This is the authoritative source.
• PACER — lead case 2:13-cv-522-JRG: check the consolidated docket, especially the Dkt. 101 claim-construction order cited in the existing summary and any "Consolidated Lead Counsel / Liaison Counsel" designation order (E.D. Tex. judges frequently appoint defense liaison counsel in multi-defendant campaigns).
• CourtListener / RECAP and Justia Dockets for 2:13-cv-00525 — free mirrors that sometimes carry docket text even when PACER isn't easily accessible (note: the Justia docket I could reach was for the lead case, 2:13-cv-522, not the Huawei member case).
• Firm-side confirmation: once an individual name surfaces, corroborate against the firm's attorney bio page for patent-litigation credentials.

Explicit unknowns / no fabrication

• Lead counsel: unknown. No name verified.
• Local counsel: unknown. No name verified.
• Of-counsel / in-house: unknown. No name verified.
• Huawei in-house legal personnel: none identified in the accessible record; Huawei's U.S. IP-legal function is not documented in any source I retrieved for this docket.

If you can supply PACER access or a docket text export for 2:13-cv-00525 (and the consolidated 2:13-cv-522 docket), I can extract the appearance entries and firm affiliations directly and complete the per-attorney table with confidence.