Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Hyundai Motor Group et al.

I'll research this case across the docket, opinions, and PTAB records.

Now let me dig into the PTAB/IPR side and the dismissal history.

Case Overview

Parties and their roles. Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT) is a Plano, Texas patent-holding LLC and a serial plaintiff — a classic NPE/PAE. Its Rule 7.1 disclosure and PTAB mandatory notices identify Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as parents/real parties-in-interest (IDT's mandatory notices, IPR2016-00914). The asserted family has a documented monetization chain: invented at Lumitex (Cleveland), sold via Solid State Opto Ltd. to Rambus (≈$26M), then to Acacia, then to IDT (STPI/NARLabs case note; Unified Patents lists Rambus Inc. as original assignee of the family). IDT appears never to have made a product. Defendants are the Hyundai Motor Group entities — Hyundai Motor Co. and Kia Motors Corp. (Korean OEMs), their U.S. sales arms (Hyundai Motor America, Kia Motors America), and their U.S. plants (Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia) — i.e., operating companies accused of infringing merely by selling/assembling vehicles containing third-party-supplied components.

Accused technology. IDT's theory in this campaign was component-level: vehicles whose LCD backlight units (instrument-cluster, navigation and infotainment displays) practice the "Display Patents," and vehicles whose exterior lamps — taillights and headlights — practice the "Auto Patents." The Markman order describes the Display Patents as relating "to the field of backlights, which can be used, for example, to illuminate LCDs," and the Auto Patents as relating to "exterior auto lights such as taillights and headlights" (Dkt. 244 at 3). Parallel complaints in the same campaign identify specific accused hardware — e.g., BMW 3/5/6-series vehicles with a "65829224346 navigation/driver information display" and vehicles "having lights." Because the accused parts came from Tier-1 suppliers (Stanley Electric, Koito, Panasonic), the real economic fight was an indemnity fight: Nissan impleaded Stanley Electric and Panasonic via third-party complaints in the member cases, and the suppliers then petitioned for IPR (see Nissan's Third-Party Complaint, cited as Ex. 2001 in IPR2015-00575).

Patents asserted. The consolidated lead case asserted eight patents in two groups — six "Display Patents" ('194, '177, '660, '974, '370, '816; all "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," common priority June 27, 1995) and two "Auto Patents" (Dkt. 244 at 3; the metadata's '563/'956 are the Auto Patents). (1) U.S. 6,508,563 — "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like" (issued Jan. 21, 2003; Parker, Miller, Hough; priority Jan. 16, 1996): an edge-lit, solid light-emitting panel member (often elastomeric, impact-absorbing) mounted on a vehicle body, "wrapped around a corner," with LEDs at a light-input edge and deformities extracting light through a top/bottom surface. (2) U.S. 6,886,956 — same title, a continuation of the '563 (issued May 3, 2005): a light guide with LEDs along an input surface, light-extracting deformities controlling output ray angle, and a transparent substrate forming the vehicle's exterior surface.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed March 10, 2014 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, as one of a same-day wave (2:14-cv-200 Toyota, -201 Hyundai, -202 Nissan; -222 Honda followed), all before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on pretrial). On Aug. 4, 2014 the court consolidated the auto cases for all pretrial issues into 2:14-cv-201 as lead, alongside member cases including BMW (2:14-cv-106) and Sprint (2:14-cv-721), producing a 20-plus-defendant consolidated action (consolidation order). A Markman hearing was held April 29, 2015, and the 56-page Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order issued May 4, 2015 (Dkt. 244) (text). Venue mattered enormously: in 2014 (pre-TC Heartland) any OEM selling vehicles in the district was suable in Marshall, and Gilstrap's docket offered a single judge, one consolidated schedule, and a fast trial track — leverage that produced settlements rather than judgments.

Why it is notable. Three reasons. (i) Markman outcome drove the case. Applying and extending its earlier Acer (2:13-cv-522, Mag. J. Payne) constructions and the then-new Nautilus standard, the court rejected nearly every defense indefiniteness argument but found "more in the width direction" indefinite and held claim 1 of the '816 patent invalid — then sua sponte ordered the parties to mediate within 30 days with corporate officers present (Dkt. 244 at 55). Dismissals cascaded within weeks: BMW with prejudice (July 6, 2015), Honda (July 22), Nissan (July 24), Sprint (Aug. 4), and the Stanley/Nissan third-party claims (Sept. 1, 2015) (docket). (ii) Textbook IPR/litigation linkage. LG Display filed IPRs on the Display Patents (IPR2014-01092 to -01097); institution on the '816 was denied Jan. 13, 2015 for failure to explain the motivation to combine (NLR summary), the '660 was instituted July 16, 2015 (IPR2015-00487) yet survived to a "no claims unpatentable" final decision on July 15, 2016 in IPR2015-01717 (RPX). On the Auto Patents, **Koito/Stanley filed IPR2015-00574/-00575 (

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and key rulings.

Good — I have the Markman order details. Now let me get the docket history and IPR outcomes.

Key legal developments — Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Hyundai Motor Group, No. 2:14-cv-00201-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Scope note / caveat up front. This was the lead case in a large consolidation of roughly two dozen IDT suits filed against automakers, suppliers, and electronics companies in 2013–2014. The docket ran to 300+ entries, and much of it is behind PACER paywalls or was never mirrored publicly. The developments below are those I can ground in court documents, PTAB papers, and contemporaneous reporting. Where I could not verify a detail (notably the precise filing dates and docket numbers for the answers/counterclaims and for any Rule 12 or § 1404 motions), I say so rather than guess.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2014-03-10 — Complaint filed. IDT (a Texas LLC based in Plano, an Acacia Research affiliate — IDT identified "Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation" as real parties-in-interest in its PTAB mandatory notices) sued Hyundai Motor Group, Hyundai Motor Co., Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Kia Motors Corp., Kia Motors America, and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia. The original complaint asserted a family of "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents — the six "Display Patents" ('194, '177, '660, '974, '370, '816) and the two "Auto Patents," U.S. 6,508,563 and 6,886,956, directed to edge-lit light-emitting panel assemblies for automotive exterior lighting (taillights, headlights). The '956 patent is a continuation of the '563 patent; both claim priority to 1996-01-16 and share a near-identical specification.
• Answers / counterclaims. The public docket index for the lead case shows counterclaimants including Kia Motors Corporation and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC (alongside BMW and Motorola Mobility from member cases), indicating that the Hyundai/Kia defendants asserted invalidity and/or non-infringement counterclaims. I was not able to verify the specific filing date, docket numbers, or the full list of counterclaim theories for the Hyundai/Kia answers, and I have no sourced record of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or a § 1404(a) transfer motion being filed, much less granted. (A "Motion to Dismiss" that appears in the record is the parties' joint stipulated dismissal motion at the end of the case — see § 6.)
• 2014-08-04 — Consolidation order. The Court consolidated all pretrial issues (except venue) in the IDT automotive cases into 2:14-cv-201 as the lead case, with one docket control order, protective order, and discovery order governing the group; individual member cases remained active for venue and trial. Consolidation is what makes the Markman order in this case the operative construction ruling for a much larger set of defendants (Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota, Subaru, Gulf States Toyota, Honda, Sprint, BMW, Volkswagen).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• I found no publicly reported ruling on a motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR in this lead case. The absence of a stay ruling is consistent with the timing: the first IPR petitions targeting the '563/'956 patents were not filed until 2015-01-15 (Koito/Stanley), and the case settled roughly six months later — before any institution decision issued that would have supported a stay motion.
• Discovery milestones with strategic significance. The only dated, substantive discovery events I can source are those surfacing in the Markman record:
  • 2015-02-20 — P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 202).
  • 2015-03-03 — Defendants' expert Robert Smith-Gillespie executed a 96-page indefiniteness declaration attacking claims 1, 16, and 28 of the '194, claims 1 and 29 of the '370, claims 1, 5, 11, and 22 of the '563, and claim 1 of the '956 under § 112 ¶ 2. This is the clearest indicator of how heavily the defendants front-loaded indefiniteness rather than prior art.
  • 2015-03-09 / 2015-03-12 — Depositions of plaintiff's expert Mr. Werner and defendants' expert Smith-Gillespie, respectively; excerpts from both were cited extensively in the Markman briefing and order.
  • 2015-04-15 — P.R. 4-5 Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. 228).

3. Claim construction (Markman) — the substantive centerpiece

• 2015-04-29 — Markman hearing before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (with Magistrate Judge Roy Payne).
• 2015-05-04 — Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 244), 56 pages. The Court divided the disputed terms into those already construed in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-522, 2014 WL 4230037 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014) (Payne, J.), objections overruled, Dkt. 219 (Dec. 15, 2014) (Gilstrap, J.), and terms of first impression.

Outcomes favorable to IDT (defendants' narrow/indefinite proposals rejected):

Mixed / limiting constructions:

• "transition region" ('660 cl. 1, 3, 10, 33; '370 cl. 13, 47) — construed as "a region configured to transmit light from a light source to a light emitting area" — i.e., the Court adopted a construction narrower than IDT's proposed plain meaning and closer to the defendants' position (though it rejected their "distinct structure" gloss).
• "predetermined" — construed as "fixed."
• '956 claim 1 LED limitation — the convoluted "one or more light emitting diodes along said light input surface for receiving light from said light emitting diodes and conducting the light…" was construed to clarify that the light input surface receives the light and the light guide conducts it.

Outcome fatal to one patent: the Court held "more in the width direction" (claim 1 of the '816 Patent) indefinite under Nautilus, because at least two "equally plausible but materially dissimilar" readings existed, and accordingly held claim 1 of the '816 Patent invalid. This is the single most consequential holding in the opinion. (Note: the '816 patent is one of the Display Patents, not one of the two Auto Patents in the caption; but it was part of the same consolidated assertion.)

Procedural coda: the Court sua sponte ordered the parties to mediate in good faith within 30 days, with a corporate officer possessing unilateral settlement authority present, on pain of sanctions. That order is the direct and immediate cause of the July 2015 dismissals.

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '563 and '956 patents

These are the IPRs directed at the two asserted Auto Patents; every one of them terminated before institution, by settlement, so no final written decision and no § 315(e) estoppel ever attached.

Effect on the litigation: the IPRs were filed as settlement pressure, not as an adjudicated invalidity track. In the BMW termination papers the Board noted that "the instant proceedings are in the preliminary stage" and that termination "promotes efficiency and minimizes unnecessary costs." Because no IPR was ever instituted, no petitioner obtained § 315(e) estoppel, and the '563/'956 patents emerged from the campaign with their claims formally intact — though also never tested on the merits at the Board. Notably, the parties filed the district-court dismissal orders as exhibits in the IPR terminations, and vice versa, confirming the two tracks were settled as a package. Dozens of additional IPRs were filed in 2015 against the Display Patents by Toyota (e.g., IPR2015-00897 on the '660), Sony (IPR2015-00745 on the '660), Volkswagen (IPR2015-00798), and others; those are parallel in time but not directed at the two Auto Patents in this caption.

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

None. The case never reached trial. There was no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, and no § 285 fee motion. The mediation ordered in the May 4 Markman order mooted the trial track.

6. Final disposition

The case resolved as a coordinated wave of dismissals with prejudice across the consolidated IDT automotive litigation, all within roughly ten weeks of the Markman order:

• 2015-07-06 — IDT v. BMW (member case 2:14-cv-106) dismissed with prejudice; counterclaims and defenses dismissed with prejudice; each side to bear its own costs and fees

I'll research press coverage of this case across multiple search angles.

Press coverage summary

Coverage of this specific docket is thin — I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra article about IDT v. Hyundai itself. What exists falls into three buckets: a complaint-stage wire-style item, Korean trade-press analysis of the NPE campaign in which the suit was one data point, and legal-industry docket aggregators that logged the resulting PTAB petitions. Notably, none of the reporting I located discloses a damages demand, a verdict, or settlement terms, and no outlet appears to have covered the July 2015 dismissal.

The only article I found that reports on the filing as news is a Courthouse News Service item dated 2014-03-12, which reported from Marshall, Texas that "Innovative Display Technologies claims Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai/Kia violate six patents on light-emitting panel assemblies, in three federal lawsuits." That one-sentence account matches the docket's structure — IDT filed a family of parallel complaints against separate automaker groups rather than one consolidated suit — but it contains no claim-construction, damages, or settlement reporting and does not mention the '563 or '956 patents by number. I found nothing in the mainstream or legal trade press covering the May 4, 2015 claim construction order (Dkt. 244) that the existing case summary identifies as the case's principal merits event.

The most substantive published analysis is Korean trade press: etnews (Electronic Times) reported on 2015-02-03, drawing on an "IPnomics" report by its own research arm and the Gwanggaeto patent-analysis firm, that Innovative Display Technologies was one of three NPEs "emerging as a new threat" to Hyundai/Kia. According to etnews, IDT had filed 37 suits beginning with BlackBerry in 2013, shifted its campaign to automakers starting with BMW in February 2014, and by December 2014 had sued nine automakers including Hyundai/Kia, Nissan, Honda and Volkswagen; the outlet put IDT's portfolio at 89 patents with 17 asserted, and noted Pantech and LG Display among Korean targets alongside Hyundai/Kia. This is analyst framing that goes well beyond anything in the court record — the suit-count and portfolio figures are the report's own, not court findings — and it treats the Hyundai/Kia case as evidence of an industry-wide pattern rather than reporting on the litigation itself.

On the PTAB side, the reporting is essentially docket transcription rather than journalism: the National Law Review's "PTO Litigation Center Report" listings recorded Koito Manufacturing and Stanley Electric's January 15, 2015 petitions against the '563 patent (IPR2015-00574) and the '956 patent (IPR2015-00575), and Toyota Motor's March 19, 2015 petition against the '563 patent (IPR2015-00895), identifying IDT as patent owner. For the outcome, the only public statements I found are party disclosures rather than press coverage: an Acacia Research Form 8-K (signed 2015-07-13, event date 2015-07-07) stating that Acacia subsidiaries Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC "entered into a patent license agreement with Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd and Stanley Electric Co., Ltd" — with no financial terms disclosed — and a BusinessWire release dated 2015-08-13 announcing a separate IDT/DDG settlement and license with Sony Corporation resolving Delaware litigation, which is a different case and not authority for anything here. In short, the press record for this docket is a filing-day brief, one Korean trade-press analysis of the broader campaign, and PTAB listing entries; the dismissal, the license economics, and any damages exposure were never reported, so any figures on those points would have to come from the court record or SEC filings, not from press coverage.

Sources

• Case IPR2015- 00575 Pat
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. HYUNDAI MOTOR GROUP et al - This case was last updated from U
• Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 56 PageID #: 2669
• Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC By: David E
• IPR2015-00745, No. 2002 Exhibit - Exhibit 2002 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2015) - IPR2015-00745, No
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. HYUNDAI MOTOR GROUP et al
• 34. IDT intends to seek discovery on the issue of willfulness and reserves the right to seek a willfulness finding relative to p...
• INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., Dist. Court, ED Texas 2015 - INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., Dist. Court, ED Texas 2015
• INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., Dist. Court, ED Texas 2015 - INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co., Dist. Court, ED Texas 2015
• Jeffrey Ray Bragalone, Amir H. Alavi|txed|INNOVATIVE DISPLAY... -- eLawyers

I'll research the docket and related sources for plaintiff-side counsel in this case.

Bottom line

Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") was represented in this case primarily by the Houston IP/commercial boutique Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. ("AZA") — the same firm that ran IDT's nationwide assertion campaign, including the consolidated lead case here and the PTAB defense of the '563 and '956 patents. A St. Louis patent boutique, The Simon Law Firm, P.C., and a Longview, Texas local-counsel firm, Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC / Ward & Smith Law Firm, appeared for IDT in sibling IDT cases filed the same day; whether they entered appearances in 2:14-cv-201 itself is not confirmed by the sources I could retrieve.

Important verification caveat: PACER is paywalled and I could not pull the 2:14-cv-201 docket sheet directly. The names below are grounded in (a) the Unified/UniCourt docket-derived attorney list for 2:14-cv-201, (b) the public docket of the co-filed companion case 2:14-cv-202 (Nissan), which was consolidated into 2:14-cv-201 as the lead case, (c) IDT's PTAB filings in IPR2015-00574/-00575 (the '563 and '956 patents), and (d) firm biographies. Where a role is inferred rather than confirmed, I say so.

Plaintiff-side counsel of record

In-house counsel: No IDT in-house attorney appears in the public record for this case. IDT was a patent-holding/licensing entity (an affiliate of Delaware Display Group LLC), and its filings were signed by outside AZA counsel. By the time of the 2015 merits briefing, the caption in the lead consolidated case read "Innovative Display Technologies, LLC, and Delaware Display Group LLC" — i.e., the affiliate was added as a co-plaintiff in the consolidated action.

Firms that represented IDT in sibling cases (appearance in this case unconfirmed)

• The Simon Law Firm, P.C. (St. Louis, MO): Anthony G. Simon, Michael P. Kella, Benjamin R. Askew, Stephanie H. To — appeared for IDT in the same-day EDTX filings such as IDT v. Garmin Int'l, No. 2:14-cv-143 (D.E. 13, Notice of Appearance, 3/17/2014). I did not find a Simon Law entry in 2:14-cv-201; the Hyundai/Kia case appears to have been AZA-run.
• Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC / Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview, TX): Thomas John Ward, Jr., Jack Wesley Hill, Claire A. Henry — the customary East Texas local counsel on IDT's EDTX matters (same Garmin docket). No confirmed appearance in 2:14-cv-201; AZA filed directly, and AZA's Houston attorneys were admitted in the Eastern District.

A trap to flag for citation purposes

Sughrue Mion PLLC (William H. Mandir, Steven M. Gruskin) was not plaintiff's counsel. Their names appear throughout the IDT PTAB papers only because IDT's certificates of service list them as lead and back-up counsel for the petitioners (Koito Manufacturing and Stanley Electric) in IPR2015-00574/-00575. Similarly, the defense side of this case was staffed by Baker Botts, DLA Piper, Hunton & Williams, and Mayer Brown (e.g., Amanda Streff Bonner of Mayer Brown lists Hyundai/Kia as her client) — do not cross-attribute those names to IDT.

One further data point I could not verify: an expert CV excerpt in the PTAB record references "Crowell & Moring LLP" as retained by plaintiff in IPR2015-00934. That is unrelated to the district-court representation here and I have no primary source confirming it; treat it as unconfirmed.

Suggested PACER checks to close the gaps

1. Pull the 2:14-cv-201 docket's "Attorneys" section and every Notice of Attorney Appearance and Motion for Pro Hac Vice filed between 3/10/2014 and termination — these will confirm Cleland, McBrayer, and whether Simon Law or Ward Smith ever entered.
2. Check the Consolidation Order (entered 8/4/2014, per the order text in the PTAB record) which directed that only lead and local counsel of consolidated defendants be added to the lead case — this explains why the lead-case roster may under-report plaintiff counsel appearing in member cases.
3. Check any Motion to Withdraw and the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal signature blocks; IDT's dismissals in this campaign were typically signed by the AZA attorney of record.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case. Let me start with several searches.

Found a promising lead (Mayer Brown). Let me dig deeper into counsel of record.

Let me pull the docket itself to confirm appearances of record.

Bottom line first

The Hyundai/Kia defendant group in this case was represented by Mayer Brown LLP, with the district-court team confirmed by the firm's own published case list. I was able to verify the firm and one named attorney directly; the specific docket entries (notices of appearance) and the lead/local-counsel division are partially inferred rather than pulled from PACER, and I flag that distinction below.

---

1. Lead counsel — Mayer Brown LLP

Robert G. Pluta — Partner; lead counsel (designated)

• Mayer Brown LLP, 71 S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606
• Registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 50,970). Mayer Brown's PTAB filings in the IDT-related IPR family designate him as lead counsel, with Amanda Streff as back-up — e.g., IPR2014-01094, IPR2014-01362, IPR2015-00487 (LG Display v. Innovative Display Technologies, '660/'177/'547 patents), where he argued the '660 IPR to a final written decision.
• Caveat: His role as district-court lead for Hyundai/Kia specifically is inferred from the firm's PTAB designations plus the firm's confirmed retention in this case. I could not retrieve the D. Tex. notice of appearance itself.

Amanda K. Streff (now Amanda Streff Bonner) — Partner; case team lead / PTAB lead

• Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL
• This is the strongest direct confirmation available. Her Mayer Brown bio expressly lists Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company et al. (E.D. Tex. 2014) and states she represented Hyundai Motor Company, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, Kia Motors Corporation, Kia Motors America, Inc., and Kia Motors Manufacturing Georgia, Inc. — i.e., all six operating-company defendants.
• Relevant experience: patent litigation and PTAB proceedings in LCD panels, semiconductors, mobile devices, and mechanical/electrical arts; named a "Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials" by the PTAB Bar Association; first-chaired/argued the '660 IPR (IPR2015-00487) for LG Display.
• Source: https://www.mayerbrown.com/de/people/b/bonner-amanda-streff

Mayer Brown supporting team (Washington, DC office, 1999 K Street NW) — of counsel / associates; IDT-matter team

• Jamie B. Beaber, Baldine B. Paul (Reg. No. 54,369), Anita Y. Lam (Reg. No. 67,394)
• These attorneys appear together with Pluta and Streff on the IDT-related PTAB filings and are consistently listed for e-service at a shared IDT docket address (DDGIPR@mayerbrown.com). Their individual district-court appearances in 2:14-cv-201 are not independently confirmed — treat their inclusion as team-level, not docket-verified.

---

2. Other attorneys UniCourt attributes to the defense — unverified

The UniCourt docket aggregation for 2:14-cv-00201 lists three attorneys under "Defendant Attorneys":

• Jose Luis Patino
• Robert William Weber
• Nicola Anthony Pisano

I could not verify their firms, offices, or roles from any primary or firm source, and they do not appear in the Mayer Brown case list. Two plausible readings: (a) they are Texas local counsel retained alongside Mayer Brown, or (b) UniCourt's extraction has conflated appearances from the consolidated lead case (2:14-cv-201 ultimately absorbed roughly a dozen IDT automotive/retail suits). Notably, UniCourt's separate "Consolidated Defendant and Counter Defendant Attorneys" field lists Brian P. Biddinger and Susan A. Smith, with a further 63+ "other attorneys" — a list far too large to belong to Hyundai/Kia alone. I am not asserting any of these five are Hyundai/Kia counsel of record.

One contextual data point: the defendants' indefiniteness expert was Robert Smith-Gillespie (declaration executed March 3, 2015, in this case), and the joint defense response brief was Dkt. 221 — the automotive/Honda/Toyota/BMW/VW/Sprint defendants briefed claim construction jointly, which is why defense-side attorney lists in this lead case balloon.

---

3. Structural note on "counsel of record" in this case

The August 4, 2014 consolidation order (consolidating the IDT automotive and retail cases for all pretrial issues except venue into lead case 2:14-cv-201-JRG) directed the Clerk to add consolidated defendants and "their corresponding Lead and Local Counsel only," and provided that additional counsel could appear in the lead case only by filing a Notice of Appearance. This means:

• The operative defense roster for claim construction (which produced Dkt. 244, the May 4, 2015 order) was the lead-case roster.
• Some Hyundai/Kia-side appearances may exist only in the member case or only via the lead/local-counsel designation, which is exactly the kind of record detail that aggregator sites like UniCourt routinely miss.

---

4. Third-party defendants — separate counsel (not Hyundai/Kia's counsel)

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. / Nissan North America, Inc. and the Stanley Electric entities were brought in via third-party complaints (which is why IDT's IPR exhibit lists in IPR2015-00574/-00575 include "Nissan Motor Co., Ltd and Nissan North America, Inc.'s Third Party Complaint" and the three Stanley Electric corporate disclosure statements). Their dismissal filings were signed by Sean Hsu (Dkt. 301, Aug. 28, 2015). These are separate representations and should not be attributed to the Hyundai/Kia group.

---

5. What I could not verify — stated explicitly

• No direct PACER/docket-sheet access. The findings rest on (i) Mayer Brown's published case list, (ii) PTAB filings in the parallel IDT IPR family, and (iii) the Dkt. 244 opinion text (Justia/Patent Case Watch).
• I did not locate the actual notices of appearance or the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statements for Hyundai/Kia, which would be the definitive source for counsel of record, firm, and office. Those are the documents to pull from PACER (Dkt. nos. roughly in the 12–60 range, filed March–May 2014) before relying on this roster in a filing.
• No in-house counsel for Hyundai or Kia appears in any source I reviewed. Do not assume one is of record.
• The Pluta-as-lead-counsel designation and the Beaber/Paul/Lam district-court participation are inferences from the PTAB record, not docket-confirmed.

---

Recommended verification steps

1. Pull the PACER docket for 2:14-cv-00201-JRG, Dkts. 1–60, and grep for "Notice of Attorney Appearance" / "Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice."
2. Pull the Aug. 4, 2014 consolidation order's attachment (if any) listing lead and local counsel per consolidated defendant.
3. Check the Dkt. 244 signature blocks and the Dkt. 221 joint defense brief signature pages — joint-brief signature blocks in E.D. Tex. often list every defense firm with attorney names, which would resolve Patino/Weber/Pisano in one step.