Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation

Innovative Display Technologies LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) identifying Acacia Research Group LLC as its real party-in-interest, filed this patent infringement lawsuit against Mazda Motor Corporation. Mazda Motor Corporation is a global automotive manufacturer. The complaint alleges that Mazda infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, which describes a "Light-emitting panel assembly." This patent generally relates to backlight technologies for displays, specifically a light-emitting panel assembly with a light source, a light-emitting surface, and a light-extracting surface featuring a plurality of light-extracting deformities that vary in size and shape. The accused products are likely Mazda vehicles incorporating LCDs with backlight technology, such as infotainment systems or instrument cluster displays.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:14-cv-00624, on May 13, 2014. This venue has historically been a popular forum for patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly rulings, faster trial speeds, and experienced patent judges. While the Supreme Court's 2017 TC Heartland decision modified patent venue rules, which initially led to a decline in filings, the Eastern District of Texas has since seen a resurgence in patent litigation. Judge Rodney Gilstrap, known for handling a significant number of patent cases in the district, often presides over such matters.

This case is notable as part of a broader pattern of patent assertion by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or PAEs like Innovative Display Technologies LLC, which leverage patent portfolios across various industries, including automotive, to seek licensing revenue. The litigation targets core technologies, such as display and backlight components, that are integral to the digital transformation of modern vehicles. While there isn't direct information in the provided snippets about specific Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenges for U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, it is common for patents asserted by PAEs to face IPRs, especially those related to prolific patent holders or associated with entities like Acacia Research.

Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation: Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This patent infringement lawsuit, Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00624, was filed on May 13, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, which relates to LCD and backlight technologies.

Despite its initial filing, a detailed chronological account of the case's key legal developments, including specific filings, substantive motions, claim construction outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, and a final verdict or judgment, is not readily available in public search results. Similarly, precise information regarding a settlement, dismissal, or appeal in this specific case against Mazda is not explicitly detailed in the accessible data. The case remains listed as "active" according to the initial prompt, indicating no final public disposition has been widely reported.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not yield specific instituted or completed proceedings directly linked to this patent number in the general public search results. The USPTO's P-TACTS system is the official means for tracking such proceedings, but direct access to detailed individual case information for specific patent numbers is not available through general web searches. Therefore, the effect of any potential PTAB proceedings on the litigation cannot be ascertained from the available information.

Innovative Display Technologies LLC is represented by the following counsel:

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone

  • Role: Lead Counsel (indicated as lead counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in numerous patent litigation actions in the Eastern District of Texas involving related technology).
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad, P.C.
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX
  • Experience: A founder of Bragalone Olejko Saad, P.C., Jeffrey Bragalone's practice emphasizes complex commercial litigation, with a focus on patent and other intellectual property matters and technology-related cases. His experience includes patent litigation involving liquid crystal displays, wireless networking, and semiconductor devices, and he has successfully argued numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit. He has been recognized as a "Super Lawyer" from 2003-2026.

• Justin B. Kimble

  • Role: Lead Counsel (indicated as lead counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in numerous patent litigation actions in the Eastern District of Texas involving related technology, and previously a founding partner of Bragalone Conroy, PC).
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX
  • Experience: A registered patent attorney, Justin Kimble's practice focuses on patent infringement litigation and patent licensing. He has served as lead counsel for both petitioners and patent owners in over 100 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and his experience includes matters involving liquid-crystal displays. He has been selected for inclusion in the "Super Lawyers" edition from 2014-2025.

The defendant, Mazda Motor Corporation, is represented by a team of attorneys, though specific roles (lead, local, etc.) are not consistently delineated in available public records for this particular case without direct docket access. However, based on general patent litigation practices in the Eastern District of Texas and publicly available information, the following counsel are likely involved or have experience relevant to representing automotive clients in patent disputes:

• Robert M. Chiaviello, Jr.
  • Role: Likely lead or experienced patent litigation counsel.
  • Firm: Law Offices of Robert M. Chiaviello, Jr. (Monroe, LA, based on a past profile). He was previously a partner in the IP groups at Baker Botts and Fulbright & Jaworski in Dallas.
  • Experience Note: Has over 37 years of intellectual property law experience, handling numerous civil cases involving complex IP and contract matters. He also has experience with patent, trademark, and copyright applications, as well as Inter Partes Reviews. He was listed as counsel for "Luv n' care" as IPR counsel in 2015.
• Elizabeth M. Chiaviello
  • Role: Counsel specializing in IP litigation.
  • Firm: Nixon Peabody LLP (Dallas, TX office likely, given her membership in Dallas Bar Association and Eastern District of Texas Bar Association).
  • Experience Note: Focuses on patent, trademark, and trade secret disputes in US federal district courts and the International Trade Commission. She previously served as a law clerk in the Eastern District of Texas to Judge Robert W. Schroeder III and Judge K. Nicole Mitchell.
• Stephen J. Chase (or Steven J. Chase)
  • Role: Could be involved in an advisory or business litigation capacity, given his extensive experience.
  • Firm: Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP (Sarasota, FL).
  • Experience Note: Over 50 years of experience in business and construction litigation and dispute resolution, including extensive trial work, arbitration, and civil mediation. While his direct patent litigation experience for Mazda is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, his deep litigation background could be relevant.
• Melissa L. Barshop
  • Role: While primarily focused on finance and business restructuring, her firm, Gibson Dunn, has a significant litigation practice that could be involved in large corporate defense.
  • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Century City, CA office).
  • Experience Note: Partner in the firm's Corporate Department, specializing in Finance and Business Restructuring and Reorganization. Her firm is known for complex litigation.
• David E. Love
  • Role: Potential local counsel or counsel with general litigation experience.
  • Firm: Unclear which "David Love" is associated with this specific case without direct docket access. Several attorneys named David Love appear in search results with various practice areas and locations, including finance, criminal defense, personal injury, and general practice. The David Love focused on private equity and debt financing at Winston & Strawn or the one in Rosedale, MD focusing on civil rights, criminal law, and personal injury are unlikely to be involved in a patent litigation in ETXT unless acting as local counsel for specific, limited purposes.
• Jonathan W. H. Chong
  • Role: Unlikely to be directly involved in patent litigation for Mazda based on available information.
  • Firm: Multiple individuals named Jonathan Chong appear in search results. One is a certified Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt with AlixPartners, specializing in supply chain and manufacturing optimization. Another is an attorney practicing business law, corporate finance, and corporate practice. A "Johnathan Chong" is listed with an active license in California. Furthermore, a "Jimmy Chong" leads The Chong Law Firm, focusing on personal injury, wrongful death, and medical malpractice in Delaware and Philadelphia. None of these directly indicate patent litigation experience relevant to representing Mazda in this specific case.

It is important to note that without direct access to the docket for 2:14-cv-00624, the specific counsel of record cannot be definitively identified for this case. The individuals listed above are identified based on their potential relevance to corporate or intellectual property litigation and representation of automotive clients. Previous IPR filings for Mazda, such as IPR2022-00203 against StratosAudio, Inc., show "Petitioner Counsel, Satchwell, Matthew et al.", but this does not directly identify counsel for the Innovative Display Technologies case. Another case, VDPP, LLC v. Mazda Motor Corp., was voluntarily dismissed before defense counsel was disclosed.