Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. MiTAC Digital Corporation

The case Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. MiTAC Digital Corporation (2:14-cv-00144) is a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 26, 2014.

The plaintiff, Innovative Display Technologies LLC, appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). It is identified in related litigation as having Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as its real parties-in-interest, a common characteristic of NPEs. Innovative Display Technologies LLC has asserted patents in numerous other cases against a wide range of companies, including Apple, BMW, Canon, Dell, Garmin, Hyundai, LG Electronics, Mazda, Nikon, Samsung, Sony, Sprint, TomTom, Toyota, and Verizon, often in the Eastern District of Texas. The defendant, MiTAC Digital Corporation, is a Taiwanese company that manufactures and markets portable navigation devices, car infotainment systems, and other mobile communication products.

The primary patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, titled "System and Method for a Compact Backlight Assembly." This patent generally relates to backlight assemblies for liquid crystal displays (LCDs), which are crucial components in various electronic devices for illuminating the display. The accused products or technologies are not explicitly detailed in the provided search snippets, but given MiTAC's business and the patent's subject matter, they likely involve MiTAC's portable navigation devices or other products featuring LCDs and their backlight mechanisms.

The case is being heard in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent holders due to its reputation for moving cases quickly and its perceived patentee-friendly juries. While the specific judge for this case is not definitively identified in the provided snippets, many patent cases in this district were assigned to judges such as Judge Leonard P. Stark (who was appointed to the bench on August 10, 2010, and had handled 2439 patent cases by October 27, 2020), although he has since moved to the District of Delaware. The case is notable as part of a broader pattern of patent assertion by Innovative Display Technologies LLC (and its affiliates under Acacia Research) against numerous technology companies concerning display technologies. The extensive list of co-pending and related cases, as seen in various IPR documents, highlights the aggressive enforcement strategy of the plaintiff.

This case summary is for "Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. MiTAC Digital Corporation," Case No. 2:14-cv-00144, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 26, 2014. The case remains active.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Innovative Display Technologies LLC filed its patent infringement complaint against MiTAC Digital Corporation and others on February 26, 2014. This case was part of a series of related lawsuits filed by Innovative Display Technologies LLC against various defendants concerning display technologies.
  • Specific details regarding MiTAC Digital Corporation's answer and any counterclaims are not available in the public search results without direct PACER access.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • No specific information regarding motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR, or summary judgment motions for this particular case (2:14-cv-00144) was found in the public search results. However, it is common for such motions to be filed in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • There is no publicly available information detailing a Markman hearing or order specifically for this case.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • No specific discovery milestones for this case are publicly available through the conducted searches.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • There is no public record of this case proceeding to trial, reaching a verdict, or involving post-trial motions such as JMOL or new trial.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The current public information indicates the case is still active as of January 2017. No definitive information regarding a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal has been found in the public domain.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents:

  • While specific IPRs for patent 7300194 were searched, direct results for instituted or completed IPRs related to this patent were not found in the PTAB database through the general search. However, a filing on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC from a related case (not 2:14-cv-00144 itself, but within the larger Innovative Display Technologies LLC litigation landscape) mentions that there were two other pending requests for inter partes review of "the patent at issue in this proceeding" (referring to the context of that specific filing, but likely broadly applicable to Innovative Display Technologies LLC's asserted patents), identified as IPR2014-01095 and IPR2015-00366. The same document also lists IPR2014-01097 for U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, indicating an IPR was filed for the patent at issue in this case. The outcome or current status of these specific IPRs for patent 7300194 is not detailed in the provided search results.

Innovative Display Technologies LLC is a patent assertion entity (PAE) with ties to Acacia Research Group LLC. Given the nature of PAEs, identifying specific in-house counsel directly employed by Innovative Display Technologies LLC for litigation purposes can be challenging. Often, these entities rely on outside counsel to handle their numerous patent infringement lawsuits. Acacia Research Group has a strategic relationship with Starboard Value, LP, and has been characterized as a patent troll. Leigh Rothschild is an inventor associated with Display Technologies LLC, and has been involved in litigation where his associated entities, including Display Technologies LLC, were found to have violated Washington's Patent Troll Prevention and Consumer Protection Acts.

Based on information from related cases involving Innovative Display Technologies LLC (also referred to as Display Technologies LLC or Nexus Display Technologies LLC) in the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys and firms are likely involved:

Lead Counsel & Firms:

• Thomas J. Ward, Jr.

  • Role: Likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX) or similarly, The Ward Law Firm. He has been identified as counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in other Eastern District of Texas cases.
  • Experience Note: Thomas J. Ward, Jr. is a prominent patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently representing plaintiffs in patent infringement cases.

• Claire Abernathy Henry

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX) or similar. She has been identified as counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in other Eastern District of Texas cases.
  • Experience Note: Claire Abernathy Henry is also a well-known patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Jeffrey Ray Bragalone

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas, TX). He has been identified as counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in other Eastern District of Texas cases.
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey Ray Bragalone has extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Patrick Joseph Conroy

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas, TX). He has been identified as counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in other Eastern District of Texas cases.
  • Experience Note: Patrick Joseph Conroy is another experienced patent litigator with a focus on intellectual property disputes.

Other Potential Counsel:

• Justin Bryce Kimble

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Identified as counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in other Eastern District of Texas cases.

• Daniel Fletcher Olejko

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Identified as counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in other Eastern District of Texas cases.

• Thomas William Kennedy, Jr.

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Identified as counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in other Eastern District of Texas cases.

Local Counsel:

• Firms like Siebman Law, LLP (Marshall, TX) often serve as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas due to their extensive experience and presence in the district. While not definitively linked to this specific case in the provided snippets, they frequently appear for plaintiffs in patent cases in the venue.

It is important to note that the specific attorneys and their roles can change throughout the life cycle of a complex patent litigation, and direct confirmation from the official docket for Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. MiTAC Digital Corporation (2:14-cv-00144) would provide the most up-to-date and precise information. Without direct PACER access for this specific case, these names are drawn from appearances in related litigation by the same plaintiff in the same district.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["2:14-cv-00144 MiTAC Digital Corporation counsel of record", "Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. MiTAC Digital Corporation attorneys", "MiTAC Digital Corporation legal representation 2:14-cv-00144", "Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. MiTAC Digital Corporation docket", "MiTAC Digital Corporation patent litigation counsel", "Jeffrey T. Thomas patent litigation experience", "D. Michael Young patent litigation experience", "Frank Carroll patent litigation experience"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing MiTAC Digital Corporation in the case 2:14-cv-00144. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, their firms and office locations, and a one-line note on their relevant patent litigation experience or notable past cases. I will prioritize searching the PACER docket, but will also use firm websites, court opinions, Law360, and Reuters Legal.

Here's my plan:

1. Search for the docket for 2:14-cv-00144 to identify initial appearances and counsel of record for MiTAC Digital Corporation.
2. For each identified attorney, search for their firm and office location.
3. For each identified attorney, search for their patent litigation experience or notable past cases.Based on the available search results, the specific counsel of record representing MiTAC Digital Corporation in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. MiTAC Digital Corporation (2:14-cv-00144) could not be definitively identified. While prominent patent litigators such as Jeffrey T. Thomas of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Frank T. Carroll of Fox Rothschild LLP were identified through general searches for patent litigation counsel, their direct involvement in this particular case for MiTAC Digital Corporation was not explicitly confirmed in the provided snippets. Similarly, D. Michael Young was mentioned in contexts related to patent law and inventions, but not specifically as counsel for MiTAC in this lawsuit. Without direct access to the case's docket or specific legal news reporting on MiTAC's representation in this matter, the counsel of record for the defendant remains undetermined.