Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

This patent infringement suit was initiated by Innovative Display Technologies LLC against Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT), is recognized as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or "patent troll," which operates under the umbrella of Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. is a Japanese multinational automobile manufacturer. The litigation generally concerns LCD and backlight technologies, with IDT accusing Nissan's products, presumably the display systems within its vehicles, of infringement.

The central patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194. This patent is titled "Light emitting panel assemblies" and generally describes assemblies designed to provide illumination, particularly for display purposes. The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs, including non-practicing entities, due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, accelerated trial schedules, and a tendency to refuse stays of litigation pending USPTO reexamination.

The case is notable as it reflects a common strategy by patent assertion entities like IDT (and its parent, Acacia Research) to assert patents related to widely used technologies against numerous major companies across various industries. Innovative Display Technologies LLC has pursued similar infringement claims against a broad array of technology and automotive companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Google, Dell, Volkswagen, Toyota, and Hyundai. Furthermore, the patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, has been subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR2014-01097) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a common parallel proceeding in modern patent litigation where defendants challenge the validity of asserted patents.

Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (2:14-cv-00202) is a patent infringement suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on March 10, 2014. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, which relates to LCD and backlight technologies. The case is currently active as of March 31, 2026.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Innovative Display Technologies LLC initiated the lawsuit on March 10, 2014, in the Eastern District of Texas.

2. Pre-trial Motions & Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

• Inter Partes Review (IPR) Petitions: Parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194. Specifically, IPR2014-01095 and IPR2015-00366 were filed concerning this patent. The outcomes and their direct effect on this specific litigation would require deeper docket analysis.

3. Final Disposition / Current Posture:

• The case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas as of March 31, 2026.

Further details regarding specific answers, counterclaims, claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, or a final judgment are not readily available in the provided search results.

Based on available information, the counsel of record representing Innovative Display Technologies LLC in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (2:14-cv-00202) includes attorneys from Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (formerly Bragalone Conroy P.C.) and Farnan LLP. While primary docket entries explicitly listing counsel for this specific case are from 2016, these firms and several of the identified attorneys have consistently represented Innovative Display Technologies LLC in related patent litigation, with one 2026 PTAB document referencing their role as lead and back-up counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in cases including 2:14-cv-00202 (though listing Sprint Corporation, not Nissan, as a defendant in that specific reference).

Here are the identified attorneys:

From Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (formerly Bragalone Conroy P.C.)

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Shareholder)
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Bragalone is a founder of Bragalone Olejko Saad PC and focuses on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on patent and other intellectual property matters. His extensive litigation experience covers technologies such as semiconductors, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), database software, cellular communications, wireless networks, and memory technology. He has represented Innovative Display Technologies LLC as lead counsel in multiple patent litigation actions in Texas and Delaware involving LCD patents, with all matters resolving favorably. He also has significant expertise in trade secrets, software licensing, trademark, copyright, and trade dress litigation, and has handled over one hundred Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Daniel F. Olejko

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Shareholder)
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Olejko manages complex commercial cases before federal courts and agencies, with a particular emphasis on appellate practice. He has over 10 years of experience litigating patent cases involving a wide range of technologies, including LED controllers, LCD displays, and telecommunications systems. He has achieved successful outcomes for his clients in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has represented clients in numerous post-grant review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as well as Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

• Justin B. Kimble

  • Role: Counsel (Partner at prior firm)
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy (formerly a founding partner of Bragalone Conroy P.C.)
  • Experience: Mr. Kimble is a registered patent attorney whose practice primarily focuses on patent infringement litigation and patent licensing. He has served as lead counsel for petitioners and patent owners in over 100 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. His experience spans various technologies, including liquid-crystal displays and dynamic random access memory (DRAM).

From Farnan LLP

• Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.

  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Mr. Farnan founded Farnan LLP after serving 25 years as a United States District Judge for the District of Delaware, including as Chief Judge. During his judicial tenure, he presided over hundreds of bench and jury trials, including over 160 patent jury trials, which is indicative of his extensive experience in patent law. His current practice focuses on complex commercial matters, including patent litigation.

• Brian E. Farnan

  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Mr. Farnan has tried numerous jury and bench trials in Delaware's federal and state courts, and regularly assists out-of-state counsel as Delaware counsel in high-stakes litigation. His practice focuses on complex litigation, primarily on behalf of plaintiffs in patent, trade secret, and shareholder litigation. He is recognized by publications such as Super Lawyers and IAM Patent 1000 for his experience in patent litigation.

• Michael J. Farnan

  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Mr. Farnan regularly appears in Delaware's federal and state courts, typically representing plaintiffs in patent, antitrust, securities, trade secret, class action, and large tort cases. He has been part of teams responsible for recovering billions of dollars for clients and has tried jury and bench trials in Delaware courts.

• Note on other previously listed attorneys: While James R. Perkins and Stephanie Wood were associated with Bragalone Conroy P.C. in older filings, more recent information indicates James R. Perkins is a member at Cole Schotz in Dallas, Texas, focusing on patent litigation. Stephanie Wood is listed with different firms (WilmerHale, Ogborn Mihm LLP, Mayer Brown) in various capacities not directly linked to Innovative Display Technologies LLC's patent litigation at this time. Therefore, their current involvement in this specific case as counsel of record for the plaintiff cannot be confirmed.

Based on available information, the counsel of record representing Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (2:14-cv-00202) likely includes attorneys from Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP as lead counsel and Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC) as local counsel. While specific docket entries explicitly naming every attorney for this precise case are not fully detailed in the provided search snippets, the firms' established presence in Eastern District of Texas patent litigation and representation of automotive clients in similar matters strongly indicate their roles.

Counsel for Defendant Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.:

Lead Counsel (Firm Representation):

• Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • Office Locations: Dallas, TX; Atlanta, GA (among others globally).
  • Relevant Experience: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP has a respected intellectual property team with extensive experience in patent litigation, representing consumer brand clients in federal district courts throughout the U.S., including the Eastern District of Texas. The firm is frequently recognized for its patent practice. A USPTO document also referenced Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP as "Lead and Back-up Counsel" for Nissan in a related context. [cite: 3 (from previous search)]

Local Counsel (Firm and Key Attorneys):

• Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC)

  • Office Location: Longview, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: This East Texas firm is well-known for high-stakes intellectual property trials and frequently serves as local counsel in complex cases before Texas juries, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

  Key attorneys from this firm with significant patent litigation experience often acting as local counsel include:

  • Johnny Ward

    • Role: Likely Local Counsel (former name partner, now focusing on mediations and select trial consulting).
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC).
    • Office Location: Longview, TX.
    • Experience Note: An accomplished trial lawyer, he has appeared as attorney of record in over 500 patent infringement cases and tried close to 60 cases to a jury verdict, securing major courtroom victories against large technology companies. He was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers.

  • Wesley Hill

    • Role: Likely Local Counsel (former name partner, now offers mediation/ADR consulting).
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC).
    • Office Location: Tyler, TX (for his current practice J. Wesley Hill, P.C.) or Longview, TX (as former partner of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC).
    • Experience Note: An experienced trial lawyer in patent, oil & gas, and business litigation, he has more than a dozen trials to his credit as lead or co-lead counsel, including ten patent cases, and has extensive experience in the Eastern District of Texas.

  • Charles "Chad" Everingham IV

    • Role: Of Counsel (partner at Miller Fair Henry PLLC).
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC).
    • Office Location: Longview, TX.
    • Experience Note: A former U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, he specializes in intellectual property litigation and patent cases, having managed numerous Markman proceedings and trials of complex patent cases involving various technologies, including automotive. He was recognized as the Tyler-Longview area's Lawyer of the Year for patent litigation in 2025.

  • T. John Ward

    • Role: Of Counsel (former U.S. District Judge).
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC).
    • Office Location: Longview, TX.
    • Experience Note: Served as a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas for 12 years, presiding over hundreds of patent cases and having one of the heaviest intellectual property dockets in the country, earning a reputation for a "rocket docket" approach to patent litigation.