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

I'll research this case across multiple sources before writing the overview.

Good initial findings. Let me dig into the docket, the IPRs, and IDT's corporate background.

Now let me pull the docket and check the IPR outcomes.

Case Overview

Parties and posture. Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, Texas — a non-practicing patent-licensing entity, not an operating display company. In its PTAB mandatory notices IDT identified Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as real parties-in-interest, placing the suit within Acacia's licensing operation; the asserted portfolio traces to inventor Jeffery R. Parker's light-emitting-panel work (the technology was originally commercialized by Lumitex and later held by Solid State Opto before moving into the Acacia/IDT structure). Defendants are Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Yokohama, Japan) and Nissan North America, Inc. (Franklin, TN; assembly plants in Smyrna, TN and Canton, MS) — the operating automaker and its U.S. sales/manufacturing affiliate. IDT filed on March 10, 2014 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap (case suffix JRG‑RSP, i.e., referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne). The case was consolidated for pretrial purposes with IDT's parallel Hyundai action, No. 2:14‑cv‑201 (lead case); Dkt. 14 (May 30, 2014). It was stayed in mid‑2015 pending a settlement and then dismissed with prejudice on July 24, 2015 on the parties' joint motion, each side bearing its own costs — expressly without prejudice to Nissan's third-party complaint against its supplier, Stanley Electric.

Accused technology and the patent. The case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 6,508,563, titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like" — filed December 5, 2001, issued January 21, 2003, naming Jeffery R. Parker et al., earliest priority January 16, 1996, with continuation U.S. 6,886,956. In one line: it claims edge-lit light-guide panel assemblies — a transparent panel receiving light from LEDs/lights sources at a light input surface and emitting it from a chosen output area — including an elastomeric, impact-absorbing version for automotive lamps and a rigid version with openings for dome switches and backlit control buttons/keypads. IDT itself characterized the '563/'956 "Auto Patents" as generally relating to "exterior auto lights such as taillights and headlights," distinguishing them from the related "Display Patents" ('

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and any available records.

Good initial picture. Let me drill into the docket, the PTAB proceedings, and the claim construction order.

Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., No. 2:14-cv-00202-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived case. It was filed in March 2014 as part of IDT's multi-defendant automotive-lighting campaign, consolidated for pretrial purposes into IDT's Hyundai action (2:14-cv-201), reached claim construction in May 2015, and then settled and was dismissed with prejudice on 2015-07-24 — roughly 16 months after filing, before summary judgment, trial, or appeal. The two parallel PTAB challenges to the '563 and '956 patents (brought by Nissan's suppliers, not Nissan) were terminated before institution as part of the same settlement.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Note on the patent count: The case metadata lists the '563 patent as the patent at issue, but IDT's Second Amended Complaint actually asserted eight patents: the six "Display Patents" ('194, '177, '660, '974, '370, '816) and the two "Auto Patents" ('563 and '956, both titled Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like). The '563 is the logical anchor for the case because it was the subject of the IPR petition tracked to this litigation (IPR2015-00574); it should not be read as the sole asserted patent.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

The record reviewed shows no motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, and no summary judgment motion in the Nissan member case. The case was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Hyundai lead case, so the substantive pretrial motion practice (claim construction briefing, Dkts. 216/221/224 in 2:14-cv-201) was conducted collectively and is attributed to the lead docket.

Stays: Rather than a contested motion to stay pending IPR, the case was stayed by agreement pending finalization of the settlement. IDT's mandatory notices filed in the PTAB proceedings state that the Nissan action was "stayed up to and including July 31, 2015 pending finalization of settlement agreement" and, as to IDT, Nissan, and third-party defendants Stanley, "stayed up to and including August 30, 2015 … pending finalization of settlement agreement." (IDT Mandatory Notices, IPR2015-00574/00575, PTActs, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1459945](/patent/1459945).) The stays were thus a settlement-management device, not an IPR-driven stay under § 318(a).

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• Hearing: 2015-04-29, in the lead case.
• Order: Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Hyundai Motor Co. et al., No. 2:14-cv-201-JRG, Dkt. 244, filed 2015-05-04 (Gilstrap, J.), a 56-page memorandum and order construing both the Display Patents and the Auto Patents ('563 and '956). Full text: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2014cv00201

I'll research the docket and related sources for plaintiff's counsel.

Let me pull the docket details and the complaint signature block.

Let me verify the complaint signature block and check for any additional counsel appearances on the docket.

Bottom line

For this docket (2:14-cv-00202-JRG), plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") was represented by the Houston IP/trial boutique Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. ("AZA"), 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460, Houston, TX 77010, (713) 655-1101. Five AZA lawyers appear in the docket's plaintiff-attorney list. Notably, Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Dallas) — IDT's usual lead firm in its other EDTX campaigns and in most of the parallel IPRs — does not appear on this particular docket; the '563 patent here was instead handled by AZA. There is no indication of a separate Marshall/Longview local-counsel firm for plaintiff on this docket (contrast the parallel IDT v. Volkswagen, No. 2:14-cv-00300, where Ward & Smith of Longview appeared for IDT).

Counsel of record for plaintiff

Procedural context relevant to who was counsel

• Case filed 3/10/2014; AO 120 and amended complaints in March–April 2014 (Dkt. 2, 7, 9); docket activity for plaintiff was driven by Anaipakos and Webb (Dkt. 7, 9, 11, 15).
• Consolidated for pretrial with the IDT lead case (Dkt. 14, Consolidation Order, 5/30/2014, consolidating into No. 2:13-cv-527 — an earlier IDT case against ZTE et al.); the case was later treated under the IDT v. Hyundai, No. 2:14-cv-201 lead case.
• The case was stayed pending settlement finalization (per IDT's July 21, 2015 PTAB notice, describing 2:14-cv-202 as "stayed up to and including July 31, 2015 pending finalization of settlement agreement") and dismissed with prejudice by Judge Gilstrap's Order to Dismiss signed July 24, 2015, each side bearing its own fees/costs (with Nissan's third-party claims against Stanley Electric expressly unaffected).

Caveats / not fabricated

• I did not find any pro hac vice admission or appearance by Bragalone Conroy, Justin Kimble, Jeffrey Bragalone, or Patrick Conroy in this specific case; those attorneys appear in the other IDT matters and in numerous IDT IPRs.
• I could not verify a retained local-counsel firm for plaintiff on this docket; if one existed, it does not appear in the publicly indexed attorney lists I reviewed.
• Firm naming has changed since 2015 (the entity is now commonly styled "AZA Law"/Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, and Anaipakos and Alavi have since been associated with a separate Houston boutique). I am flagging those post-2015 firm changes as not verified in this research; the firm name and address above are the ones stated in the 2014–2015 filings themselves.
• No sealed filings affecting identification of counsel were found; counsel identification rests on public docket entries and PTAB filings.

I'll research defense counsel for Nissan in this matter, starting with the docket and related filings.

The docket shows two defense attorneys — Sean Hsu and Jeffrey Scott Patterson. Let me identify their firms and confirm via the third-party complaint signature block.

Both defense attorneys appear tied to Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP. Let me verify their roles and firm details, and check for any additional defense appearances.

Bottom line

The docket's party/attorney metadata identifies two defense attorneys of record for Nissan in No. 2:14-cv-00202-JRG: Jeffrey Scott Patterson and Sean Hsu, both then of the Dallas office of Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP (the firm is now styled Hartline Barger LLP). Hartline was Nissan's national/regional patent-and-product-liability defense firm in this period; the same two lawyers appear for Nissan across its other Eastern District of Texas patent cases.

Importantly, there was no separate Texas "local counsel" firm for Nissan on this docket — Hartline's Dallas office served that function, and the docket attorney list shows only these two names on the defense side. I did not locate individual Notice-of-Appearance entries by docket number in the public excerpts reviewed, so the identification rests on the docket's attorney/party metadata (UniCourt/Justia) corroborated by Nissan filings in parallel matters and by PTAB certificates of service. I also could not retrieve the signature block of Nissan's Third-Party Complaint (reproduced as Ex. 2002 in IPR2015-00574 / Ex. 2001 in IPR2015-00575), which would be the cleanest direct confirmation of who signed for Nissan.

---

Counsel of record for defendants

---

Notes and caveats

• Role allocation is inferred, not docket-designated. Neither the 2:14-cv-00202 docket nor the consolidation order designates "lead" vs. "of counsel" for Nissan. The partner/of-counsel split above is drawn from (a) Patterson's repeated role as the Nissan relationship partner signing answers, corporate disclosure statements, and dispositive motions in the Collins case before Judge Gilstrap, and (b) Hsu's "Of Counsel" title at Hartline as reflected in his professional profile. Treat this as characterization, not a court record.
• No in-house counsel identified. I found no appearance by Nissan in-house counsel (Nissan North America legal department) on this docket. Nissan's earlier EDTX patent counsel Brett C. Martin (Hartline) withdrew in Collins in April 2012 and does not appear in the 202 file.
• Third-party defendants' counsel are not Nissan's counsel. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. and Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc. were represented by Eric H. Findlay and Walter W. Lackey, Jr. of Findlay Craft, P.C., 102 N. College Ave., Suite 900, Tyler, TX (per Stanley's Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed May 1, 2015 in the consolidated proceedings). Those lawyers appeared against Nissan's indemnity claim and should not be listed as Nissan's counsel.
• No PTAB appearances by Nissan in the '563/'956 IPRs. The IPR challenges to the patents at issue here (IPR2015-00574 on the '563 and IPR2015-00575 on the '956) were filed by Nissan's suppliers Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Stanley Electric Co. Ltd., represented by William H. Mandir and Steven M. Gruskin of Sughrue Mion PLLC (Washington, DC). Nissan itself was not the petitioner, so neither Patterson nor Hsu appears as Nissan counsel in those two proceedings.
• Post-2015 firm changes (flagged as not fully verified). Public professional profiles indicate Hsu is now a member at Cole Schotz P.C. in Dallas (IP and litigation departments; recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer there in 2022), and that a "Jeffrey S. Patterson" practicing IP/product-liability defense for vehicle manufacturers is now at Bowman and Brooke LLP in the Dallas/Plano area. I could not confirm from a primary source the exact dates of those moves, and I note a separate, unrelated "Jeffrey S. Patterson" at K&L Gates (Boston, antitrust/consumer finance) who should not be confused with Nissan's counsel here.
• Source reliability. The attorney identification traces to the UniCourt/Justia docket metadata for No. 2:14-cv-00202 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2014cv00202/150742; https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-innovative-display-technologies-llc-v-nissan-motor-co-ltd-et-al-[841577](/patent/841577)), Plainsite's attorney/case cross-reference for the Hartline firm (https://www.plainsite.org/attorneys/hartline-dacus-barger-dreyer-and-kern-llp/jeff-s-patterson/), and PTAB certificates of service identifying Hsu's Hartline address (e.g., the Oct. 22, 2014 certificate in the Norman IP/Nissan reexam matter). No sealed filings affecting counsel identification were found; the case was dismissed with prejudice on July 24, 2015, so the defense roster above is the complete final roster reflected in the public docket metadata.