Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Research in Motion Limited

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build a solid overview.

Let me dig into the docket, judge, disposition, and IPR linkages.

Let me pin down the judge, disposition, and BlackBerry-side details.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. The plaintiff, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT), is a non-practicing entity and an affiliate/subsidiary of patent-monetization firm Acacia Research Corporation. IDT makes no products; it exists to hold and assert a portfolio of display patents. The complaint describes IDT as a Texas LLC with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas (per the Southeast Texas Record filing report), while contemporaneous press coverage placed IDT's registered address at 1701 Directors Blvd., Austin — an address shared with numerous other Acacia subsidiaries (setexasrecord.com; techdirt.com; Stanford NPE Litigation Database). The patents were acquired, not developed: the chain of title runs from original owner Lumitex (Cleveland) through Solid State Opto Ltd., then to Rambus (reportedly for ~$26M), then to Acacia, and finally to IDT; the Stanford database classifies IDT's assertions as involving "acquired patents," and the litigated patents were transferred from Rambus to Acacia in March 2013 (RPX Insight; iknow.stpi.niar.org.tw case summary). The defendants are Research In Motion Limited (the Canadian parent, renamed BlackBerry Limited in January 2013) and Research In Motion Corporation (its U.S. subsidiary) — an operating company that in mid-2013 was in the midst of its BlackBerry 10 transition. The docket listing reflects both RIM entities as defendants, though the case caption here names only the parent.

Accused technology and patents-in-suit. IDT's June 28, 2013 Marshall Division complaint — one of a five-case wave filed the same day against Acer (2:13‑cv‑00522), HP (‑00524), Huawei (‑00525), RIM (‑00526), and ZTE (‑00527) — accused the defendants of infringing seven patents, all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" and all members of a single family descending from U.S. Patent No. 5,613,751 (filed June 27, 1995, inventor Jeffery R. Parker). IDT sought an injunction plus damages, treble damages, interest, fees, and a jury trial. The asserted patents and their rough technical content are:

• 6,755,547 — light emitting panel assemblies (issued June 29, 2004); dismissed from the parallel Delaware litigation in 2015.
• 7,300,194 — light emitting panel assemblies (issued Nov. 27, 2007); likewise dismissed in Delaware.
• 7,384,177 — panel/optical-conductor assemblies with variable light-extracting deformities (issued June 10, 2008).
• 7,404,660 — an optical conductor with an input edge having greater cross-sectional width than thickness, multiple light sources, and a transition region (issued July 29, 2008).
• 7,434,974 — an LED edge-lit panel with a tray/housing that entirely receives the panel and whose walls act as end/side edge reflectors and provide mounting structure (issued Oct. 14, 2008).
• 7,537,370 — a panel with patterns of light-extracting deformities on both sides (deformities varying and of different types side-to-side) plus an overlying film/sheet to shape output (issued May 26, 2009).
• 8,215,816 — a panel in a tray/housing with edge reflectors and a refractive input edge that redirects light "more in the width direction" (issued July 10, 2012); the flagship patent of this and the Delaware campaign.

Technically these all cover edge-lit LCD backlight architectures — LED light injected into a light-guide/panel etched or molded with light-extracting deformities, held in a tray with reflectors and overlying optical films — i.e., the backlight stack inside essentially every smartphone, tablet, monitor, or TV. I could not verify this specific complaint's accused-instrumentality descriptions directly; the technology characterization is drawn from the patents themselves and from IDT's closely related pleadings (e.g., the 2016 LG Display complaint, which accused edge-lit and 2-D array backlight units in phones, tablets, TVs, and monitors). Notably, the entire family appears to have expired around June 27, 2015, twenty years from the 1995 priority filing; the PTAB expressly found the '816 patent expired June 27, 2015 (IPR2015‑01866, Paper on institution), which caps any recovery at pre-expiration damages.

Procedural posture and significance. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division — then the nation's premier patent-plaintiff venue, prized for speed, experienced patent judges, and local rules that front-load claim construction. I could not verify the specific judge assignment for 2:13‑cv‑00526 from the sources reviewed, but the Marshall Division's roster at that time included Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who later issued the "Second Texas Markman" in IDT v. Hyundai Motor Co., and the division also used Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (the "First Texas Markman" in IDT v. Acer, 2014 WL 4230037 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014)). Those two opinions construed the same disputed terms — "transition region," "predetermined," "pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss," "in close proximity," and "more in the width direction" — that recurred across the campaign, and Judge Richard G. Andrews in Delaware later adopted their analyses (D. Del. 1:13‑cv‑02108, Doc. 112, Nov. 6, 2015).

The case is notable on several fronts. First, it is part of an unusually broad Acacia/IDT assertion campaign: the same seven patents were wielded against handset makers (Apple, Huawei, ZTE), automakers (BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, VW, Nissan, Hyundai/Kia, GM, Mazda), camera makers (Canon, Nikon), and GPS vendors (Garmin, TomTom), with IDT named in roughly 37 suits — making it a leading example of NPE activity migrating beyond electronics into the automotive sector. Second, it is tightly linked to parallel PTAB proceedings: LG Display and LG Electronics filed 19 IPR petitions against the portfolio; the Board denied institution on the '816, '660, and '974 patents (e.g., IPR2014‑01094, Paper 10 (Jan. 13, 2015), and IPR2014‑01095, both rejecting the petitions for inadequate claim-by-claim analysis), while instituting review of the '177 and '973 patents and of '370 claims 15/27 — claims IDT never asserted. Mercedes‑Benz, Toyota, and Sony each filed IPRs and then had them terminated after reaching licenses, and Korean supplier K.J. Pretech filed 2015 petitions that IDT argued were time-barred proxies for LG (IPR2015‑01866) — a textbook illustration of NPE serial-petition and real-party-in-interest disputes. Third, the litigation produced substantive claim-construction risk for IDT: in Delaware, "more in the width direction" ('816) and "relatively low angles" ('196) were held indefinite under Nussbaum/Nautilus, and several other terms were narrowly construed. Finally, the market context matters: the suit landed as RIM/BlackBerry was hemorrhaging handset share, and the campaign's business model depended on converting litigation pressure into licenses (Garmin, Mercedes, Toyota, and Sony all settled). Caveat: I could not verify the final disposition of 2:13‑cv‑00526 itself from the sources reviewed — I found no PACER docket entry, judgment, or settlement document for the RIM case, and it does not appear in the later Delaware-cluster listings. The campaign-wide pattern was dismissal following license or settlement, but I cannot state that as fact for this case specifically, and the judge assignment also remains unverified.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with general searches to establish the baseline, then drilling into specific docket events.

Let me dig into the docket and case-specific details.

Let me look for the specific docket and RPX/CourtListener records.

Important caveat on sourcing

I ran a series of targeted searches (Justia dockets, RPX Insight, SEC/8-K filings, setexasrecord, the RPX case page, and the Acacia litigation record). A few things became clear quickly:

• The general campaign facts are well documented (filing date, patents, parties, counsel, corporate parentage, and the wave of parallel suits).
• The case-specific docket for 2:13-cv-00526 was not retrievable through free sources in my searches. The case shows as "Closed" on third‑party aggregators (RPX; the Azure docket mirror lists it as Status: Closed), but I could not verify the specific closing instrument (stipulated dismissal, settlement order, etc.), the date it closed, or any Markman/JMOL/trial events in this particular docket. PACER's paywall and the age of the case limited what surfaced.
• I could not confirm any PTAB IPR/PGR filings against the seven asserted patents within my search budget. Treat the IPR section below as unverified — it needs a dedicated PTAB search before being relied on.

So this report is strongest on the campaign-level context and the parallel/related proceedings, and explicitly flags where the RIM-specific record is a gap.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

Confirmed:

• 2013-06-28 — Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") filed a seven-patent complaint against Research In Motion Limited and Research In Motion Corporation in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:13-cv-00526. (setexasrecord.com; dockets.justia.com; RPX.)
• The suit was filed as part of a coordinated six-defendant wave on the same day, all in Marshall:
  • Acer Inc. et al. — 2:13-cv-00522
  • Dell Inc. — 2:13-cv-00523
  • Hewlett-Packard Co. — 2:13-cv-00524
  • Huawei Investment & Holding Co. Ltd. et al. — 2:13-cv-00525
  • Research In Motion Limited et al. — 2:13-cv-00526
  • ZTE Corp. et al. — 2:13-cv-00527
• Asserted patents (all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies"): U.S. 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and 8,215,816. The named inventor is Jeffrey Parker.
• Relief sought: injunction, damages, treble damages for willful infringement, interest, costs, and attorney's fees; jury demand. The complaint alleged defendants were put on notice in August 2012 and continued selling, giving rise to willfulness.
• Plaintiff's counsel: Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Justin B. Kimble, T. William Kennedy Jr., and Daniel F. Olejko of Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas); and T. John Ward Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry of Ward & Smith Law Firm (Longview).
• Plaintiff's corporate structure: IDT is a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation (NASDAQ: ACTG), alongside affiliate Delaware Display Group LLC. (Acacia 8-Ks; BusinessWire.)

Not verified: the RIM defendants' answer, counterclaims (declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement would be expected), or any Rule 12 motion in this docket. I found no free-source record of them.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Gap in the RIM-specific record. I could not confirm any motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay in 2:13-cv-00526.

What the parallel IDT litigation tells us about the expected motion practice (well documented, but different dockets — do not attribute to 2:13-cv-00526):

• IDT v. Microsoft, E.D. Tex. No. 2:13-cv-00783 — Microsoft filed a Rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss (or transfer) for failure to join Acacia Research Corp. as an indispensable party, arguing Acacia held the license agreement and IDT was improperly seeking damages for pre‑expiration conduct. IDT amended its complaint on 2013-12-09 to limit damages to periods on/after 2013-10-01 (the day after the Microsoft license expired). Microsoft filed a second motion to dismiss aimed at the amended complaint. In parallel, Microsoft sued Acacia in S.D.N.Y. No. 1:13-cv-08275 for breach of contract and abuse of process; Judge Crotty denied Acacia's Rule 12(b)(6) motion on 2014-04-25. (Justia opinion PDF, No. 2:13-cv-00783, Dkt. 54.)
• The Microsoft/US suits arose because seven ARC subsidiaries filed seven suits on 2013-10-01, the day after the Microsoft license lapsed.

Not verified: whether RIM filed a comparable indispensable-party/transfer motion. Given RIM is a device maker (not a prior licensee), the Microsoft-style license-defense motion likely does not map onto 2:13-cv-00526.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman ruling in 2:13-cv-00526 was found. The case appears to have resolved before the claim-construction stage.

Related claim construction that does exist — in the Delaware IDT/DDG cases consolidated before Judge Richard G. Andrews (Delaware Display Group LLC v. Lenovo, No. 1:13-cv-02108-RGA, and companion Nos. 1:13-cv-02109 and 1:13-cv-02112, filed 2013-12-31):

• 2015-11-06 — Memorandum Opinion construing multiple terms of U.S. 7,434,974, 8,215,816, and 7,914,196. (Delaware D.I. 112.)
• 2016-11-28 — Memorandum Opinion on pending summary-judgment motions and a motion to strike. (Delaware D.I. 351.)
• 2017-01-18 — Memorandum Opinion on a motion to preclude expert testimony of Patrick F. Kennedy, Ph.D. (Delaware D.I. 365.)

These Delaware rulings touch two of the same patents asserted against RIM (the '974 and the '816) and are the most useful proxy for how the IDT "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" claims were construed, but they are not rulings in 2:13-cv-00526.

---

4. Discovery milestones

No RIM-specific discovery events verified. Two campaign-level discovery items are documented in the parallel matter, again in the Delaware track:

• 2016-02-23 — Delaware Memorandum Opinion resolving a motion to compel compliance with subpoenas issued to Rambus, Inc. and Rambus Delaware LLC, plus a motion to amend the complaint (D.I. 222) — indicating IDT's chain-of-title/licensing history was a discovery battleground.
• 2016-05-10 — Order granting in part a joint motion to seal confidential portions of a 2016-03-29 discovery conference transcript (D.I. 264).

Not verified as to 2:13-cv-00526.

---

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None found. There is no indication in any free source that 2:13-cv-00526 reached trial, produced a verdict, or generated JMOL/new-trial/fee motions. Given the aggregator "Closed" status and the campaign's overall pattern, the RIM matter was almost certainly resolved by settlement/license before trial. This is an inference, not a sourced finding.

---

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal — final disposition

Best-supported conclusion: the case is closed (RPX/Azure docket mirrors list Status: Closed), consistent with the broader IDT/Acacia resolution pattern in which nearly every 2013–2015 defendant settled and took a license.

Documented Acacia 8-K settlement disclosures in the same campaign (illustrating the pattern — none of these names RIM/BlackBerry):

Critical gap: I did not locate an SEC 8-K, press release, or court order specifically documenting a BlackBerry / Research In Motion settlement or the dismissal of 2:13-cv-00526. The disposition is therefore unverified. A PACER pull of the final docket entries (or an Acacia 8-K keyword search for "Research In Motion"/"BlackBerry") is the obvious next step to close this gap.

No appeal found.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

Unverified / not found. I did not identify any IPR or PGR petitions against U.S. 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; or 8,215,816 in the searches I completed. Because the 2013–2015 window predates the Alice/§ 101 wave that often drove stays, and because the campaign settled quickly, IPR activity — if any — may postdate these filings. Do not rely on the absence of found IPRs as proof none were filed; a dedicated PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) search by patent number is required.

---

Summary timeline (verified entries marked ✔; campaign context marked ⫸)

---

Recommended next research steps to fill the gaps

1. PACER docket pull for 2:13-cv-00526 — final entries will show the dismissal/settlement instrument and date.
2. SEC EDGAR full-text search of Acacia Research 8-Ks (2013–2016) for "Research In Motion," "BlackBerry," or "2:13-cv-00526."
3. PTAB search by each of the seven patent numbers (patent owner "Innovative Display Technologies" or "Acacia") for IPR/PGR/CBM filings.
4. Federal Circuit docket check for any appeal from the E.D. Tex. or D. Del. IDT matters (the dockets.justia snippet showing BlackBerry Corporation "Defendant-Appellee" and "Asset Recovery Associates Worldwide, Ltd." suggests a separate appeal exists and should not be conflated with this case).

Bottom line: This was one of six cookie-cutter June 2013 NPE suits by an Acacia subsidiary over the Parker "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" family; it appears to have ended in a pre-trial settlement/license and closure, consistent with the rest of the IDT campaign — but the specific RIM disposition, any RIM-specific motions, and any PTAB activity remain unverified and require a PACER/PTAB pull to confirm.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

Found the filing report listing plaintiff's counsel. Let me verify each attorney and check the docket for any changes.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC

Sourcing note: The dedicated Justia/PACER docket page for 2:13‑cv‑00526 did not return in my searches, and I did not retrieve the actual docket sheet. The list below is grounded in (a) the contemporaneous Southeast Texas Record filing report for this specific case (June 28, 2013 Marshall Division filings, which names 2:13‑cv‑00526 expressly), and (b) the Justia docket for the sibling IDT case 2:13‑cv‑00783 (IDT v. Microsoft), which lists the identical seven plaintiff-side attorney names — plus the PTAB filings in the IDT IPRs, where the same Bragalone Conroy attorneys appear for IDT. I flag at the end what remains unverified (substitutions/withdrawals, in-house counsel, sealing).

1. Bragalone Conroy PC — Dallas, Texas (Chase Tower, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500 West) — plaintiff's principal/lead trial counsel

2. Ward & Smith Law Firm — Longview, Texas (111 W. Tyler St.) — local counsel

(Sources: Southeast Texas Record filing report; Justia docket, IDT v. Microsoft, 2:13‑cv‑00783; Kimble bio; Ward & Smith / Henry announcements; PTAB filings in IPR2014‑01357, IPR2015‑00487, IPR2015‑00897, IPR2015‑01868.)

Cross-checks and open items

• Consistency check (no contradiction): The Justia docket for sibling case 2:13‑cv‑00783 lists exactly the same seven plaintiff attorneys — Jeffrey Ray Bragalone, Patrick Joseph Conroy, Claire Abernathy Henry, Thomas William Kennedy Jr., Justin Bryce Kimble, Daniel Fletcher Olejko, and Thomas John Ward Jr. This is strong corroboration for the IDT campaign's standard plaintiff team, but it is not the 2:13‑cv‑00526 docket itself.
• Role caveat: The filing report names all seven without rank. I have assigned "lead" vs. "local counsel" based on the PTAB pro hac vice declarations (Bragalone as IDT's lead district‑court counsel; Kimble as IDT's PTAB lead) and on the well‑established East Texas convention that the Longview firm serves as local counsel. I could not independently confirm which attorney signed the 2:13‑cv‑00526 complaint.
• Unverified / not found: (i) any later notice of substitution, withdrawal, or appearance on the 2:13‑cv‑00526 docket; (ii) whether any party's filings in this case were sealed; (iii) any in‑house counsel for IDT or Acacia Research (the PTAB mandatory notices identify Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as the real parties in interest, but no in‑house attorney is named in the sources reviewed); and (iv) the case's final disposition. I found no docket entry, judgment, or settlement document for 2:13‑cv‑00526.
• Caption discrepancy to flag: PTAB papers refer to this matter as Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. BlackBerry Ltd. et al., No. 2:13‑cv‑00526, whereas the case metadata here names only Research in Motion Limited. Same case number — the naming difference reflects RIM's January 2013 renaming plus the separate RIM U.S. subsidiary that the docket reflects as a co‑defendant.

If you need certainty on the operative docket (e.g., whether Ward & Smith withdrew after a stay or dismissal), the next step would be a paid PACER pull of the 2:13‑cv‑00526 docket sheet, which I could not access here.

I'll research defense counsel for RIM/BlackBerry in this case, since the prior sections only covered plaintiff's counsel.

Let me try different search formulations.

Key finding: the docket shows this case was consolidated into lead case 2:13-cv-00522 (IDT v. Acer), and BlackBerry's filings were made there. Let me verify the BlackBerry defense counsel names.

Defense counsel of record for RIM/BlackBerry in 2:13-cv-00526

Important structural finding that governs this answer: I could not pull a standalone docket sheet for 2:13-cv-00526 (the RIM matter). However, the record shows — and this is sourced — that *on December 18–19, 2013, Judge Gilstrap consolidated 2:13-cv-00526 for all pretrial issues (except venue) into the first-filed lead case, Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Acer Inc., 2:13-cv-00522*, ordering "ALL PARTIES … TO FILE ANY FUTURE FILING (except related to venue) IN THE LEAD CASE, 2:13cv522." (Lead-case docket, E.D. Tex. 2:13-cv-00522, Dkt. 24; per Plainsite; corroborated by the 2014 opinion in Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00522-JRG, which lists "BlackBerry Corporation, BlackBerry Limited" among the consolidated Defendants.)

Consequence: BlackBerry's counsel of record for the RIM suit are the same attorneys who appeared on BlackBerry's behalf in the consolidated lead docket. Their names are recoverable from the lead-case docket entries, where BlackBerry's filings were signed by its counsel (e.g., Dkt. 34, 43, 48 — BlackBerry Limited's notices of compliance/initial disclosures/discovery-order submission, all filed by Monica Hernandez). The party-attorney listing for "BlackBerry Limited f/k/a Research in Motion Limited" in the consolidated docket identifies the following team:

Firm-change caveat (critical to read the firm column correctly)

The docket listing is a blended snapshot: it shows Bingham McCutchen as the firm header for the BlackBerry representation, but several attorneys carry later contact domains (morganlewis.com, carterarnett.com). That pattern is consistent with two well-documented events: (1) Bingham McCutchen LLP dissolved in late 2014, with a large contingent of its IP litigators — including Manning and Polito — joining Morgan Lewis; and (2) Carter Scholer later became Carter Arnett PLLC. So the representation was originally by Bingham McCutchen (lead/national) plus Carter Scholer (Texas local), and the aggregator's contact info reflects where those lawyers sit now. I could not confirm the precise firm-affiliation split as of 2013 beyond the firm header shown on the docket.

Roles — what is and isn't verifiable

• Lead vs. local: The docket's own designations (e.g., "Notice of Designation of Attorney in Charge," Dkt. 156/148 in the lead case) were filed by other defendants, not captured for BlackBerry specifically in my searches. I therefore cannot state with certainty which attorney was formally designated lead counsel under the E.D. Tex. local rules. Based on who actually signed BlackBerry's filings (Hernandez) and the typical structure of these consolidated E.D. Tex. campaigns (national firm as lead + Texas boutique as local counsel), the most defensible characterization is: Bingham McCutchen (Hernandez/Manning/Polito) as national/lead counsel and Carter Scholer (Carter/Bennett/Torkelson) as Texas local counsel. Treat the "lead vs. local" labels as an inference, not a docket-verified fact.
• In-house counsel: I found none named in the available docket data for the BlackBerry defendants. I cannot rule out an in-house appearance, but none is reflected in the sources reviewed.

What I could NOT verify (and why)

1. No standalone PACER pull for 2:13-cv-00526. The case-specific docket and any attorney-appearance entries docketed before the Dec. 2013 consolidation order did not surface in free sources. The names above come from the consolidated lead docket (2:13-cv-00522), which is where BlackBerry's filings were directed and made. There is at least a theoretical possibility a different attorney appeared in 00526 pre-consolidation; I found no evidence of one.
2. Party-name nuance. The case caption supplied to me names only Research In Motion Limited, but the consolidated docket lists both "BlackBerry Limited f/k/a Research In Motion Limited" and "BlackBerry Corporation" as defendants/counterclaimants. IDT's complaint (per Southeast Texas Record) named "Research in Motion Limited et al," consistent with both RIM entities being defendants.
3. I did not obtain a Law360/Reuters/Bloomberg Law attorney-of-record listing or a firm press release confirming the BlackBerry team, because my searches were exhausted. The attorney list rests primarily on the Plainsite docket aggregation of the lead consolidated case, which is a reliable secondary mirror but is not PACER itself.

Recommended verification step

A PACER pull of the 2:13-cv-00522 consolidated docket (attorney/party tab) and of 2:13-cv-00526's early entries would definitively confirm (a) which attorneys noticed appearance for BlackBerry in the RIM case itself, (b) their firm affiliations as of 2013, and (c) the formal "attorney in charge" designation. Until then, the table above should be treated as well-sourced but not PACER-confirmed as to role labels.

Bottom line: RIM/BlackBerry's defense team in 2:13-cv-00526 was almost certainly the same group that litigated for BlackBerry in the consolidated lead case 2:13-cv-00522 — Monica A. Hernandez, Susan Baker Manning, and John A. Polito (Bingham McCutchen, which moved to Morgan Lewis after Bingham's 2014 dissolution) as the national/lead team, with Edgar Leon Carter, Joshua J. Bennett, and John Steven Torkelson of Carter Scholer (now Carter Arnett), Dallas, as Texas local counsel. I flag that the specific 00526 docket was not directly retrievable, so these attributions rest on the consolidated lead docket and should be PACER-confirmed before being cited as counsel "of record" in 00526 itself.