Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Sprint Corporation

This patent infringement lawsuit, Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Sprint Corporation, was filed by Innovative Display Technologies LLC, a known Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), also referred to as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). PAEs typically acquire patents not for product development but for licensing or enforcement against alleged infringers. Sprint Corporation, prior to its merger with T-Mobile in April 2020, was a major American telecommunications company offering wireless and wireline services and products, including mobile network operations. The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194. While the initial prompt indicates the suit concerns "LCD and backlight technologies," details from related litigation involving Innovative Display Technologies LLC suggest the asserted patents, including related ones, generally pertain to "light emitting panel assemblies," as found in devices like smartphones, tablets, laptop computers, and televisions. However, the specific Sprint products, services, or technologies accused of infringement in this particular case are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results.

The case was filed on June 25, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs, particularly NPEs, for its case management practices and faster time to trial. The Eastern District of Texas continues to be a prominent forum for patent litigation, known for its active juries and credible trial timelines, which can influence settlement dynamics and the timing of parallel matters. As of the provided information, the case remains active. The assigned judge for this specific case is not available in the provided search results.

This case is notable within the broader landscape of NPE assertion patterns, particularly those associated with entities linked to prolific inventors like Leigh M. Rothschild, whose affiliates, including Display Technologies, LLC, have been involved in numerous patent litigations. The consistent filing of patent infringement suits by Innovative Display Technologies LLC against various technology companies underscores its strategy as a PAE to monetize its patent portfolio. While specific IPR linkages for the '194 patent in this case were not directly found, related patents asserted by Innovative Display Technologies LLC have been subject to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The ongoing nature of the case in a historically plaintiff-friendly venue like the Eastern District of Texas adds to its significance for companies operating in the telecommunications and display technology sectors.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Sprint Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00721, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on June 25, 2014, by Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT) against Sprint Corporation, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, which relates to LCD and backlight technologies. This case was one of several similar lawsuits filed by IDT around the same time against various defendants.

Here's a chronological overview of key legal developments and the outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: The initial complaint was filed by Innovative Display Technologies LLC on June 25, 2014.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motions to Stay Pending IPR: Sprint Corporation, along with other defendants in related cases, filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The district court litigation likely saw motions to stay the case pending the outcome of these IPRs, a common strategy in patent litigation to avoid unnecessary litigation costs if the patent claims are found unpatentable by the PTAB.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR Filings: Sprint Corporation initiated an IPR proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, specifically IPR2014-01097. Several other IPRs were also filed against this patent and related patents by other parties, including IPR2014-01095 and IPR2015-00366.
• PTAB Decisions: Without direct access to the specific IPR outcome for IPR2014-01097, it is generally understood that PTAB proceedings can significantly influence district court litigation, often leading to stays or settlements depending on the PTAB's decisions regarding patentability.

Current Posture:

• The case is currently listed as "Active." However, information regarding a final disposition, such as a settlement, dismissal, or judgment, is not immediately clear from the provided search snippets. Given the age of the case (filed in 2014), if it were still actively litigated towards a trial, there would likely be more prominent recent developments publicly available. The existence of multiple related cases and IPRs suggests that the case may have been resolved through a confidential settlement, or its progression may have been significantly impacted by the PTAB proceedings or settlements in related cases. Without further docket information, the specific outcome (e.g., jury verdict, summary judgment, or detailed settlement terms) remains unconfirmed.

Counsel of Record for Innovative Display Technologies LLC

In the patent infringement case Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Sprint Corporation, case number 2:14-cv-00721 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys have been identified as representing the plaintiff:

• Justin B. Kimble

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy (previously Bragalone Conroy P.C.)
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX. (Bragalone Conroy P.C. had an office at 2200 Ross Ave. Suite 4500 – West, Dallas, TX 75201)
  • Experience Note: Registered patent attorney with a practice focused on patent infringement litigation and patent licensing, including cases involving liquid-crystal displays. He has served as lead counsel in over 100 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (previously Bragalone Conroy, PC)
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX (901 Main Street Suite 3800, Dallas, TX 75202)
  • Experience Note: Focuses on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on patent and other intellectual property matters and technology-related cases, including semiconductors, liquid crystal displays, and wireless networks. He has represented Innovative Display Technologies, LLC as lead counsel in multiple patent litigation actions involving liquid crystal displays.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Role: Local Counsel (commonly serves in this capacity for out-of-district firms in EDTX patent cases).
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP
  • Office Location: Gladewater, TX (114 E. Commerce Ave., Gladewater, TX 75647)
  • Experience Note: Has a broad federal practice including commercial litigation and intellectual property. Her firm, Capshaw DeRieux, LLP, focuses on Intellectual Property Litigation and is located to provide access to federal courthouses in the Eastern District of Texas.

• S. Calvin Capshaw

  • Role: Local Counsel (commonly serves in this capacity for out-of-district firms in EDTX patent cases).
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP
  • Office Location: Gladewater, TX (114 E. Commerce Ave., Gladewater, TX 75647)
  • Experience Note: His practice primarily involves commercial litigation, patent litigation, and federal court litigation. He has been recognized as a Super Lawyer in Business Litigation Law.

While Kevin L. Burgess of McKool Smith (Marshall, TX) is a highly prominent patent litigator for patentees in the Eastern District of Texas, and his firm has a strong intellectual property litigation practice, no direct evidence from the provided search results explicitly confirms his representation of Innovative Display Technologies LLC in this specific case (2:14-cv-00721).

Similarly, Rebecca J. Pirozzolo-Mellowes was identified in connection with the case number 2:14-cv-00721, but her specific role as counsel for the plaintiff and her firm's complete name in that context were not definitively established from the available information.

No direct evidence was found linking Daniel M. Levis, Steven E. Segal, D. Scot Boyd, or James L. Etheridge as counsel of record for the plaintiff in this specific patent infringement case. Steven Segal's and Daniel H. Levi's listed experience primarily concerns corporate and commercial litigation, not patent litigation, and D. Scot Boyd appears as an inventor in patent records.

Identifying the counsel of record for Sprint Corporation in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Sprint Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00721 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, requires direct access to the court's docket. While a specific list of counsel for this particular case was not directly available through general web searches of PACER or legal news databases, Sprint Corporation is a frequent litigant in patent infringement cases and has historically retained prominent intellectual property law firms.

Based on general information regarding Sprint's patent litigation activities and the expertise of various firms, the following firms and their attorneys have represented Sprint or similar defendants in patent litigation, suggesting they are potential counsel or firms that would be involved in such a case:

• Fish & Richardson P.C.

  • Relevant Experience: Fish & Richardson is a global patent, intellectual property, and commercial litigation law firm with a top-ranked patent litigation practice. They are known for handling high-stakes patent litigation in district courts, the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The firm has handled more district court patent litigation than any other national IP law firm over the past five years.
  • Office Locations: Fish & Richardson has 14 offices in the United States, Germany, and China, including Texas offices in Dallas and Houston.

• Norton Rose Fulbright

  • Relevant Experience: Norton Rose Fulbright has a trial-ready team that manages a broad array of patent litigation cases across district courts and the PTAB, with expertise in technology, life sciences, energy, and consumer market sectors. Richard Zembek, the firm's global head of technology (Houston/Austin), frequently serves as lead counsel on high-stakes technology patent disputes in Texas. Brett Govett (Dallas) is a seasoned trial lawyer who focuses on cases in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Office Locations: Norton Rose Fulbright has multiple U.S. offices, including Dallas, Houston, and Austin, Texas.

• Vinson & Elkins LLP

  • Relevant Experience: Vinson & Elkins' Intellectual Property litigation practice focuses on patent litigation in federal trial courts, the International Trade Commission, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They have a history of success in bench and jury trials, as well as achieving early resolutions through innovative strategies. Hilary Preston and Jeffrey Han are noted for their patent litigation experience, representing clients before federal district courts and the Federal Circuit.
  • Office Locations: Vinson & Elkins is headquartered in Houston, Texas, and has other U.S. offices including Austin and Dallas.

It is important to note that without direct access to the specific docket for 2:14-cv-00721, the exact counsel of record, their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel), and their current affiliations cannot be definitively stated. The information above reflects firms and attorneys with a strong track record of representing defendants like Sprint in similar patent litigation in relevant jurisdictions. No information was found indicating that filings are sealed or that counsel has not appeared.