Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen AG

Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT), a patent assertion entity (PAE) affiliated with prolific inventor Leigh M. Rothschild, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Volkswagen AG, a German multinational automotive manufacturer known for its passenger cars, commercial vehicles, and financial services. The case, numbered 2:14-cv-00300, was filed on April 7, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The primary patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, which generally relates to a light-emitting panel assembly. While the specific accused products in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen AG are not detailed in general public search results, other litigation campaigns by Rothschild-affiliated entities against vehicle manufacturers have targeted infotainment systems, suggesting a similar focus in this case, aligning with the "LCD and backlight technologies" noted in the existing summary.

The Eastern District of Texas is a historically significant venue for patent litigation, often referred to as a "rocket docket" due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and expedited trial schedules, which historically led to a high volume of patent filings. However, the Supreme Court's 2017 TC Heartland decision has since impacted venue choices, making it more challenging for plaintiffs to file in this district by requiring defendants to be sued in their state of residence or where they have a regular and established place of business. The judge assigned to this case is not readily available through public search snippets, and accessing the docket via PACER would be necessary to confirm this detail, as well as the specific accused products and any Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed against the asserted patent. The case remains active as of today's date, May 30, 2026.

The search results confirm the filing date and some initial pleadings. The case was filed on April 7, 2014, and an "ANSWER to 18 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim" was filed by Volkswagen AG. The case has reached the claim construction stage, with a "Claim Construction Memorandum and Order" having been issued. However, the specific date of this order is not explicitly provided, nor are the details of its outcome. There's no specific information on substantive pre-trial motions (like motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR) or their outcomes, beyond a general mention of motions to dismiss in the context of other cases. No details on discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions are available in the provided snippets, which is expected for an active case. I also need to perform a targeted search for PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings for patent 7,300,194, as the previous results only provided general information about P-TACTS and IPRs.

Updated plan:

1. Search for specific dates of initial pleadings (complaint, answer, counterclaims) for case 2:14-cv-00300.
2. Search for any public records or news about motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay in this specific case, along with their dates and outcomes.
3. Pinpoint the exact date of the Claim Construction Memorandum and Order and, if possible, details of the constructions.
4. Perform a direct search within the USPTO P-TACTS system (or public databases that index P-TACTS data) for IPR/PGR proceedings related to patent 7,300,194.
5. Look for any information regarding trial scheduling, settlement, or other final disposition, acknowledging that for an active case, these might be ongoing or not yet public.The case Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen AG (2:14-cv-00300) was filed on April 7, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Volkswagen AG filed an "ANSWER to 18 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim," indicating that initial pleadings progressed beyond the complaint.

A "Claim Construction Memorandum and Order" was issued in the case, signifying that the claim construction (Markman) stage has been reached. However, the exact date of this order and its specific outcomes were not found in the search results.

Regarding pre-trial motions, there is no specific information available about motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR for this particular case in the provided snippets. The general nature of the search results suggests that this kind of detailed docket information is usually found within PACER, which is not directly accessible.

A search for parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings for patent 7,300,194 using the provided search tools (P-TACTS dashboard and Unified Patents Portal) did not yield any specific IPR or PGR cases associated with that patent number. The search results mainly describe how to use these systems and provide general statistics about IPRs/PGRs without listing specific cases for patent 7,300,194.

As of the current date (2026-05-30), the case status is active. No information regarding trial events, verdict, post-trial motions, settlement, dismissal, or judgment for this specific case was found in the provided search results.### Patent Infringement Litigation: Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen AG

Case Name: Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen AG
Case Number: 2:14-cv-00300
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Filed: 2014-04-07
Patents at Issue: 7,300,194
Status: Active

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Innovative Display Technologies LLC against Volkswagen AG, concerns LCD and backlight technologies. The case has seen several key legal developments since its initiation in 2014.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2014-04-07): Innovative Display Technologies LLC filed the initial complaint on April 7, 2014. Subsequently, Volkswagen AG filed an "ANSWER to 18 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim," indicating that the initial pleading stage, including counterclaims, was completed.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: Specific details regarding substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) for this particular case are not available in the public search results.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: The case progressed to the claim construction stage. A "Claim Construction Memorandum and Order" was issued by the court, but the exact date of this order and the specific constructions determined are not publicly detailed in the provided information.

• Discovery Milestones: No specific strategic discovery milestones are available from the public search results.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: As of the current date, the case remains active. There is no public information available regarding any trial events, verdict, or subsequent post-trial motions (such as JMOL or motions for a new trial).

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: The case is currently active, and there is no public record of a settlement, dismissal, final judgment, or appeal having been reached.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to patent 7,300,194 within the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) systems (such as P-TACTS) did not yield any specific active or concluded IPR/PGR cases for this patent.

Counsel of Record for Innovative Display Technologies LLC

The following attorneys have been identified as counsel of record for Innovative Display Technologies LLC in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:14-cv-00300, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (formerly Bragalone Conroy P.C.)
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Jeffrey R. Bragalone is a founder of Bragalone Olejko Saad, P.C., with a practice emphasizing patent and intellectual property litigation. He has extensive experience in patent litigation involving a wide range of technologies, including liquid crystal displays, and has successfully argued appeals before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. He has also served as lead counsel in numerous complex matters, including False Claims Act litigation, and has handled over one hundred Inter Partes Review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Justin B. Kimble

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy (previously a founding partner of Bragalone Conroy, PC)
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Justin B. Kimble is a registered patent attorney whose practice primarily focuses on patent infringement litigation and patent licensing. He has experience in commercial litigation, civil litigation, arbitration, and appeals, and has served as lead counsel for petitioners and patent owners in over 100 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. His experience covers diverse technologies, including liquid-crystal displays and solid-state drives.

Based on the available information, David Sochia of McKool Smith and George C. Best (formerly of Foley & Lardner LLP and now an Administrative Patent Judge) are noted for their significant patent litigation experience, and S. Scott Boyd of Patterson, Boyd & Lowery, P.C. practices in intellectual property. However, their specific roles as counsel of record for the plaintiff in this particular case (2:14-cv-00300) are not explicitly confirmed in the provided search results beyond general mentions of their firms' involvement in patent litigation or related IPRs where Innovative Display Technologies LLC was a party. The search explicitly links Bragalone and Kimble as filing on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC in various related IPRs and cases, including mentions of the patent at issue in this case (7300194) in the context of their firm.

I am unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing Volkswagen AG in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen AG, 2:14-cv-00300 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas through publicly available web searches.

While various legal news articles and firm profiles indicate that law firms such as Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC and Finnegan have represented Volkswagen Group entities in patent litigation in federal courts, including the Eastern District of Texas, these sources refer to other cases involving different patents or Volkswagen subsidiaries (e.g., an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 or a fees dispute involving VDPP LLC in the Southern District of Texas).

A comprehensive and accurate list of counsel of record for a specific case requires access to the official public docket (e.g., via PACER), which is beyond the scope of this web search. Therefore, I cannot provide the names, roles, firms, office locations, or specific patent litigation experience for the attorneys representing Volkswagen AG in this particular case at this time.