Litigation

Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

institution denied

IPR2015-00574

Filed
2015-01-15
Terminated
2015-07-28

Patents at issue (1)

6508563

Summary

Koito Manufacturing and Stanley Electric petitioned for inter partes review against IDT's '563 Patent. Institution was denied on Jul. 28, 2015; Google Patents labels the proceeding as settlement.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Good foundation. Let me dig into the institution decision, the parallel district court cases, and the parties' corporate identities.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. This proceeding is not a district-court infringement suit but an inter partes review at the PTAB, and the party alignment tells you why it was filed. The petitioners are Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., both Tokyo-based Tier‑1 automotive lighting suppliers — Koito is the parent of North American Lighting, Inc. (Paris, Illinois), and Stanley Electric's U.S. affiliates include Stanley Electric U.S. Co. (London, Ohio), II Stanley Co. (Battle Creek, Michigan), Stanley Electric Sales of America, Inc., and Stanley Electric Holding of America, Inc. Neither company is an automaker; they manufacture the headlamp and taillamp assemblies that go into other companies' vehicles. The patent owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT), is a patent-holding entity and an Acacia Research Corporation subsidiary — Acacia's own Form 8‑K describes "Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC, subsidiaries of Acacia Research Corporation," and a Korean IPO litigation study counts roughly 38 terminated IDT suits, about 76% of which ended in settlement. IDT's portfolio traces to inventor Jeffery R. Parker and his company Solid State Opto Limited, an edge-lit backlight/light-guide portfolio assembled in the 1990s and early 2000s. So the real-world posture is classic PAE-versus-supply-chain: IDT sued the automakers, the automakers tendered indemnity to their lamp suppliers, and Koito and Stanley responded by attacking the patents at the PTAB rather than from the defendant's chair.

The patent and the accused technology. IPR2015‑00574 challenges U.S. Patent No. 6,508,563, "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like" (App. No. 10/005,090, filed Dec. 5, 2001; issued Jan. 21, 2003; inventors Parker, Mark D. Miller, and Thomas A. Hough; earliest priority Jan. 16, 1996; Tech Center 2800). In one line: it claims an edge-lit light-emitting panel (a light guide with a light input surface/edge, light sources mounted in a "light transition area" adjacent that edge, and light emitted from a panel side), including embodiments using a resiliently deformable elastomeric panel that absorbs impact without breaking, rigid panels with dome switches, and stacked panels for instrument-panel lighting. The accused technology was automotive exterior lighting — the E.D. Tex. pleading against Mercedes‑Benz, for example, targets "vehicles … having lights (including but not limited to the tail light)" that practice the claims. The IPR challenged claims 1, 2, 5, 7–9, 11, 18, 22, and 23, with a parallel petition (IPR2015‑00575) challenging the companion U.S. Patent No. 6,886,956, which is a continuation of the '563 with a "nearly identical" written description. Petitioners' invalidity case leaned on a small, mostly non-U.S. prior-art set — Johnson (U.S. 4,947,293), Hitzelberger (FR 1,474,359), Decker (DE 41 29 094 A1), Pristash (U.S. 5,005,108), and Japanese utility models JP S59‑43234U, JP H1‑92004U, and JP S62‑167304U — supported by a declaration from physicist Edward F. Carome (John Carroll University).

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. The petition was filed January 15, 2015; the Board's notice according a filing date issued February 6, 2015; IDT's preliminary response came May 6, 2015, arguing primarily that petitioners failed to name Stanley Electric Sales of America, Inc. as a real party-in-interest (Nissan's third-party complaint against Stanley SA for indemnity on the '563 was the centerpiece), with subsidiary non-obviousness arguments on claims 22–23. The panel was APJs Lora M. Green, Thomas L. Giannetti, Miriam L. Quinn, and Michelle N. Wormmeester, with Quinn authoring. On July 23, 2015 the Board authorized a joint motion to terminate (Paper 9), noting the parties wanted to file only "when the related district court litigation has been dismissed"; the joint motion and confidential-settlement request were filed July 27 (Papers 10–11); and on July 28, 2015 the Board entered a Judgment of Termination under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (Paper 12), granting the motions, treating the settlement agreement as business confidential under § 42.74(c), and expressly stating: "The Board has not determined whether trial will be instituted." One correction worth flagging: the "institution denied" label in the case metadata and in commercial databases (GreyB/IP Verse, and the July 28, 2015 "institution decision date") is really the termination judgment date — this case settled out in the preliminary stage rather than being denied on the merits, which is consistent with Google Patents' "settlement" tag. The underlying litigation was E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, where IDT filed a wave of suits in early 2014 against BMW, Toyota (2:14‑cv‑200), Nissan (2:14‑cv‑202), American Honda (2:14‑cv‑222), Mercedes‑Benz (2:14‑cv‑535), and Hyundai (2:14‑cv‑201, the consolidated lead case, consolidated Aug. 5, 2014), plus parallel D. Del. actions against GM (14‑850‑RGA) and the DDG/IDT display suits against LG, Sony, Vizio, Lenovo, and Pantech (1:13‑cv‑02108 to ‑02112). The settlement's footprint is visible in Delaware: on July 22, 2015 IDT and GM stipulated to dismiss the '956 claims with prejudice as to products provided by Koito or Stanley only, reciting that those components "have become subject to a license."

Why it's notable. Three things. First, it illustrates the supplier-as-indemnitor IPR strategy: the Tier‑1 lamp makers, not their OEM customers, funded the PTAB attack, and the resulting license was carved out at the component level — a template that became common in automotive patent disputes. Second, it shows parallel-petition stacking on a single patent: the '563 was simultaneously under review in IPR2015‑00574 (Koito/Stanley), IPR2015‑00895 (Toyota), and IPR2015‑00933 (BMW), letting multiple defendants litigate invalidity in parallel while the E.D. Tex. cases proceeded to a May 4, 2015 claim construction order (Dkt. 244 in 2:14‑cv‑201) before Judge Gilstrap. Third, the real-party-in-interest fight — whether an unnamed U.S. sales subsidiary of a Japanese petitioner had to be disclosed — is an early, clean example of the § 315(b) / RPI disputes that later became decisive in cases like Click-to-Call. Market context: IDT asserted a combined package of eight patents (six "Display Patents" claiming priority to June 27, 1995, plus the two "Auto Patents"),

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Koito Mfg. Co. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC — Litigation & PTAB Chronology

Threshold clarification on the caption

The case number in the metadata (IPR2015‑00574) is the PTAB proceeding on U.S. Patent No. 6,508,563. The "patent infringement litigation" proper was a nationwide automotive campaign by IDT in the Eastern District of Texas (and a tag‑along Delaware case against GM), in which Koito and Stanley were not plaintiffs or original defendants but component suppliers dragged in as third‑party defendants by the OEMs. So the honest chronology runs on two tracks that converged in July 2015.

One correction to the metadata worth flagging up front: although PTAB trackers (IP Verse/Greyb, Google Patents) label IPR2015‑00574 as "institution denied," the record shows no institution decision on the merits. The proceeding was terminated before institution on a § 317 joint motion after settlement — the companion petition's motion states expressly that "This inter partes review has not been instituted," and Petitioners later sought a refund of the $14,000 post‑institution fee. The "institution denied" tag appears to be a database convention for pre‑institution termination.

I. Filing and initial pleadings (2014)

IDT's automotive assertion campaign asserted two "Auto Patents" — the '563 patent and '956 patent (the '956 is a continuation of the '563) — alongside six "Display Patents" ('194, '177, '660, '974, '370, '816) against OEMs:

Date Case Notes
2014‑02‑28 IDT v. BMW of North America, et al., No. 2:14‑cv‑106‑JRG (E.D. Tex.) '563 asserted
2014‑03‑10 IDT v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., No. 2:14‑cv‑200‑JRG '563 asserted
2014‑03‑10 IDT v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:14‑cv‑202‑JRG '563 asserted
2014‑03‑13 IDT v. American Honda Motor Co., et al., No. 2:14‑cv‑222‑JRG '563 asserted
2014‑04‑24 IDT v. Mercedes‑Benz U.S. Int'l, et al., No. 2:14‑cv‑535‑JRG '563 asserted

These are the five '563 suits IDT itself listed in its Feb. 5, 2015 mandatory notices in IPR2015‑00574 (Paper 4). IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group, et al., No. 2:14‑cv‑201‑JRG, became the consolidated lead case; the court consolidated pretrial issues into it on 2014‑10‑14 (2:14‑cv‑200, Dkt. 21) after an earlier consolidation into first‑filed 2:13‑cv‑527.

The supplier pleadings. Nissan filed a third‑party complaint against Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. and Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc. (along with Continental Automotive Systems and Panasonic Automotive), pleading that "if held liable to IDT, Nissan is entitled to indemnification from the Third‑Party Defendants through Nissan's Master Purchase Agreements." Koito and Stanley were thereby put at risk derivatively, through the OEMs' indemnity claims, on the same accused headlamp/taillamp light‑guide components. Parallel OEM indemnity/third‑party practice appears across the consolidated cases (the '563 IPR record uses Nissan's TPC and Stanley's corporate disclosure statements as Exhibits 2002–2005).

Caveat: I did not verify the exact filing dates of the third‑party complaints, the OEM answers, or the counterclaim counts; those are docket‑level details I could not source precisely within this research pass. What is verified is that the suppliers' exposure ran through the OEMs' indemnity pleadings, and that Koito/Stanley's own § 315(b) clock (triggered by service of a complaint) appears to have driven the January 2015 petition timing.

II. The parallel PTAB petitions (2015)

Date Event Source
2015‑01‑09 / 01‑13 Powers of attorney executed by Katsuhisa Saito (Koito) and Fumio Kubo (Stanley) IPR2015‑00574, Ex. 1019
2015‑01‑15 Koito + Stanley file IPR2015‑00574 ('563) and IPR2015‑00575 ('956) PTAB dockets
2015‑02‑05 IDT mandatory notices (§ 42.8) listing the five pending E.D. Tex. '563 suits IPR2015‑00574, Paper 4
2015‑04‑29 Markman hearing, IDT v. Hyundai, 2:14‑cv‑201 Dkt. 244 at 1
2015‑05‑04 Claim construction order (Dkt. 244), construing both Auto Patents and the Display Patents 2:14‑cv‑201‑JRG, Dkt. 244
2015‑05‑06 IDT files preliminary responses and exhibit lists in both IPRs; Ex. 2001 in both is the Hyundai claim construction order Papers 7–8
2015‑07‑23 Board authorizes filing of motions to terminate (IPR2015‑00575, Paper 9) cited in joint motion
2015‑07‑27 Joint motions to terminate both IPRs under 35 U.S.C. § 317 / 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, with settlement agreements filed as confidential business information (Ex. 1010) Papers 10–11
2015‑07‑28 Board terminates IPR2015‑00574 and IPR2015‑00575 PTAB dockets
2015‑

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search for press coverage from multiple angles.

Let me search press-specific angles.

Let me try additional angles including Japanese trade press and IP blogs.

Press and analyst coverage

Short answer: there is no meaningful press coverage of this proceeding. Searches across the obvious outlets and angles — the caption ("Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC"), the parties, the '563 and '956 patent numbers, PTAB/Law360-style IPR reporting, IPWatchdog/Patently-O commentary, and Japanese-language trade queries for Koito (小糸製作所) and Stanley Electric (スタンレー電気) — returned no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, JD Supra or automotive-trade article discussing IPR2015-00574, IPR2015-00575, or the July 2015 termination. The only substantive hits were the PTO/PTAB filings themselves, the Docket Alarm and GreyB/IPVerse database entries, and court records. That null result is itself consistent with the proceeding's profile: it never reached an institution decision, no merits ruling issued, and it terminated roughly six weeks after the patent owner's preliminary response, so there was no institutional or merits "event" for the trade press to report. The only "coverage" one finds is algorithmic database labeling — and note that the GreyB/IPVerse entry in the existing summary reports "Status: Institution Denied" with an "Institution Decision Date" of July 28, 2015, which as flagged in the earlier sections conflates the § 42.72 termination judgment with a merits denial; no press outlet repeated that error because no outlet wrote about the case at all.

The one public disclosure that functioned as news came from the patent owner's parent, not from journalists. Acacia Research Corporation disclosed the license in an SEC Form 8-K, Item 8.01, dated July 7, 2015 (filed July 13, 2015): "Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC, subsidiaries of Acacia Research Corporation, entered into a patent license agreement with Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd and Stanley Electric Co., Ltd." (Acacia Research 8-K; also mirrored at GetFilings). That filing is the sole contemporaneous, on-the-record public statement about the deal, and it contains no financial terms, no royalty rate, and no characterization of the IPRs — consistent with the settlement agreement being lodged with the Board as business-confidential information under § 317(b) (Ex. 1020). The 8-K disclosure pattern is corroborated by Acacia's parallel releases for the same IDT/DDG campaign, e.g. its August 13, 2015 announcement of a settlement and patent license with Sony Corporation resolving the Delaware display litigation (BusinessWire) — which likewise omitted any dollar figure.

Where accounts "go beyond the record": they don't — that is the notable finding. I found no analyst note, no investor commentary on the Koito/Stanley license's effect on ACTG, no executive quotation beyond the boilerplate 8-K text, and no industry-reaction piece on the supplier-as-indemnitor IPR strategy. So there is no divergence between press accounts and the court/PTAB record to reconcile here, and no reported damages figure, verdict, or settlement amount to compare. Readers of the earlier sections should treat the "settlement" characterization as resting on Acacia's 8-K plus the July 27–28, 2015 PTAB papers, not on journalism. Caveat on sourcing: this absence finding reflects searches of the open web through today's date and my inability to query paywalled Law360/Bloomberg Law archives directly; a Law360 docket-alert-style item from 2015 (their routine PTAB termination notices) could exist behind a paywall without surfacing in open search. I did not find and therefore do not cite any such item, and I have not attributed any claim to an outlet that I did not actually retrieve.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this. Note a threshold point I'll verify: IPR2015-00574 is a PTAB proceeding (no "plaintiffs" — the petitioner side is Koito/Stanley, which the metadata labels as Plaintiff(s)), so I'll identify counsel for the petitioner side and flag that framing.

Petitioner-side counsel is confirmed. Now let me pull the full docket and check the parallel district-court case (where IDT was actually the plaintiff) plus attorney backgrounds.

Threshold clarification on "plaintiff"

IPR2015-00574 is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action, so there is no "plaintiff" in the Rule 7.1/FRCP sense. Applying the metadata's party mapping (Koito and Stanley = "Plaintiff(s)"), the counsel of record on that side are the petitioners' counsel. Below I give that roster, then — because the question says "plaintiff(s) in this patent infringement case" — I also identify counsel for Innovative Display Technologies LLC, which was the actual plaintiff in the parallel E.D. Tex. infringement suits that triggered these petitions.

1. Petitioner counsel of record ("plaintiff-side" per metadata)

All three were at Sughrue Mion, PLLC, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20037 (the firm has since relocated to 2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006). Customer No. 23,373.

Attorney Role Reg. No. Notes
William H. Mandir Lead counsel 32,156 Partner and Management Committee member; head of Sughrue's litigation practice. 20+ years of patent infringement/trade-secret litigation, 50+ cases in the Federal Circuit, district courts and ITC; adjunct professor on ITC patent enforcement at UNH Franklin Pierce. Lead counsel in the Widex hearing-aid jury trial (D. Del.). B.S. EE, Univ. of Maryland; J.D. UNH (’87).
Steven M. Gruskin Back-up counsel 36,818 Sughrue Mion registered practitioner in the Washington, DC office; named back-up on both the ’563 and companion ’956 petitions. I found no independently published biography for him — treat his case history beyond this matter as unsourced.
John M. Bird Counsel who signed the July 2015 termination papers (not listed on the original power of attorney) 46,027 Appears as a signatory on the Joint Motion to Terminate and the Joint Request to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information (both July 27, 2015). Also a Sughrue Mion practitioner; he later served as back-up counsel to Mandir in other Sughrue IPRs (e.g., a January 2016 petition).

In-house signatories on the powers of attorney (not counsel of record, but the corporate representatives who executed the POAs on Jan. 9/13, 2015):

  • Katsuhisa Saito — General Manager, Intellectual Property Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
  • Fumio Kubo — General Manager, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

Sources: Petitioners' Power of Attorney, Ex. 1019 (Feb. 6, 2015), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00574/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6508563/docs/02-06-2015-Petitioner/Exhibit-1019-2-Petitioners_Exhibit_1019_labeled___Petitioners_Power_of_Attorney.pdf ; Joint Request to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information, Paper 11 (July 27, 2015), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00574/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6508563/docs/07-27-2015-Petitioner/Motion-11-Joint_Request_to_File_Settlement_Agreement_as_Business_Confidential.pdf ; UNH Law profile of Mandir, https://law.unh.edu/person/william-h-mandir-jd-87 ; Super Lawyers profile, https://profiles.superlawyers.com/washington-dc/washington/lawyer/william-h-mandir/530650cd-63c8-4d7a-9994-bc81c5d598f4.html

2. Patent Owner / defendant-side counsel (IDT — the actual plaintiff in the district court cases)

Because the "patent infringement case" the question likely has in mind is IDT's E.D. Tex. campaign, here is IDT's PTAB team, which was the same group prosecuting the district-court suits:

Attorney Role Firm
George W. Webb III (Reg. No. 60,737) Lead counsel for Patent Owner Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, P.C. (AZA), 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460, Houston, TX 77010
David E. Warden Counsel for Patent Owner (signed the Preliminary Response and exhibit lists) Same firm (AZA), Houston

The Board's July 23, 2015 Order listed "George Webb (Lead Counsel)" for IDT; Warden is the attorney named "Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC" on the May 6, 2015 Preliminary Response and exhibit list. AZA is a Houston trial boutique; Webb and Warden were IDT's regular PTAB/docket counsel across the ’563/’956 reviews.

Sources: Patent Owner's Preliminary Response, Paper 7 (May 6, 2015), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00574/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6508563/docs/05-06-2015-Patent_Owner/Preliminary_Response-7-Patent_Owner_Preliminary_Response.pdf ; Order Conduct of the Proceedings, Paper 9 (July 23, 2015), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00574/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6508563/docs/07-23-2015-Board/Notice-9-Order_Conduct_of_the_Proceedings.pdf

3. Docket entries anchoring the appearances

Paper Date Document Counsel shown
1 Jan. 15, 2015 Petition (’563) Mandir / Gruskin (Sughrue)
4 Feb. 5, 2015 PO Mandatory Notices IDT / AZA
7 May 6, 2015 PO Preliminary Response Warden (AZA)
8 May 6, 2015 PO Exhibit List Warden (AZA)
9 July 23, 2015 Order, Conduct of Proceedings Mandir (lead), Gruskin (back-up); Webb (lead for PO)
10–11 July 27, 2015 Joint Motion to Terminate; Joint Request re confidential settlement Mandir, Gruskin, John M. Bird; Webb
12 July 28, 2015 Judgment — Termination of Proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.72) Mandir, Gruskin; Webb
13 Aug. 6, 2015 Request for Refund ($14,000 post-institution fee) Sughrue

Termination judgment: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00574/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6508563/docs/07-28-2015-Board/Termination___Settlement-12-Judgment___Termination_of_Proceeding.pdf

4. Caveats and corrections to the case summary

  • "Institution denied" is imprecise. The Board never reached a § 314(a) institution decision. On July 27, 2015 the parties filed a joint motion to terminate pursuant to a settlement agreement and lodged the agreement as confidential (Ex. 1020); the Board terminated both IPR2015-00574 and IPR2015-00575 on July 28, 2015 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) / 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, expressly noting the proceedings were "in the preliminary stage" and that institution had not been determined. Google Patents' "settlement" label is the accurate characterization; the "institution denied" tag in the metadata and in third-party databases (GreyB/IPVerse, Docket Alarm) reflects a pre-institution termination, not a merits denial.
  • The companion petition on U.S. Patent No. 6,886,956 is IPR2015-00575, filed the same day by the same counsel. The ’563 patent (6,508,563, "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies for Use in Automotive Applications and the Like") was asserted by IDT against BMW, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai in E.D. Tex. (e.g., Nos. 2:14-cv-106, -200, -201, -202, -222, -535, all before Judge Gilstrap).
  • Unverified/not sourced: Gruskin's and Bird's full professional bios and prior case lists; Webb's and Warden's individual case rosters beyond the IDT matters. I did not find a sealed-counsel or pro hac vice issue in this PTAB docket — the appearances above are from the public Papers. No "local counsel" exists in a PTAB proceeding, so that category is inapplicable here; in the parallel E.D. Tex. suits IDT's local counsel would be the Marshall/Tyler firms of record, which I did not verify in this search.
  • Minor record inconsistency: IDT's May 6, 2015 certificates of service list Mandir's Reg. No. as "39,156," while every power of attorney and Board order shows 32,156 — the former appears to be a typographical error.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and counsel records for this IPR.

Good initial hits. Now let me pull the full docket and confirm the Patent Owner's counsel designations.

Now let me get the complete docket list for IPR2015-00574 to see all Patent Owner filings and any pro hac vice motions.

Role clarification before the names

IPR2015‑00574 is a PTAB proceeding, not a district‑court infringement suit, so the party labels are inverted relative to the metadata. The "defendant‑side" party here — the Patent Owner / respondent — is Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"). Koito and Stanley were the petitioners. Below is the counsel of record for IDT in IPR2015‑00574, followed by the petitioners' counsel for contrast, since the two sets are easy to confuse.

IDT (Patent Owner / respondent) — counsel of record

Attorney Role Firm & office Reg. No. Note
George W. Webb III Lead counsel (per the Board's Paper 9 counsel listing; signed as "Attorney for Patent Owner" on the termination papers) Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing, P.C. ("AZA Law"), One Houston Center, 1221 McKinney St., Suite 3460, Houston, TX 77010 60,737 Registered patent attorney; B.S./M.E.E. Rice, J.D. Tulane (1997); patent litigation and ITC practice. Was IDT's lead IPR/IP litigation lawyer across the '563/'956 family (e.g., IPR2015‑01067, ‑00933) and its E.D. Tex. assertion campaign (e.g., IDT v. Volkswagen, No. 2:14‑cv‑300).
David E. Warden Lead counsel of record by Power of Attorney (Paper 3, Feb. 5, 2015); signed the Patent Owner's Exhibit List (Paper 8, May 6, 2015) AZA Law, Houston, TX (same address) 35,733 Registered practitioner who served as IDT's designated PTAB lead in this and the companion Koito/Stanley IPR2015‑00575; routine IDT PTAB filer in 2014–2016.

Notes on the record:

  • IDT's Power of Attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), filed Feb. 5, 2015 (Paper 3), appointed David E. Warden as Lead Counsel at AZA's Houston office. (PTAB filing via Docket Alarm)
  • The Board's Order – Conduct of the Proceedings, Paper 9 (July 23, 2015), captioned in both IPR2015‑00574 and ‑00575, lists "George Webb (Lead Counsel), Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C." for the Patent Owner. (Paper 9)
  • George W. Webb III signed the Joint Request to File Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information (Paper 11, July 27, 2015) and the concurrent joint motion to terminate, expressly as "Attorney for Patent Owner Innovative Display Technologies LLC." (Paper 11)

Unconfirmed / flagged: AZA partners Amir Alavi and Brian Simmons were IDT's designated back‑up counsel (pro hac vice pending) in the parallel IDT IPRs — e.g., IPR2015‑01540 mandatory notices and IPR2015‑01067/‑00933. I did not locate a Paper in this docket (‑00574) naming them, so I cannot confirm they entered an appearance here. Treat them as probable team members, not verified counsel of record for ‑00574.

No in-house counsel and no "local counsel" appear in the PTAB filings; PTAB practice has no local‑counsel requirement, and IDT is an NPE without disclosed in‑house litigation counsel. The only sealed/confidential item is the settlement agreement (Ex. 1020), filed business‑confidential under § 317(b); it does not affect counsel identification, and the caption/termination papers are public. (The Google Patents "settlement" tag referenced in the existing summary matches this July 2015 joint termination track.)

Petitioners' counsel (for contrast — these are the plaintiff‑side analog)

  • William H. Mandir (Reg. No. 32,156) — Lead Counsel
  • Steven M. Gruskin (Reg. No. 36,818) — Back‑up Counsel
  • John M. Bird (Reg. No. 46,027) — appeared on the July 27, 2015 termination papers

All at Sughrue Mion, PLLC, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20037 — a D.C. IP boutique; see Petitioners' Power of Attorney (Ex. 1019, dated Jan. 9, 2015) filed in this proceeding. (Petitioners' POA)

Sourcing caveats

  • PTAB proceedings are not on PACER; the record lives in USPTO PTAB E2E (and PTAB's public-information pages). I verified the above against USPTO-hosted PTAB documents and the Docket Alarm mirror of the ‑00574 docket; I did not independently pull the E2E docket sheet in this session.
  • The government shutdown/appropriations-driven E2E outages of recent years have not affected these 2015 archival papers.
  • Nothing was invented: Warden, Webb, Mandir, Gruskin and Bird are each named in filed papers with registration numbers; the Alavi/Simmons point is expressly marked unverified for this docket.
  • For completeness, the underlying E.D. Tex. infringement case in which the '563 patent was asserted (IDT v. Hyundai Motor Co. et al., No. 2:14‑cv‑201, where Stanley entities appeared as third‑party defendants) is a different caption with a different defense lineup; if you actually need that case's defendant‑side counsel, say so and I'll pull that docket separately.