LG Display Co., Ltd. et al. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

I'll research this case across PTAB and district court records.

I have strong primary sources. Let me verify the judgment, settlement context, and the parallel district court track.

Key finding: the adverse judgment coincides with an LG Display license. Let me pin down the settlement and parallel track.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. The "case" identified in the metadata — IPR2014‑01357 — is not itself a district court infringement suit but the PTAB review vehicle through which LG Display Co., Ltd. (the world's largest LCD panel maker, headquartered in South Korea) and its U.S. affiliate LG Display America, Inc. (together the real parties‑in‑interest, per Petitioner's Revised Mandatory Notices, Mar. 17, 2015) attacked a patent being asserted against them. The respondent/patent owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"), is a classic non‑practicing entity: an Austin, Texas–domiciled licensing shell with no products, employees, or website, operating as a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation (NASDAQ: ACTG) (RPX Insight, Jan. 9, 2014, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/3720; Acacia 8‑K, June 9, 2015). The asserted patents came from inventor Jeffery R. Parker / Solid State Opto Limited, were transferred to Rambus around 2009, and were then assigned to Acacia in March 2013 — Acacia then launched one of the largest display‑related NPE campaigns of that era through IDT and a newly created co‑plaintiff, Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG") (RPX, Apr. 10, 2014, https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/3810).

The technology and the accused products. The patents‑in‑suit are all titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" and claim a common priority date of June 27, 1995; they cover backlighting for liquid crystal displays — i.e., the edge‑lit and direct‑type backlight/optical‑film stacks that sit behind essentially every LCD screen (Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13‑cv‑522‑JRG (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014)). The asserted products are LCD‑containing end devices — televisions, monitors, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and automotive displays — and the underlying liquid crystal display modules supplied to them. The '547 patent (issued June 29, 2004) is representative: claim 1 recites a backlight assembly with (i) a light‑emitting member, (ii) a separate transparent sheet or film overlying it with an air gap, and (iii) a pattern of deformities on the film that varies across the film to steer light "such that the light will pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss" (Institution Decision, Paper 11, Feb. 26, 2015). The broader campaign asserted a family of related patents — U.S. 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; 8,215,816, plus DDG's 7,914,196 — one‑line sketches of which are essentially variations on the same theme: patterned optical deformities on a film/sheet over a light‑emitting panel, additional patents adding continuous side walls, transition regions, multi‑color LED mixing, and mount structures.

Procedural posture and venue. The infringement track that matters is Delaware Display Group LLC & Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., and LG Display America, Inc., No. 1:13‑cv‑02109 (D. Del., filed Dec. 31, 2013) — the same 2013 wave that named Lenovo (1:13‑cv‑2108), Pantech (‑2110), Sony (‑2111), and VIZIO (‑2112) in the District of Delaware (Petitioner's Revised Mandatory Notices, Ex. 1003). Delaware was the chosen forum for the supplier/display‑maker tier of the campaign, while the device‑maker tier was litigated in the E.D. Tex., Marshall Division before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (lead case IDT v. Acer, 2:13‑cv‑522‑JRG, with the Aug. 26, 2014 Markman ruling in which the court struck IDT's expert declaration). The venue linkage explains the IPR timing: LG faced a § 315(b) one‑year bar running from service in the Delaware action, so it filed on Aug. 21, 2014, challenging '547 claims 1–4, 16, and 26, and also filed companion petitions on related patents, IPR2014‑01359 ('196) and IPR2014‑01362 ('177) (Institution Decision at 3). The Board (APJs Giannetti, Powell, Bunting) instituted on all challenged claims on Feb. 26, 2015; after institution, Patent Owner filed a Request for Adverse Judgment on May 28, 2015, and the Board (APJs Quinn, Giannetti, Bunting) entered Judgment and Final Written Decision on June 10, 2015, cancelling claims 1–4, 16, and 26 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) — a decision that doubled as a § 318(a) final written decision (Papers 21–22).

Why it is notable. Three things make this docket a useful case study. First, it is a clean example of the "adverse judgment as settlement currency" pattern: because the Board cannot simply terminate an instituted IPR, IDT's cancellation of the challenged claims was the mechanism that cleared the '547 patent out of the way — and it landed almost simultaneously with Acacia's Form 8‑K (event date June 2, 2015; filed June 9, 2015) disclosing that IDT and DDG had executed a patent license agreement with LG Display Co., Ltd. That same 2015 window produced Acacia 8‑Ks for Dell/HP (Mar. 2015), Mitsubishi Electric (June 2015), Koito/Stanley (July 2015), Sony (Aug. 2015), and GM/Valeo (Oct. 2015) — a licensing cascade consistent with IPR pressure driving settlements rather than litigated validity outcomes. Second, it illustrates the multi‑front IPR strategy by a large operating company: LG Display's revised notices list roughly two dozen related IPRs in this family, including parallel petitions by other defendants (e.g., Mercedes‑Benz, IPR2015‑00361 on the same '547 patent), meaning a single patent could be under attack from several petitioners at once. Third, the market context is why the campaign drew attention: these patents arguably read on the backlight stack inside virtually every LCD device sold, so an operating company like LG Display — which both builds panels and defends downstream customers — had strong incentives to settle and to secure a license on behalf of the supply chain. Notably, the June 2015 license did not end the dispute: IDT returned in Aug. 2016, suing LG Display and others in E.D. Tex. (2:16‑cv‑00932) on a different pair of family patents (U.S. 7,322,730 and 7,178,965).

Sourcing caveats. The docket items, license disclosure, Board decisions, and claim‑construction citation above are well grounded in the cited primary documents. Two points I could not verify from a primary source and would flag rather than assert: (1) the identity of the district judge assigned to D. Del. No. 1:13‑cv‑02109 and the precise terms/disposition of that action (Acacia's 8‑K describes only "a patent license agreement" with LG Display; it does not state whether the Delaware litigation itself was dismissed by that agreement or later); and (2) whether the parallel Mercedes‑Benz IPR on the '547 patent likewise ended in adverse judgment. Counsel of record in IPR2014‑01357 were Mayer Brown LLP (Robert G. Pluta lead; Amanda K. Streff, Baldine B. Paul, Anita Y. Lam; Jamie B. Beaber pro hac vice) for LG Display and Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Justin B. Kimble; Jeffrey R. Bragalone pro hac vice) for IDT.

I'll research this case. Note an important framing point I'll verify: the metadata describes IPR2014-01357 (a PTAB proceeding), while the user asks about "litigation" milestones like pleadings and Markman — so I'll investigate both the IPR and any parallel district court case on the '547 patent.

Excellent — this reveals the parallel district court track. Let me dig into the D. Del. case (1:13-cv-02109), the E.D. Tex. Markman order, and the IPR's final judgment.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — LG Display v. Innovative Display Technologies

Threshold framing (important)

The case identified in the metadata — IPR2014-01357 — is not a district court infringement action; it is an inter partes review before the PTAB. There is therefore no complaint, answer, counterclaim, Markman ruling, trial, verdict, or JMOL in this proceeding. The "patent infringement litigation" over U.S. 6,755,547 (the "'547 patent") ran on a parallel district court track, which is where the pleadings/Markman events the question asks about actually occurred. I cover both below, chronologically.

Bottom line: the PTAB proceeding killed the asserted claims. On 2015-06-10 the Board entered adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1–4, 16, and 26 of the '547 patent after Patent Owner gave up rather than defend. IDT had already dropped the '547 patent from the companion district court case on 2015-04-28.

---

A. The underlying infringement campaign (context)

• June 2013: Acacia Research subsidiary Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") launched a backlight/LCD campaign in E.D. Tex. asserting seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents — including the '547 — against Acer, Huawei, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Dell, HP, and others. The patents had been acquired from Rambus in March 2013. (RPX Insight, 2014-01-09)
• 2013-12-31: IDT and co-plaintiff Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG," a newer Acacia sub) filed seven D. Del. suits asserting the same seven patents plus DDG-owned U.S. 7,914,196 — the '547-relevant one being Delaware Display Group LLC & IDT v. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., and LG Display America, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA (D. Del.) (Judge Richard G. Andrews). Accused LG product: Optimus E970 smartphone. (D. Del. docket 1:13-cv-02109-RGA; RPX)
• E.D. Tex. consolidated lead case: IDT v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-522-JRG (Judge Rodney Gilstrap), consolidated with related suits 2:13-cv-523/524/525/526/527/783/784.

---

B. Chronology

1) Filing & "pleadings" stage

Counsel: Petitioner — Mayer Brown LLP (Robert G. Pluta, Amanda K. Streff, Baldine B. Paul, Anita Y. Lam; Jamie B. Beaber later admitted pro hac vice). Patent Owner — Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Justin B. Kimble, Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, et al.). In D. Del., IDT/DDG were represented by Farnan LLP; the LG defendants by Seitz Ross Aronstam & Moritz.

2) Dispositive/pre-trial motions of substance

• Petition grounds (five): (1) anticipation by Ohe; (2) anticipation by Nishio; (3) obviousness over Pristash; (4) obviousness over Kobayashi + Ohe; (5) obviousness over Pristash + Matsumoto.
• Privity / §315(b) time-bar fight (IPR): Patent Owner sought additional discovery on a real-party-in-interest/privity theory — arguing LG Display controlled (and shared counsel with) the Dell/HP litigation and therefore was barred under §315(b). The Board held a teleconference on 2014-12-02 and denied leave by Order of 2014-12-05. (Teleconference transcript, Ex. 2001; Faegre Drinker case note dated 2014-12-17)
• District court stay motion: On 2015-04-03 the defendants in the D. Del. cases (LGD, Sony, and others) jointly moved to stay pending IPR of all asserted patents. (Joint Status Report on IPR Petitions, citing Dkt. 45)

3) Institution decision

• 2015-02-26 — Institution Decision (Paper 11). The Board instituted on all challenged claims but only on two grounds:

  • A. Anticipation of claims 1, 2, 4 by Ohe; and
  • B. Obviousness of claims 1–3, 16, 26 over Pristash.

  The Board denied institution on the Nishio, Kobayashi+Ohe, and Pristash+Matsumoto grounds, and on claim 4 over Pristash. Panel: Giannetti, Powell, Bunting. Same date: pro hac vice orders (Beaber, Bragalone) and Scheduling Order. As the Board itself noted, institution does not resolve claim construction or patentability.

• 2015-03-31 — Order on conduct of the proceeding (37 C.F.R. §42.5).

4) Claim construction (Markman) — district court

• 2014-07-30: Markman hearing in the E.D. Tex. consolidated action (Judge Gilstrap).
• 2014-08-26 — Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, Dkt. 101, 2:13-cv-522-JRG, construing the '547 patent and six siblings ("Light Emitting Panel Assemblies"). Terms construed included "pattern of deformities," "quite small in relation to," "well defined optical elements or deformities," and "pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss." Notably, the court struck IDT's expert declaration (Declaration of Kenneth I. Werner) by Order of 2014-07-11 (Dkt. 85) and therefore construed the terms without it — a setback for the patentee. (Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-cv-522-JRG, 2014 WL 4215531 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2014))
• No Markman ruling issued in the D. Del. 1:13-cv-02109 case before the '547 patent was dismissed (see infra).

5) Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• 2015-05-01: Patent Owner's Notice of Deposition of Dr. Michael J. Escuti (Petitioner's expert) — the case was moving into expert discovery when Patent Owner instead abandoned the claims.
• D. Del.: On 2015-05-12 the court issued an oral order requiring a Joint Status Report on IPR Petitions; the parties filed a detailed chart tracking the IPR status of each asserted patent. IDT's own filings reflect the strategic pressure: of 46 IPR requests across the family, 25 were terminated by license/settlement, 8 denied institution, and only a handful were instituted on claims actually in suit.
• 2014-12-05 / 2014-12-17: The denial of Patent Owner's additional-discovery request closed off its privity/time-bar defense — clearing the path for the merits.

6) Outcome in the IPR: adverse judgment (no trial on the merits)

• 2015-05-28 — Patent Owner's Request for Adverse Judgment under 37 C.F.R. §42.73(b)(2), seeking cancellation of every instituted claim. Petitioner filed no opposition.

• 2015-06-10 — Judgment and Final Written Decision (Paper 22), 35 U.S.C. §318(a). The Board granted the request and held:

  • Adverse judgment entered against Patent Owner;
  • The decision constitutes a final written decision under §318(a); and
  • Claims 1–4, 16, and 26 of the '547 patent are CANCELLED.

  Panel: Quinn, Giannetti, Bunting. (Case status in PTAB records: terminated 2015-06-10.) Because cancellation or adverse judgment is a final written decision, it is appealable to the Federal Circuit under §319 — but no appeal was taken.

7) Effect on the district court litigation

• 2015-04-28: IDT dismissed the '547 patent (and the '194 patent) from the D. Del. litigation — i.e., the patentee dropped the patents that were under instituted IPR before the Board ruled. (Joint Status Report on IPR Petitions, IPR status chart.)
• Net effect: the IPR removed the '547 from the case entirely, and the 2015-06-10 cancellation extinguished the right to assert the challenged claims anywhere (with statutory estoppel under §315(e) running against LG Display as petitioner).
• The broader campaign wound down through settlements and voluntary dismissals; e.g., the parallel D. Del. case against GM/Ford, IDT v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:14-cv-00850-RGA, was voluntarily dismissed 2015-10-23 (Judge Andrews). Caveat: I could not confirm from available sources a single, dated final disposition order for 1:13-cv-02109-RGA itself; the record shows the '547 and '194 patents were dropped and that IDT later *re-asserted against LG Display in a new E.D. Tex. suit, IDT v. LG Display Co., Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-00932 (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap), filed 2016-08-24 and closed 2017-04-13* — suggesting the earlier D. Del. case did not proceed to judgment on the merits.

8) Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '547 patent

• IPR2015-00361 (Mercedes-Benz USA / Mercedes-Benz U.S. International v. IDT) — a second IPR on the '547 patent, filed in early 2015. It was among the family of petitions that were terminated by license/settlement (consistent with the Mercedes-Benz terminations reflected in the D. Del. joint status report). The claims were already cancelled by the time this matter resolved.
• The Revised Mandatory Notices (2015-03-17) list the '547 as asserted in D. Del. 1:13-cv-02108 through -02112 and in IDT v. Ford, 1:14-cv-00849, and IDT v. GM, 1:14-cv-00850, and identify a large family of "related IPRs" (IPR2014-01092/-01094/-01095/-01096/-01097 and IPR2015-00359/-00360/-00361/-00363/-00366/-00368/-00487/-00489/-00490/-00492/-00493/-00495/-00496/-00497). Most of these concerned sibling patents (e.g., IPR2014-01359 on the '196 and IPR2014-01362 on the '177, filed the same day as the '547 petition), not the '547 itself.

---

C. Net outcome / significance

• Winner: LG Display (petitioner). Loser: Innovative Display Technologies, which surrendered the asserted claims of the '547 patent rather than litigate to a final written decision.
• Doctrinal takeaway: A §42.73(b)(2) adverse-judgment request that cancels all instituted claims produces a final written decision under §318(a) — a cancellation effective for all purposes, not merely a settlement.
• Litigation linkage: The IPR functioned as designed — it drove the '547 (and '194) patents out of the Delaware case (2015-04-28) and mooted the infringement claims, while the district court's Markman ruling (2014-08-26) and striking of IDT's expert had already weakened the patentee's position.

---

Sourcing caveats

Docket-event dates for the IPR are drawn from the PTAB docket (Petition Paper 1, 2014-08-21; Preliminary Response Nov. 2014; Institution Decision Paper 11, 2015-02-26; Request for Adverse Judgment 2015-05-28; Judgment & Final Written Decision Paper 22, 2015-06-10). District court dates come from the E.D. Tex. Markman Order (Dkt. 101, 2014-08-26), the D. Del. Joint Status Report on IPR Petitions, and the D. Del. dockets. I did not locate a verified docket entry giving the precise final disposition of 1:13-cv-02109-RGA; that fact should be confirmed against PACER before being relied upon.

Press coverage of LG Display v. Innovative Display Technologies, IPR2014-01357

I was unable to find any Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, JD Supra, or mainstream news article that reports specifically on IPR2014-01357, the '547 patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547), or its June 10, 2015 adverse judgment. Searches on the case caption, the party names, the patent number, and the outcome returned only primary-source and database material — PTAB papers and exhibits (Petition, Institution Decision of Feb. 26, 2015, Patent Owner's Request for Adverse Judgment of May 28, 2015, Judgment and Final Written Decision of June 10, 2015), docket aggregators such as Docket Alarm and RPX Insight, analytics sites such as GreyB's ipverse, and LG Display's own SEC Form 20-F risk disclosures (SEC EDGAR 20-F). None of these is independent press reporting, and none frames the IPR as a news event.

The closest thing to published commentary is a law-firm analysis note carried by the National Law Review, in which Drinker Biddle attorneys summarized the Board's December 5, 2014 Order on Conduct of the Proceedings denying Patent Owner leave to seek additional discovery: National Law Review (published Dec. 17, 2014) reported that IDT sought discovery into LG Display's relationship with Dell and HP — specifically whether LG Display, as an LCD supplier that indemnified those OEMs, was effectively controlling earlier Eastern District of Texas infringement suits filed more than a year before the petition, which would implicate the § 315(b) time bar. Per that piece, the Board held that because discovery does not begin until trial is instituted and the Preliminary Response was already filed, it would not authorize the motion, while noting IDT could renew the request if trial were instituted. That analysis piece is the only article I found that discusses IPR2014-01357 by case number; it does not address the eventual adverse judgment.

Coverage of the underlying campaign exists, but it is about Innovative Display Technologies generally rather than this IPR. Techdirt reported on 2014-08-12 that IDT — an Acacia entity operating out of an Austin address shared with dozens of other Acacia subsidiaries — was asserting patents acquired from Rambus against makers of any product with an LCD screen, including Apple, Verizon, AT&T, and auto, camera, and GPS companies; Techdirt stated IDT's second Apple suit sought "nearly $6 billion in 'accrued royalties'" and counted roughly 34 IDT cases in litigation. A law-firm-hosted reprint of a San Diego press report, Mandour & Associates, described an IDT suit against Dell, HP, BlackBerry, Acer, Huawei, and ZTE asserting seven "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" patents — listing 6,755,547 among them — and seeking treble damages, interest, fees, and an injunction on a willful-infringement theory. Law360 maintained a case page for IDT's separate 2014 suits against Volkswagen and Audi, with articles dated April 7, 2014 (the complaint, over the same seven light-emitting-panel patents) and June 3, 2014 (Volkswagen's motion to dismiss, arguing the claims swept in "essentially every Volkswagen and Audi" vehicle sold in the U.S.), but neither article concerns the LG Display IPR.

Where accounts go beyond the court record, it is in these campaign-level pieces: Techdirt's characterization of IDT as a "troll" and its $6 billion figure come from IDT's own Apple pleadings and Techdirt's reporting, not from any ruling in IPR2014-01357; Acacia spokesman Marvin Key's defense of the licensing model (quoted by Techdirt) is an executive statement, not a finding. Conversely, the decisive facts about this IPR — that IDT requested adverse judgment on May 28, 2015 and that claims 1–4, 16, and 26 were cancelled by the June 10, 2015 Judgment and Final Written Decision, and that LG Display's related Delaware and Texas disputes with IDT were settled in April 2017 per LG Display's Form 20-F — appear only in USPTO documents and SEC filings, with no press article found reporting them. The gap between the volume of IDT's enforcement campaign and the near-total absence of press attention to this particular IPR is itself notable: on the record I could locate, no outlet covered the outcome of IPR2014-01357.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Case IPR2014- 01357 Patent No
• LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC: Denying Leave to File a Motion for Additional Discovery IPR2014-013...
• INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC's EXHIBIT 2001
• IPR2014-01357, No. 13 Order - Decision Pro Hac Vice Motion (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2015) - Trials@uspto
• Intellectual Property - January 04, 2026
• LG Display 20F 2014 Annual report | LPL Filing - See “Item 18. Financial Statements” and pages F-1 through F-94.
• LG Display - 20-F annual report - LG Display America in the U
• Technology Company Accuses Dell, HP of Patent Infringement
• LG Display Co., Ltd.v.Innovative Display Technologies LLC - LG Display Co
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

I'll research counsel on both sides of this matter — the petitioner/"plaintiff" side in the IPR and the parallel district court track.

Strong primary sources on the petitioner side. Now let me verify counsel bios and identify opposing/parallel-track counsel.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Side, IPR2014‑01357

Threshold caption issue (flagging a metadata/terminology mismatch). The metadata lists the "plaintiff(s)" as LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. In this proceeding those entities are the Petitioners — the Board's caption is LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC and every paper styles LG Display as "Petitioner" and IDT as "Patent Owner." There is no "plaintiff" in an IPR; LG Display is the plaintiff‑side party in the sense of being the party that initiated the proceeding. The actual infringement plaintiffs in the underlying case (Delaware Display Group LLC & IDT v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 1:13‑cv‑02109, D. Del.) are IDT and DDG, not LG Display. I therefore give you counsel on both sides of the caption: (A) counsel for the plaintiff‑side petitioner LG Display, and (B) counsel for the patent‑owner/asserting side (which is the plaintiff in the parallel infringement suit).

---

A. Counsel for the Petitioner / "Plaintiff" (LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.)

All petitioner‑side counsel of record are at Mayer Brown LLP. The appointment runs through a Power of Attorney naming "Practitioner(s) at Mayer Brown LLP associated with Customer Number 26565," filed with the petition on Aug. 21, 2014, and an Updated Power of Attorney (Mar. 17, 2015). The definitive list appears in Petitioner's Revised Mandatory Notices, Mar. 17, 2015 (Paper filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8) and the Board's Order — Decision on Motions, 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (Paper 13, Feb. 26, 2015).

Two practical notes from the record:

• Service was directed to a dedicated campaign mailbox, DDGIPR@mayerbrown.com, alongside the individual attorney addresses — a marker of the multi‑front LG/DDG IPR program.
• The same Mayer Brown team (Pluta, Streff, Beaber, Lam, Paul) also appeared for Dell and HP in the related E.D. Tex. consolidated action (IDT v. Acer, 2:13‑cv‑522), which IDT used as the basis for its § 315(b) privity challenge in its Preliminary Response (Nov. 28, 2014). Beaber filed notices as "Attorney in Charge" for Dell and HP (D.I. 148, 156). Whether that overlaps with this engagement is a fact issue IDT raised; the Board did not rule on the § 315(b) bar before institution on Feb. 26, 2015.

---

B. Counsel for the Patent Owner / Plaintiff in the Underlying Infringement Action (IDT / DDG)

These are the attorneys who would be "counsel for the plaintiff" in the district court infringement case that gave rise to the IPR.

Local Delaware counsel for the plaintiffs in DDG/IDT v. LG Electronics, No. 1:13‑cv‑02109 (D. Del.) — not verified. I did not locate a grounded source naming the plaintiffs' Delaware local counsel (or the assigned judge) for that docket within this research pass; treat any firm name here as unconfirmed. This is the same gap flagged in the earlier case‑background section.

For completeness, the defense side of that Delaware case (LG Display and the LG Electronics entities) was led by Jamie B. Beaber of Mayer Brown, per his own pro hac vice declaration (Ex. 1022 / Paper 8), which states he was "lead counsel for the defendants, which include Petitioner, in a co‑pending litigation, Delaware Display Group LLC and IDT v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:13‑cv‑02109."

---

Sourcing and caveats

• Primary: PTAB papers in IPR2014‑01357 — Power of Attorney (Aug. 21, 2014); Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Nov. 28, 2014); Petitioner's Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jamie B. Beaber (Paper 8, Dec. 3, 2014); Teleconference Transcript (Ex. 2009, Dec. 2, 2014); Order on Motions, 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (Paper 13, Feb. 26, 2015); Petitioner's Revised Mandatory Notices (Mar. 17, 2015); Patent Owner's Request for Adverse Judgment (Paper 21, May 28, 2015).
• Firm/bar sources: Mayer Brown attorney bios (Pluta, Streff Bonner, Beaber), Martindale, Super Lawyers, Lawdragon/VitalLaw (Beaber's 2014 lateral move from Steptoe & Johnson to Mayer Brown with an 11‑lawyer team).
• Discrepancy flagged: the institution decision is cited as Paper 10 in IDT's adverse‑judgment request but as Paper 11 in the earlier case‑summary section of this file. I could not resolve which paper number is correct from a primary docket listing; the date (Feb. 26, 2015) is consistent across sources.
• Not verified: Baldine B. Paul's and Anita Y. Lam's individual bios; the LG Display POA signatory; plaintiffs' Delaware local counsel; the assigned D. Del. judge. No counsel names have been invented here.
• Registration numbers and office addresses above are taken verbatim from Petitioner's Revised Mandatory Notices (Mar. 17, 2015); note that Amanda K. Streff has since changed her surname to Bonner and both she and Pluta now use updated emails (asbonner@mayerbrown.com).

I'll research counsel of record for the respondent/patent owner (the "defendant" per the case metadata) and the related district court track.

Now let me get the initial (pre-institution) patent owner counsel designations and the parallel Delaware litigation counsel for the LG Display defendants.

Let me verify the initial IDT counsel designation (Sept. 2014), the in-house signatory, and background on the individual IDT attorneys.

Counsel of Record — Defendant(s)

A threshold clarification: the case metadata designates Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") as the Defendant, and in the PTAB proceeding IDT is the Patent Owner / Respondent (LG Display is the Petitioner). So the direct answer to "defendant's counsel" is IDT's PTAB team. Because the phrase "patent infringement case" most naturally points at the underlying district court suit — where the LG Display entities were the defendants — I've also set out that counsel roster below. Both are drawn from primary filings.

---

A. Defendant / Patent Owner counsel in IPR2014‑01357 — Innovative Display Technologies LLC

All from the same firm: Bragalone Conroy P.C., Chase Tower, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500‑West, Dallas, TX 75201. Designations are as stated in Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper, Mar. 2, 2015) and the matching Updated Power of Attorney (both signed Mar. 2, 2015).

In‑house / authorized signatory: IDT's powers of attorney in this patent family were signed by Marvin E. Key, identified as the individual "with authority to execute this document on behalf of Patent Owner, IDT" (see, e.g., the IDT power of attorney filed in IPR2015‑00487, Jan. 13, 2015). The title field was not captured in the copy I retrieved; given IDT's RPI disclosure of Acacia Research Group LLC / Acacia Research Corporation (IDT's Mandatory Notices, § 42.8(b)(1)), he is presumably an Acacia legal officer — I have not verified his exact title, so I flag it rather than assert it.

Sources: Patent Owner Mandatory Notices / Updated PA — IPR2014‑01357; Board Order, Decision on Pro Hac Vice Motion (Feb. 26, 2015); Dec. 2, 2014 teleconference transcript (Ex. 2009) (appearances: Kimble, Bragalone, Kennedy).

Note on the Sept. 10, 2014 filings: the docket lists a "Power of Attorney" and "Related Matters" paper filed Sept. 10, 2014 on behalf of "potential patent owner" — i.e., IDT's pre‑institution appearance. The copy of that early paper was not retrievable in full during my search, so the initial Sept. 2014 counsel designation is unverified; by the Nov. 28, 2014 preliminary response the Bragalone Conroy team above was counsel of record.

---

B. Defendants' counsel in the underlying infringement action — Delaware Display Group LLC & IDT v. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd. & LG Display America, Inc., No. 1:13‑cv‑02109‑RGA (D. Del., filed Dec. 31, 2013) (Judge Richard G. Andrews)

This is the case in which the LG Display entities were the defendants, and it is the § 315(b) trigger for the IPR. From the annotated Delaware docket sheet (Docket Item 2011, filed as an exhibit in IPR2015‑01717):

Lead / local counsel — Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, 100 S. West Street, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE:

• Benjamin J. Schladweiler — lead attorney of record for LG Electronics USA, LG Display Co., and LG Display America.

Pro hac vice counsel — Mayer Brown LLP (the same firm that represented LG Display as Petitioner in the IPR):

• Jamie B. Beaber (Washington, DC) — lead counsel for the defendants in the Delaware action per his own pro hac vice declaration; also PHV back‑up in the IPR.
• Robert G. Pluta (Chicago) — IPR lead counsel.
• Michael L. Lindinger, Tiffany A. Miller, Anita Y. Lam, Baldine B. Paul, Alison T. Gelsleichter, Kfir B. Levy, Amanda K. Streff (note: Streff's email was flagged "UNDELIVERABLE 1/14/15" on the docket).

Former counsel (terminated): Steptoe & Johnson LLP — Mark H. Remus and Taras A. Gracey, pro hac vice, both TERMINATED 05/29/2014 (i.e., LG Display switched from Steptoe to Mayer Brown in the spring of 2014).

Plaintiff-side (IDT/DDG) counsel in Delaware, for completeness: local Farnan LLP — Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. (lead) and Brian E. Farnan (Wilmington, DE); pro hac vice Bragalone Conroy P.C. — Justin B. Kimble, Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Daniel F. Olejko, James R. Perkins, and T. William Kennedy, Jr.

---

C. Petitioner-side counsel in the IPR (for completeness — LG Display as "Plaintiff")

Per Petitioner's Revised Mandatory Notices (Paper, Mar. 17, 2015): Mayer Brown LLP — Robert G. Pluta (lead, Reg. No. 50,970) and Amanda K. Streff (back‑up, Reg. No. 65,224), both 71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago; with Jamie B. Beaber, Baldine B. Paul (Reg. No. 54,369), and Anita Y. Lam (Reg. No. 67,394), 1999 K St. NW, Washington, DC. Beaber was admitted pro hac vice by the Board (Order, Feb. 26, 2015), following his Dec. 3, 2014 motion, in which he described extensive ITC and district court patent litigation experience and his role as Delaware lead counsel.

---

Sourcing caveats

• Role/firm/registration data above is well grounded in the Board orders, the parties' mandatory notices and powers of attorney, and the annotated Delaware docket sheet.
• I could not complete verification of individual attorney biographies (Bragalone Conroy firm pages for Saad, Kliewer, Kennedy, and Conroy; Acacia's identification of Marvin E. Key) — my search hit its step limit. Treat the "past cases/experience" notes as sourced only where a specific filing is cited (notably Beaber's own PHV declaration); I have deliberately not supplied case histories or firm marketing descriptions I could not confirm.
• Exact title of Marvin E. Key and the initial Sept. 10, 2014 IDT counsel designation are the two gaps in this section — both flagged above rather than filled by inference.
• The Delaware docket attributes counsel per defendant group; I did not independently confirm that every listed Mayer Brown attorney entered an appearance for each of the four LG entities.