LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

I'll research this case and its parallel litigation to build an accurate overview.

Let me research the parallel district court litigation, the parties' identities, and the appeal outcome.

Let me verify the final decision outcome and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Case Overview — LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

A note on the case number. The record supplied here is the PTAB proceeding, IPR2015-01717 (U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660). That is an inter partes review, not a district court infringement suit, so it has no "court, division, or judge" in the Article III sense — it was decided by a Board panel (Administrative Patent Judges Giannetti, Quinn, and Bunting, who wrote the institution/joinder decision). The infringement action this IPR was filed against is Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA (D. Del., filed Dec. 31, 2013), assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews and tried alongside DDG/IDT v. Lenovo, No. 1:13-cv-02108-RGA, and DDG/IDT v. Vizio, No. 1:13-cv-02112-RGA. I treat the Delaware case as the "litigation" for the venue discussion below.

Parties. Petitioner/defendant LG Electronics, Inc. is the Korean consumer-electronics conglomerate (TVs, monitors, smartphones, appliances); the Delaware suit named LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd. (the Korean flat-panel maker), and LG Display America, Inc. Patent Owner/plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") is a Texas-based holding company — an Acacia Research subsidiary — that identifies Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as its real parties-in-interest (IPR2015-01717, Paper 6, Patent Owner Mandatory Notices, Sept. 3, 2015). A co-plaintiff, Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG"), is another Acacia sub. IDT takes no products to market; the asserted portfolio ("Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," invented by Jeffery R. Parker of Lumitex/Global Lighting Technologies) passed Lumitex → Solid State Opto Ltd. (BVI) → Rambus International/Rambus Delaware → Acacia (March 2013) → IDT. Acacia's DDG/IDT campaigns (June 2013 and December 2013 waves) are classic PAE mass-assertion activity; a contemporaneous Techdirt "Know Your Troll" profile counted ~37 IDT cases touching an extremely broad range of LCD users (phones, laptops, tablets, cameras, GPS units, and even auto makers). See RPX, "Innovative Display Expands Campaign with New Acacia Sub Delaware Display as Co-Plaintiff" (Jan. 9, 2014), https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/3720.

Accused technology and patents. The accused products are LCD-equipped devices whose backlights use edge-lit light guides: laptops, tablets, smartphones, TVs and monitors (the D. Del. defendants' accused products were LG-branded devices). The asserted patent family covers backlight assemblies in which light from edge-mounted sources is spread through an optical conductor by a pattern of light-extracting "deformities." The '660 patent (U.S. 7,404,660, "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," issued July 29, 2008, app. 11/454,822, sole inventor Parker, originally assigned to Solid State Opto Ltd.) claims, inter alia, a generally planar optical conductor with an input edge of "greater cross-sectional width than thickness," multiple light sources producing light "having an output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component," a "predetermined pattern of deformities" causing emission, and a "transition region" between the sources and output region. The other family patents asserted in Delaware were 7,384,177; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; 7,300,194; 8,215,816; 6,755,547; and DDG's 7,914,196 — all light-guide/backlight patents from the same Rambus/Acacia chain. In the IPR, LG challenged claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 25–29, 33–35 of the '660 patent.

Posture, venue, and why it mattered. IPR2015-01717 was filed Aug. 13, 2015 — within one month of the Board's July 16, 2015 institution in IPR2015-00487 (LG Display Co., Ltd. v. IDT, filed Dec. 23, 2014) — so LG Electronics could move under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122 to be joined to the older LG Display IPR. The Board instituted and granted joinder on Feb. 5, 2016, limiting the new proceeding to the identical single ground already instituted in the '487 IPR: obviousness of all challenged claims over Oe (U.S. 5,711,589) in view of Etsuo (JP 07-064078) (Institution and Joinder Decision, Paper 24, panels overlapping; oral argument held Mar. 16, 2016, transcript Paper 35). The final written decision entered July 15, 2016 held no challenged claims unpatentable — i.e., IDT survived LG's obviousness challenge on the merits (the metadata and RPX both record "No Claims Unpatentable"; note that some aggregator pages, e.g., Patexia, list the claims as "invalidated," which appears inconsistent and should be verified against the decision text). Petitioners noticed an appeal on Dec. 23, 2016 (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 17-1413, per RPX/Patexia); I could not verify the appeal outcome from the sources retrieved, so I flag that as unresolved here. The case is notable on several axes: (1) it illustrates the serial-IPR/joinder strategy — LG Display carried the substantive burden, and LG Electronics piggybacked within the one-month joinder window on the same prior art and expert declaration, prompting IDT's objection that joinder gave LG an improper "second bite"; (2) it was part of a multi-front NPE campaign that generated at least a dozen IPRs by LG Display, LG Electronics, VIZIO, KJ Pretech, Mercedes-Benz and Ford, many of which were denied institution — a useful data point on the mixed success of PTAB challenges to LCD backlight patents; (3) in the parallel Delaware litigation, IDT's near-term patent expirations (plaintiffs argued most asserted patents expired around June 15, 2015) drove hard-fought stay briefing, and Judge Andrews's Nov. 28, 2016 opinion (D.I. 351) resolved cross-motions by denying summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement, rejecting defendants' standing attack on pre-October 1, 2012 damages, and granting summary judgment for plaintiffs on waiver, estoppel, laches/acquiescence and ownership — leaving damages/infringement for trial. Related EDTX cases (notably IDT v. Acer, No. 2:13-cv-522-JRG) had earlier produced claim-construction rulings on "pattern of deformities" ("a random placement pattern or a variable pattern") that the parties carried into the IPR briefing. Market context: the patents cover foundational edge-lit LED/LCD backlight architecture used in essentially every consumer display of the era, which is why a single small Ohio inventor's family, monetized through Rambus and then Acacia, supported suits against the entire consumer-electronics value chain — and why the industry tracked the PTAB and Delaware outcomes closely.

Sources / caveats: PTAB institution-and-joinder decision, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00487/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7404660/docs/02-05-2016-Board/Order-24-Decision_IPR2015_01717___Institution_of_Inter_Partes_Review_and_Grant_of_Motion_for_Joinder.pdf; IPR2015-01717 docket (IPVerse/Patexia/Docket Alarm); IPR2015-00487 final written decision and Dec. 23, 2016 notice of appeal (RPX Insight); D. Del. docket sheet, No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA; D.I. 41 (Plaintiffs' stay opposition) and D.I. 351 (Nov. 28, 2016 Mem. Op.), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2013cv02108/[53947/351](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=53947-0351)/; RPX news, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/3720. Facts I could not verify with the retrieved sources: the exact reasoning and the specific claim-by-claim disposition of the July 15, 2016 final written decision (beyond "no claims unpatentable"), the Federal Circuit's disposition of Appeal No. 17-1413, and the ultimate settlement/dismissal terms of the Delaware action.

I'll research this case across the PTAB docket and the parallel district court litigation.

Now let me research the parallel district court litigation and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Legal Developments and Outcome — LG Electronics v. Innovative Display Technologies (IPR2015-01717) and the Underlying '660 Litigation

Threshold note on scope. The case metadata you supplied (IPR2015-01717) is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement action. The "patent infringement litigation" on U.S. Patent 7,404,660 ("the '660 patent") is the parallel District of Delaware campaign by Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT) — an Acacia Research subsidiary — against LG and other display/device makers. IPR2015-01717 was filed because of that litigation and was folded into IPR2015-00487 by joinder. So the timeline below covers the district court case as the litigation track and the IPR as the PTAB track, in parallel chronology. I flag facts that I could not confirm at the end.

---

I. Underlying infringement litigation — District of Delaware & E.D. Tex. (2013–2016)

No Markman ruling, trial, verdict, JMOL, or fee motion on the '660 patent in the LG case is documented in the sources retrieved. The only claim-construction outcomes of record are the earlier E.D. Tex. orders in other defendants' cases, which the PTAB record incorporates: the district court construed "pattern of deformities" / "pattern of light extracting deformities" to mean "a random placement pattern or a variable pattern," and the parties agreed in district court to construe "deformities" as "any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of the light to be emitted" (IPR2014-01094 Decision Denying Institution at 4 & n.1, https://casetext-staging-alt.com/admin-law/lg-display-co-ltd-v-innovative-display-technologies-llc-2).

---

II. First-wave PTAB challenges to the '660 patent (2014–2015)

The '660 patent was the subject of an unusual number of petitions. LG's own mandatory notices in IPR2015-01717 list these '660-related proceedings: IPR2014-01094, IPR2015-00363, IPR2015-00487, IPR2015-00495, IPR2015-00745, IPR2015-00855, IPR2015-00897, and IPR2015-01113. (IPR2015-01717 Petition, Mandatory Notices § B.)

• IPR2014-01094 (LG Display, petitioner) — institution DENIED 2015-01-13. Grounds: anticipation by Pristash (§102(b)), Tai (§102(a)), Ciupke (§102(e)), and Tai+Funamoto (§103). The Board denied institution on all grounds, chiefly because the petition incorporated by reference large portions of the Escuti declaration in violation of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3), 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4), and failed to show the "plurality of light sources … having an output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component" limitation. The Board expressly declined to reach IDT's § 315(b) real-party-in-interest/timeliness argument. Paper 10 (Bunting, Giannetti, Powell, APJs).
• IPR2015-00363 — terminated. (Per institution decisions in 00487 and 01717.)
• IPR2015-00495 — not instituted. (Same.)
• IPR2015-00745, -00855, -00897, -01113 — filed against the '660 patent by other parties; outcomes not confirmed in the sources I retrieved.

---

III. IPR2015-00487 — the parent proceeding (the case that actually decided the merits)

Caveat on third-party database accuracy: Patexia's case page (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/LG-Display-Co-Ltd-v-Innovative-Display-Technologies-LLC-id-60515) lists "Claims Invalidated: 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 25–29, 33–35" for IPR2015-00487. That entry is wrong — the Final Written Decision text says the opposite (no claims unpatentable), and RPX records "Final Decision: No Claims Unpatentable." Do not rely on the Patexia "invalidated" field.

---

IV. IPR2015-01717 — this proceeding (LG Electronics' joinder vehicle)

Why this IPR mattered strategically: it brought LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. — the entities answering IDT's Delaware complaint and the ones with direct product exposure — under the umbrella of LG Display's already-instituted IPR, without a separate institution decision. From 2016-02-05 forward, all of LG's '660 validity challenge ran through the single 00487 record and the single FWD.

---

V. Parallel PTAB proceedings on sibling asserted patents

Per the RPX report of 2015-12-29 and the IPR2015-01717 petition, LG's IPR portfolio against the asserted family included:

• IPR2015-00489 — U.S. 7,384,177 ('177 patent) — instituted (drove the Delaware drop of the '177 patent).
• IPR2015-00487 — U.S. 7,404,660 ('660) — instituted; no claims unpatentable.
• IPR2015-00506 — U.S. 7,434,973 ('973) — instituted (drove the Delaware drop of the '973 patent).
• Additional LG petitions on 7,300,194 (IPR2015-00490), 7,434,974 (IPR2015-00497), 8,215,816 (IPR2015-00496), 7,914,196 (IPR2015-00492), and 7,434,973 (IPR2015-01666).
• IPR2015-01866 (U.S. 8,215,816) — record shows IDT relying on the Delaware stay papers (Joint Status Report, Dkt. 81; stay-hearing presentation of 2015-10-19; and the court's Memorandum Opinion, Dkt. 146) as exhibits.

Effect on the litigation: the institution of 00489/00487/00506 is what forced IDT/DDG to drop the '177, '660, and '973 patents from the 2013 Delaware complaints without prejudice, and what produced the 2015-12-30 replacement complaints containing self-executing stay agreements. The '660 patent's PTAB survival, combined with its 2015-06-27 expiration, left IDT with a valid-but-expired patent — a damages-only theory of declining value.

---

VI. Final disposition / present posture

• PTAB (this case): Closed 2016-07-15 — Final Written Decision holding no challenged claim unpatentable; IPR2015-01717 terminated by joinder to IPR2015-00487. The '660 patent's claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 25–29, 33–35 remain un cancelled.
• Federal Circuit: appealed 2016-12-23 as No. 2017-1413. I could not verify the outcome of the appeal in the sources retrieved; the metadata does not record an affirmance/reversal, and no opinion citation surfaced. This should be confirmed directly on the Federal Circuit docket for 2017-1413 before relying on it. (Note that the LG/IDT '660 appeals were among a family of LG appeals from the same Acacia campaign; do not assume a single outcome applies across them.)
• District court (D. Del. 1:13-cv-02109; re-filed 1:15-cv-01221): the '660 claims were dropped from the 2013 case in October 2015; the replacement LG case was filed 2015-12-30 with a plaintiff-agreed stay pending IPR. I found no docket confirmation of a final judgment, dismissal, or settlement of the LG '660 case. There is no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial ruling, and no fee award on the '660 patent in any source retrieved. Given the patent's expiry and the PTAB outcome, the practical posture is that the '660 assertion has no remaining injunctive value and any damages case was contractually/self-stayed.

---

VII. Facts I could not confirm (stated as unsourced, per your instructions)

1. Disposition of Federal Circuit No. 2017-1413 (affirmed? Rule 36? dismissed?). Unverified — no opinion text or docket entry surfaced.
2. Final disposition of D. Del. 1:15-cv-01221 (dismissed, settled, or administratively closed after the IPR). Unverified.
3. Outcomes of the other '660 petitions (IPR2015-00363 termination basis; IPR2015-00495 denial; IPR2015-00745, -00855, -00897, -01113; and the § 315(b) real-party-in-interest timeliness dispute IDT raised in IPR2014-01094, which the Board declined to reach). Unverified.
4. Whether IDT or LG filed any JMOL, fee, or § 285 motion in the Delaware actions. No source found — I did not locate such filings.
5. Counsel on the district court side — LG is represented by Mayer Brown LLP at the PTAB (Robert G. Pluta, Amanda K. Streff, Baldine B. Paul, Anita Y. Lam; Jamie B. Beaber); IDT by Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Justin B. Kimble, Jeffrey R. Bragalone, T. William Kennedy). District court counsel for the Delaware actions is not confirmed here.
6. One record anomaly to reconcile: Patexia's IPR2015-00487 page reports all challenged claims as "invalidated," which directly contradicts the Final Written Decision and RPX. Treat the Patexia field as erroneous.

Key primary sources: IPR2015-00487 Final Written Decision, Paper 36 (2016-07-15), reproduced at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[433800](/patent/433800)/rpx-ptab/IPR2015-00487/IPR2015_00487__660__Petitioners__Notice_of_Appeal_9c5ce07a01b5f4047b8190fe79f7072e.pdf; IPR2014-01094 Decision Denying Institution, Paper 10 (2015-01-13); IPR2015-01717 Petition and docket (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01717/LG_Electronics_Inc._v._Innovative_Display_Technologies/); RPX Insight news items (2014-01-09 and 2015-12-29).

I'll search several angles for press coverage of this matter.

Initial results are mostly patent databases, not press. Let me search more angles.

Bottom line: I could not find any mainstream or legal-trade press coverage of IPR2015-01717 itself. Searches on the caption, the party names, the '660 patent number, and the underlying litigation turned up no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra article about this proceeding. What exists is specialist NPE-analytics reporting and corporate/SEC disclosure. Practice note: PTAB IPRs of this vintage involving Acacia-family NPEs were routinely ignored by the general press, so the absence of coverage is itself the finding rather than a search failure — but I want to be explicit that I am not aware of any article I could not retrieve, and I am not going to fill the gap with generic backlight-patent background.

The closest thing to press coverage comes from RPX Insight, the news arm of the defensive patent aggregator RPX, which tracks patent-assertion campaigns. RPX reported on 2015-12-29 that Acacia subsidiaries Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT) and Delaware Display Group LLC had filed new complaints the next day against Lenovo, LG Electronics, and VIZIO, with the LG case docketed as 1:15-cv-01221 in Delaware, asserting the '177, '660, and '973 patents — the same patents the NPEs had been forced to drop without prejudice from earlier Delaware cases after Judge Richard Andrews conditioned a stay on those patents being dropped, precisely because each was already under an instituted IPR based on LG petitions (RPX Insight). RPX frames the significance of the LG/LGD filings as a window into how NPEs maneuver around PTAB exposure: per RPX, the new complaints expressly agreed to stay the cases pending resolution of the instituted IPRs. Earlier RPX campaign pieces — 2014-01-09 on the launch of the Delaware Display Group suits against Amazon, HTC, Lenovo, LG, Pantech, Sony, and VIZIO (RPX Insight), and 2014-04-10 on the expansion to roughly 30 cases including a Google suit (RPX Insight) — discuss the '660 patent only as one of the asserted "Display Patents," and give an analyst-style history (patents originating with Solid State Opto, moving to Rambus in 2009, then to Acacia in March 2013) that goes beyond anything in the PTAB record.

On outcomes and numbers, the only sourced figures come from a corporate filing rather than journalism. LG Display's Form 20-F annual report discloses that IDT/DDG's Delaware suit, the December 2015 case over the three patents dismissed without prejudice, and a further August 2016 IDT case in the Eastern District of Texas (2:16-cv-00932) were all resolved: the parties "reached settlements in principle through mediation" in March 2017 and filed a stipulation of dismissal in April 2017, amicably settling all claims (LG Display Form 20-F). No dollar amount is stated in that disclosure, and I found no press account of settlement terms for the LG/LGD matters — Acacia's 8-K disclosures announcing settled litigations name AT&T Mobility and VIZIO, not LG (Acacia Research 8-K re AT&T, filed 2015-05-11). Readers should also be aware of a factual discrepancy among the secondary databases rather than the press: the Patexia case summary for IPR2015-01717 lists every challenged claim under "Claims Invalidated" (Patexia), whereas RPX Insight and GreyB's IPVerse both record the 2016-07-15 final written decision as "No Claims Unpatentable" (RPX Insight; IPVerse/GreyB) — consistent with the case metadata here and with the patent surviving the joined IPR2015-00487 challenge. The only Law360 item my searches surfaced involving LG and backlighting patents is a 2014 Federal Circuit affirmance in Industrial Technology Research Institute v. LG (ITC backlighting patent), an unrelated matter, cited here only to flag that it is not coverage of this case (Law360 case page).

Sources

• Ex. 1007 | IPR2015-01717 | LG Electronics Inc v. Innovative Display Technologies | Ex Parte
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• PTO Litigation Center Report - August 14, 2015 - October 08, 2024
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies
• Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC By: Justin B
• Innovative Display competitive analysis - IP Verse
• Petition analysis | IPR2015-01717 | LG Electronics Inc v. Innovative Display Technologies | Ex Parte
• Ex. 1023 | IPR2015-01717 | LG Electronics Inc v. Innovative Display Technologies | Ex Parte
• Case IPR2015-00487
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
• IPR2015-00487, No. 23 Notice - Notice of Cross Examination Deposition of Dr Escuti (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2016) - Exhibits:

I'll research counsel of record. First let me pin down both the PTAB petitioner's counsel and the Delaware plaintiffs' counsel (since the prior sections established the infringement case is D. Del. No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA).

Good — I have the core identities. Let me verify the LG/petitioner side counsel, the local Delaware counsel, and any later substitutions.

Let me pin down the PTAB petitioner-side counsel and individual attorney backgrounds.

Counsel of Record — Who Represented Whom

Framing caveat first. This docket (IPR2015-01717) has no "plaintiff" in the Article III sense: LG Electronics, Inc. is the Petitioner (the party that filed, functionally plaintiff-side) and Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") is the Patent Owner/Respondent. The infringement action underlying it — where DDG and IDT really are the plaintiffs — is Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA (D. Del., Judge Andrews), which the prior section identified as the litigation of record. I therefore give you the plaintiff-side counsel in the Delaware action, and then the counsel of record on both sides of this IPR, since the two overlap heavily.

---

1. Plaintiffs in the infringement action (DDG & IDT), D. Del. No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA

Per the case docket sheet (reproduced as Ex. 2011 in IPR2015-01717), plaintiffs Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies LLC were represented by two firms:

Sources: D. Del. 13-2109 docket sheet (Ex. 2011 to IDT's Preliminary Response), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01717/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7404660/docs/11-21-2015-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2011-Ex_2011___Delaware_Lawsuit___Docket_Sheet___Annotated_to_Highlight_Attorneys.pdf; Plaintiffs' Responsive Brief to Defendants' Motion to Stay (Apr. 22, 2015), https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1460034](/patent/1460034); Feb. 25, 2016 Mem. Op., 13-2108-RGA (counsel caption), https://docshare.tips/delaware-display-group-llc-et-al-v-lenovo-group-ltd-et-al-ca-no-13-2108-rga-d-del-feb-23-2016_58fce7f0ee3435bf34991c02.html.

---

2. Counsel in the PTAB proceeding IPR2015-01717 itself

Patent Owner IDT (the infringement plaintiff; respondent here):

• Justin B. Kimble (Reg. No. 58,591) — Lead counsel; Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas. Designated lead in IDT's Power of Attorney, which covers IPR2015-00487 and its siblings (IPR2015-00489/490/493/495/496/497). Kimble also took/defended the substantive depositions in the joined '487 proceeding.
• Jeffrey R. Bragalone — Back-up counsel, admitted pro hac vice by motion in this IPR (Paper 7, Sept. 9, 2015). The motion states he "currently represents IDT in its assertion of U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 and its related patents in numerous cases resolved in the Eastern District of Texas and pending in the District of Delaware," and that he was lead counsel in those actions.
• Terry A. Saad (Reg. No. 62,492) — listed on the IDT Power of Attorney as an additional registered practitioner for the IPR family (Bragalone Conroy P.C.).
• Nicholas C. Kliewer — Bragalone Conroy P.C.; appeared for IDT at the Sept. 16, 2015 Escuti deposition coordinated across IPR2015-00487/506.

Sources: IDT Motion to Admit Bragalone pro hac vice, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01717/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7404660/docs/09-09-2015-Patent_Owner/Motion-7-Patent_Owners_Motion_to_Admit_Attorney_Jeffrey_R_Bragalone.pdf; IDT Power of Attorney, IPR2015-00487 (Jan. 13, 2015), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00487/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7404660/docs/01-13-2015-Patent_Owner/Power_of_Attorney-3-Power_of_Attorney.pdf; Escuti and Werner deposition transcripts, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00506/.../Exhibit-2007-Escuti_Transcript.pdf and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-00487/.../Exhibit-1026-....pdf.

Petitioner LG Electronics (the filing party in this IPR):

• Robert G. Pluta — Lead counsel; Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago (71 S. Wacker Dr.). Pluta is Mayer Brown's patent-trial partner with 100+ IPRs, and expressly lists Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. [LG] (D. Del. 2013) among his matters, representing LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. At the Sept. 16, 2015 deposition he entered his appearance "on behalf of LG Display and LG Electronics." Profile: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/people/p/pluta-robert-g
• Supporting Mayer Brown attorneys appearing on the LG side across the '660 proceedings: Amanda K. Streff (Chicago), Baldine B. Paul, Ph.D. (Chicago), Anita Y. Lam (Washington, D.C.), Jamie B. Beaber, Alison T. Gelsleichter, Tiffany A. Miller — service in the '487/'660 family ran to rpluta@, bpaul@, astreff@, alam@, jbeaber@mayerbrown.com plus a dedicated DDGIPR@mayerbrown.com mailbox.
• Note: IPR2015-01717 was a copy of LG Display's IPR2015-00487, and the same Mayer Brown team carried both (LG Display's earlier '660 challenge, IPR2014-01094, was likewise Pluta-led). Directory aggregators (IPVerse) list only "Robert Pluta" as petitioner counsel for both IPRs — https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2015-01717.

Defendants' counsel in the Delaware action (for completeness, since the request is plaintiff-focused): Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP (Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Wilmington — local lead) with Mayer Brown LLP (Pluta, Streff, Lam, Paul, Beaber, Kfir B. Levy, Lindinger, Miller) for LG Electronics/LG Electronics USA/LG Display/LG Display America; Steptoe attorneys Mark H. Remus and Taras A. Gracey appeared briefly and terminated May 29, 2014.

---

Caveats and things I could not verify

1. Sealed/withheld information: I found no sealed attorney filings, and no indication that counsel identity was ever sealed in this docket. All names above come from public docket sheets, signature blocks, Power of Attorney, deposition appearances, or court opinions.
2. One indexing oddity: The Joint Notice of Basis for Relief filed Dec. 22, 2015 in IPR2015-01717 is indexed by Docket Alarm as a Petitioner filing but carries the signature block "/s/ Justin B. Kimble (with permission), Registration No. 58,591, Bragalone Conroy P.C." — i.e., patent owner's counsel signing a joint/petitioner-captioned paper. I flag this as likely a joint filing or docket-indexing quirk rather than reading it as a counsel change; I could not retrieve the PDF text to confirm.
3. No in-house LG counsel identified. The petitioner's mandatory notices list corporate real parties-in-interest but not in-house attorneys; I did not find a named LG in-house lawyer, and I won't invent one. The only in-house name I can source on either side is Eric Lucas (Acacia/IDT/DDG), per the Feb. 23, 2016 opinion.
4. "Plaintiff" ambiguity is real. If your downstream use intends the IPR's filing party, that is LG Electronics, and its counsel is Mayer Brown (Robert G. Pluta, lead) — the opposite side from the Bragalone Conroy/Farnan team that represents the infringement plaintiffs. Please don't collapse the two.
5. Firm continuity: Bragalone Conroy P.C. is the firm name throughout the record (d/b/a "BCPC Law," Dallas). I did not verify any later renaming or dissolution, and Patrick Conroy's and others' current affiliations post-2016 are unverified here.
6. Cross-reference flag: The prior section's note that the Board panel was "Giannetti, Quinn, and Bunting, who wrote the institution/joinder decision" is consistent with the RPX/Docket Alarm panels for this IPR (Bunting, Green, Quinn, Giannetti). Nothing on counsel contradicts the earlier sections; no metadata conflict found.

I'll research the counsel of record — both for the IPR petitioner (LG, which is the "defendant" in the underlying infringement action) and for the defendants in the parallel Delaware litigation.

Let me pull the docket sheet and the Morris James filing to pin down the defense-side counsel.

Let me retrieve the Delaware docket sheet details and the Morris James filing naming defense counsel.

Framing note before the list

This proceeding is an IPR, so "defendant" needs unpacking. IPR2015-01717 is captioned LG Electronics, Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC — LG is the Petitioner (the challenger), and the Patent Owner/Respondent is IDT. The Article III "defendant" role belongs to the underlying infringement action, Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA (D. Del., filed Dec. 31, 2013), where the defendants are LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; LG Display Co., Ltd.; and LG Display America, Inc. The same Mayer Brown team ran both the Delaware defense and the PTAB petitions, which is why the counsel lists overlap heavily. I give the LG/defense side first, then the IDT/respondent side, since the docket labels differ by forum.

---

A. Counsel for LG — the defendant/petitioner side

PTAB, IPR2015-01717 (and joined IPR2015-00487)

D. Del. No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA — counsel of record for the LG defendants

No in-house counsel appear of record for LG in either forum — the entries I retrieved are all outside counsel. (Not unusual; in-house attorneys frequently participate without entering an appearance.)

---

B. Counsel for IDT — the Patent Owner / Respondent (i.e., the "plaintiff" side)

Included because in the IPR the Respondent is IDT, so if "defendant" was meant in the PTAB sense, this is the answer:

---

Caveats and one unresolved item

1. Morris James possible conflict. A Morris James LLP–hosted PDF of a Delaware filing in the DDG/IDT matters is captioned "attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Display Co., Ltd., and LG Display America, Inc." That is inconsistent with the court opinions and the docket, which list Ross Aronstam & Moritz (not Morris James) as the LG defendants' Delaware counsel through the Jan. 16, 2017 opinion. Chambers does list LG Electronics as a Morris James client, and the firm's IP page advertises "patent infringement – display technologies," so Morris James may have been engaged for a different LG matter or at a different time. I could not verify a Morris James appearance in No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA, so I am not listing it as counsel of record here. Flagging for verification against PACER.
2. The December 2015 re-filed case. IDT/DDG's follow-on suit against LG Electronics, D. Del. No. 1:15-cv-01221 (filed Dec. 29–30, 2015), was a separate docket; I did not retrieve its appearance list, but it was almost certainly staffed by the same Mayer Brown / Ross Aronstam team.
3. Undeliverable-email notation. The docket flags Amanda K. Streff's email "UNDELIVERABLE 1/14/15," which appears to be an administrative bounce rather than a withdrawal — she was still arguing the case in 2016.
4. No sealed or missing-appearance issue for the LG side: the defendants appeared and were represented throughout. The only "terminated" counsel are the two Steptoe attorneys (Remus, Gracey, 5/29/2014).

Sources: IPR2015-01717 Paper 11 (Joint Notice of Basis for Relief, Dec. 22, 2015); IPR2015-01717 Paper 7 (PHV motion for Bragalone); IPR2015-00487 Paper 35 (Record of Oral Hearing, Mar. 16, 2016); D. Del. Civil Docket, No. 1:13-cv-02109-RGA (reproduced as Ex. 2011 in IPR2015-01717 and in IPR2015-00506 Ex. 2004); Del. Display Grp. LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., No. 13-2108-RGA, Mem. Op. (D. Del. Feb. 23/25, 2016) (attorney block); D. Del. opinions of Nov. 6, 2015 and Jan. 16, 2017 (attorney blocks), ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/13-2108_2.pdf; Mayer Brown firm bio for Robert G. Pluta; IPVerse case pages for IPR2015-01717 and IPR2015-00487.