Mercedes-Benz USA LLC v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

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

Good — I've found the key PTAB records. Now let me verify IDT's corporate identity, the patent's provenance, the parallel district court case, and the accused products.

Now let me pin down the district court docket, the accused products, and the settlement specifics.

Case Overview

Parties. This proceeding is an inter partes review, not a district court action, so the roles are Petitioner/Patent Owner rather than plaintiff/defendant (the case metadata's "plaintiff/defendant" labels are a convention artifact). The petitioner is Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Montvale, NJ), the U.S. distribution arm of Daimler AG; the termination judgment in the consolidated Mercedes IPRs captions the petitioners as Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (Vance, AL), and at least one related filing in the same family also names Daimler North America Corporation and Daimler AG, so the real-party-in-interest set varies slightly across the twelve parallel proceedings. The patent owner is Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"), an Austin, Texas patent-holding LLC and subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation; IDT and its sister Acacia entity Delaware Display Group LLC ("DDG") identified Acacia Research Group LLC and Acacia Research Corporation as their real parties-in-interest in related PTAB filings. IDT is a classic "acquired patents" NPE — it makes nothing, and the asserted family traces Lumitex, Inc. (Cleveland) → Solid State Opto Limited (inventor Jeffery R. Parker) → Rambus International/Rambus Inc./Rambus Delaware → Acacia Research Group (March 2013) → IDT (see RPX, "Innovative Display Expands Campaign with New Acacia Sub Delaware Display as Co-Plaintiff," Jan. 9, 2014; Stanford NPE Litigation Database; pooled patent history).

Accused technology and patents. The dispute is over LCD backlight/light-guide technology embedded in vehicle displays, not traditional automotive bulbs. In the parallel district court case, Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-00535 (E.D. Tex.), IDT accused Mercedes vehicles "having displays (including but not limited to the A2C30083500 in-dash display)" of direct and induced infringement. The IPR at issue (IPR2015-01114, filed Apr. 25, 2015) challenges claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent 8,215,816, "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" (issued July 10, 2012; App. No. 13/315,412; priority June 27, 1995; sole inventor Jeffery R. Parker) — an edge-lit transparent panel/light guide with LED inputs and patterned light-extracting deformities that shape the output ray-angle distribution for LCD backlighting. It belongs to IDT's "Display Patents" cluster ('194, '177, '660, '974, '370, '816), all sharing a 1995 priority date and a common specification; IDT separately asserted "Auto Patents" ('563, '956) covering exterior lighting. Mercedes filed a reported obviousness challenge built on Guzik ('062) in view of Abdala ('895), with alternative combinations adding Tsunoda (JP 06-51130), Pristash ('108), and other references — per a third-party petition summary I could not independently verify against the petition text itself.

Procedural posture and resolution of the conflicting status. The correct forum for this docket entry is the PTAB (panel of Judges Lora M. Green, Thomas L. Giannetti, Miriam L. Quinn, and Beverly M. Bunting). The parallel litigation sat in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, as lead consolidated case No. 2:14-cv-00201-JRG, where Mercedes was joined with Hyundai/Kia, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Subaru, BMW, Volkswagen, and Sprint; Judge Gilstrap held a Markman hearing on April 29, 2015 — four days after the '816 IPR petition was filed — and issued a 56-page claim construction order (Dkt. 244, May 4, 2015, available via Docket Alarm) construing "output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component," "light emitting panel member," and related terms across the Display Patents. Counsel: Scott W. Doyle and Jonathan R. DeFosse of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP for Mercedes; Justin B. Kimble and Jeffrey R. Bragalone of Bragalone Conroy P.C. (Dallas) for IDT.

The "settlement vs. institution denied" conflict is resolved in favor of settlement — the "institution denied" label is a database artifact. The Board never reached an institution decision in IPR2015-01114. On June 30, 2015 the parties filed a joint motion to terminate (Paper 25) under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, attaching a confidential settlement agreement, and on July 2, 2015 the Board entered a Judgment terminating all twelve Mercedes IPRs (IPR2015-00359, -00360, -00361, -00363, -00366, -00368, -00994, -01044, -01067, -01113, -01114, -01115) under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 (termination judgment). Because the parties settled pre-institution, no § 315(e) estoppel attached to Mercedes and no estoppel attached to IDT. Two additional records confirm no institution: the Board's Notice of Refund (Paper 12, July 24, 2015) returning $14,000 in post-institution fees to Mercedes (Docket Alarm), and the joint motion's statement that the pending district court litigation had been dismissed and the agreement "ends all patent disputes between the parties." Third-party trackers (IPVerse/GreyB, ExParte) report a "Jul 2, 2015" date as an "institution decision date" with a "close" date of the same day — i.e., they are mislabeling the termination judgment.

Why it matters. This IPR was one thread of one of the largest coordinated NPE campaigns against the automotive sector: IDT/DDG's 1995-priority "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies" family (65+ issued U.S. patents, a ~284-document INPADOC family) was asserted against nearly every major automaker, as well as handset makers, carriers, PC/tablet vendors, and camera and GPS companies, generating dozens of IPRs from LG, Sony, and others (e.g., IPR2014-01094, IPR2015-00487/00489/00506, IPR2015-00745/00749/00752/00753/00755/00756/00757). The campaign also produced collateral litigation: Samsung Display Co. v. Acacia Research Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01353 (S.D.N.Y.), in which SDC alleged Acacia affiliates breached a covenant-not-to-sue by targeting SDC's customers, and the court denied Acacia's motion to dismiss in part (Dec. 3, 2014). In D. Del., Judge Richard Andrews stayed IDT/DDG cases unless they dropped patents under instituted IPR, prompting drop-and-refile tactics (RPX, Dec. 29, 2015). Mercedes' settlement fit an Acacia pattern of resolving auto-sector exposure through licenses — DDG/IDT signed a settlement and license with General Motors and Valeo North America (Form 8-K filed Oct. 15, 2015, resolving D. Del. 1:14-cv-00850), and IDT had earlier licensed Garmin.

Sourcing caveats: The petition caption, challenged claims, and grounds for IPR2015-01114 come from the petition/refund/termination papers and a third-party AI-generated petition summary; I could not retrieve the full petition text or a PACER docket sheet confirming the exact dismissal order and date in 2:14-cv-00535, and the settlement terms are confidential under § 317(b). The precise petitioner/RPI list is not uniform across all twelve Mercedes IPRs.

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB records, and press coverage.

Key finding: the "institution denied" characterization appears to be a data artifact — the record shows a June 2015 settlement termination. Let me verify the parallel district court case and the related IPRs.

Let me nail down the district court timeline, Markman order date, and any appeal of the parallel PTAB decision.

Threshold correction: the "conflicting status" resolves cleanly to settlement

The two data points in the existing case summary are the same event mislabeled. IPR2015-01114 was never instituted and was never "institution denied" — it was terminated on 2015-07-02 by joint motion under a settlement agreement, before any institution decision issued. The "July 2, 2015 institution decision date" in aggregator databases (GreyB/IPVerse, Ex Parte) is simply the date of the Board's Judgment — Termination of Proceedings being mis-typed into an "institution" field. Corroboration: on 2015-07-24 the Board granted Petitioner's request and refunded the $14,000 post-institution fee paid on 2015-04-25 (IPR2015-01114, Paper 12, Notice of Refund) — a refund that is only made when the proceeding ends before institution.

I therefore treat this as a settlement/termination, and lay out the chronology of the PTAB proceeding alongside the underlying district court infringement case that gave it meaning.

---

1. The underlying infringement litigation and the IPR campaign

2. The second Mercedes IPR wave — including IPR2015-01114

No institution decision ever issued in IPR2015-01114. There was no Patent Owner Response, no declaration, no deposition, and no substantive paper by IDT — the joint motion confirms the proceedings were "in their early stages," with "no depositions ... taken" and "no collateral agreements."

3. Settlement, PTAB termination, and district court dismissal (June–September 2015)

Post-trial / JMOL / fees: none. Neither the PTAB proceeding nor the district court case reached trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial or fee motions.

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '816 patent and their effect

• Same-petitioner siblings (Mercedes): the eleven other IPRs terminated 2015-07-02 above — i.e., the '816 was one of a dozen IDT patents Mercedes challenged between December 2014 and April 2015. The Board's decision to terminate without decision means the Mercedes challenges produced no PTAB precedent and left the '816 claims unadjudicated in those proceedings.
• Third-party challenge that did reach decision — IPR2015-01866 (K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC): filed 2015-09-11 against the same '816 patent (claims 1, 3, 4), by K.J. Pretech (counsel: Robert G. Pluta, Amanda K. Streff, Baldine B. Paul, Anita Y. Lam, Saqib J. Siddiqui, Mayer Brown LLP), alongside IPR2015-01867 ('370) and IPR2015-01868 ('974). IDT argued the petition was time-barred via privity with LG Display/LG Electronics and moved for additional discovery; the Board denied that motion on 2016-01-05 (Order, Conduct of the Proceeding), directing production of the KJ Pretech–LG supplier agreement and district-court discovery responses under a protective order. Institution decision issued 2016-03-17 on a single ground — anticipation of claims 1, 3, 4 under § 102(b) by Tsunoda (JP H6-051130). Because the '816 patent expired 2015-06-27 (both parties agreed), the Board applied the Phillips standard rather than the BRI standard. The Board reconsidered and rejected IDT's proposed construction of "more in the width direction" (citing the E.D. Tex. Markman opinion, Ex. 2006), and on 2017-03-15 the Board issued its Final Written Decision holding claims 1, 3 and 4 of the '816 patent unpatentable. The '816 patent was thus effectively invalidated at the PTAB in a proceeding to which Mercedes was not a party — the outcome Mercedes had been purchasing with its 2014–2015 IPR campaign.
• Supplier-side IPRs: related automotive-supply IPRs against the same family were filed by Koito Manufacturing and Stanley Electric (e.g., IPR2015-00574 on the '563 patent, IDT's Exhibit 2001 there being the Dkt. 244 Markman order), reflecting the indemnity/third-party-complaint dynamics in the district court (Nissan's third-party complaint against Stanley Electric; Panasonic Automotive Systems named as a third-party defendant).

5. Present posture

IPR2015-01114 is closed (terminated 2015-07-02 by settlement, no institution decision, no estoppel, $14,000 refunded). The underlying E.D. Tex. case (2:14-cv-535, consolidated in 2:14-cv-201) was dismissed with prejudice and closed in 2015–2016 under the Acacia–Mercedes license. The '816 patent's operative adjudication is the IPR2015-01866 final written decision of 2017-03-15 cancelling claims 1, 3 and 4.

6. Sourcing caveats — what is not verified here

• I could not confirm whether IPR2015-01866 was appealed to the Federal Circuit (IDT's notice-of-appeal window would have run in May 2017); no appellate disposition on the '816 patent is verified in my sources.
• I found no stay order in the district court pending the Mercedes IPRs, and no ruling on a motion to transfer, motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or summary judgment motion in 2:14-cv-535. The rapid settlement (about six weeks after the second IPR wave, and about seven weeks after the Markman ruling) means the case never reached dispositive-motion or trial stages.
• Party-specific dates for Mercedes' answer and counterclaims in 2:14-cv-535, and the exact docket number/date of the Mercedes complaint beyond 2014-04-24, come from third-party aggregators (Stanford NPE Database, Ex Parte, UniCourt, Avvo) rather than PACER directly; the UniCourt docket I retrieved is for the lead case 2:14-cv-201, which lists counter-claimants (e.g., Kia Motors Corp., Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, BMW of North America, Motorola Mobility) but not Mercedes specifically.
• Docket-entry numbering for the termination papers differs by IPR (in IPR2015-01114 the refund is Paper 12; in the companion IPR2015-00368 docket the joint motion is Paper 22 and the termination judgment Paper 25).

I'll search several angles — the case caption, the parties, the patent number, and the broader IDT/Acacia automotive campaign — to see what press actually covered this.

Let me target legal trade press and the related developments that were actually covered.

Press and analyst coverage

Bottom line: IPR2015-01114 generated essentially no dedicated press coverage. Searching the caption, the party names, the '816 patent number, and the Acacia/IDT automotive campaign across legal trade press and mainstream tech outlets, I found no Reuters, Bloomberg, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra or EFF Deeplinks article addressing this specific petition, the July 2, 2015 termination, or the Mercedes settlement. That is consistent with the record: the case died pre-institution in under ten weeks, produced no Board decision, and the settlement was confidential under § 317(b). The proceeding surfaces in the press only as a unit of statistical accounting, not as a story.

The one piece of genuine press analysis that captures this petition is Managing IP's Docket Navigator–based survey of first-half 2015 PTAB activity, published July 20, 2015 (Michael Loney, New York). It reported that Innovative Display Technologies was the single most-targeted patent owner at the PTAB in H1 2015, with seventeen IPRs filed by Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Toyota, Volkswagen, Sony and Koito Manufacturing challenging IDT patents, on top of twenty-two IPRs against IDT in 2014. It also put Mercedes-Benz and Daimler at sixteen petitions each for the half-year, and framed the automotive filings as a sector-wide response: "Automotive companies have stepped up their use of the PTAB in response to an increase in patent litigation in their industry from non-practicing entities." On the defense side it listed Bragalone Conroy as respondent counsel on nineteen petitions — IDT's counsel here. Notably, the survey's publication date is eighteen days after the Mercedes IPRs were terminated, so the seventeen-petition count it publicized already included petitions that no longer existed — the analysis was measuring filings, not live proceedings.

On the settlement itself, there was effectively no reporting at all. Acacia did not issue a press release for the Mercedes deal; the only public disclosure was an SEC Form 8-K, Item 8.01, filed June 22, 2015, stating that "Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC, subsidiaries of Acacia Research Corporation, entered into a settlement and license agreement with Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC," resolving Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00535. Consistent with prior Acacia practice (Dell/HP in March and AT&T Mobility in May 2015 were disclosed the same bare-bones way), the filing states no dollar figure, no royalty rate and no term — so there is no reported settlement number to cite. By contrast, Acacia did distribute a BusinessWire release when its subsidiaries settled with Sony on August 13, 2015 — likewise without terms — which underscores that the Mercedes resolution was not promoted. The only characterization of outcome I located is non-press: Avvo's attorney case list for IDT's counsel Jeffrey Bragalone records the case as "Favorable settlement following mediation," dated June 22, 2015.

Where accounts diverge from the record. The most consequential divergence is not editorial but infrastructural: the case-status databases that aggregate PTAB dockets propagated a false outcome. GreyB/IPVerse and Ex Parte both label the proceeding "Institution Denied," list a "July 2, 2015" institution decision date, and report a close date of the same day — with Ex Parte also publishing APJ statistics for Green, Quinn and Bunting, none of whom ever ruled on institution here. That is the origin of the "conflicting status" flagged in the case metadata; no news outlet independently reported an institution denial. Separately, the advocacy-oriented Techdirt "Know Your Troll" profile of IDT is the only outlet-level treatment of the automotive campaign that names Mercedes-Benz as a target — describing IDT as an Austin-based Acacia subsidiary asserting Rambus-acquired "light emitting panel assemblies" patents against "auto manufacturers (Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Mazda)" alongside Canon, Nikon, TomTom and Garmin, and quoting Acacia's Marvin Key defending the licensing model. The piece is undated in the copy I retrieved but internally references 2014 filings; it does not discuss the IPRs or the settlement, and its figures (34 pending cases; a ~$6 billion "accrued royalties" demand in the separate Apple suit) are unverified assertions I could not check against filings. Finally, press treatment of the patent's provenance compresses the timeline: a February 23, 2016 D. Del. discovery opinion records that Rambus sold the patents to Acacia on January 30, 2013, retaining "a certain percentage of any proceeds collected through licensing or litigation," and was retained as an Acacia consultant on March 25, 2013 to perform product "teardowns" — a refinement of the "acquired from Rambus in March 2013" shorthand used in secondary accounts and in the litigation narrative.

Caveats: every source above is one I actually retrieved. I did not find any article covering the later IPR2015-01866 final written decision invalidating the '816 claims, any Federal Circuit appeal coverage, or any statement from Mercedes, Daimler, IDT or Acacia executives about this proceeding — so I make no claim about those. No damages figure, license value or market-impact estimate for this case has been publicly reported anywhere I could locate.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
• Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 244 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 56 PageID #: 2669
• C
• Upon consideration of the Petition, Patent Owner's Preliminary Response, and the associated evidence, we conclude Petitioner has...
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
• Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. HYUNDAI MOTOR GROUP et al
• Ex. 1003 | IPR2015-01114 | Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC | Ex Parte
• Petition analysis | IPR2015-01114 | Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC | Ex Parte
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC > Documents

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioner (Mercedes-Benz USA LLC) in IPR2015-01114.

I have the key filings. Let me dig deeper into the petitioner's counsel details and any parallel district court appearances.

Let me confirm the petition cover page and check for any additional/lower-level counsel and the parallel district court representation.

Bottom line

In this proceeding the "plaintiff" is the petitioner, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (with Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. named in the combined caption of the related Mercedes IPRs). Counsel of record for the petitioner, as reflected in the Board's own papers, is a two-attorney Fried Frank team out of Washington, D.C. — plus a Dallas/Houston team on the patent-owner side, since IDT was the plaintiff in the parallel district court litigation.

Petitioner (Mercedes-Benz) — counsel of record

Sources for the counsel listing: the Board's Judgment — Termination of Proceedings (Paper 25/26-era filing) for the consolidated Mercedes IPRs (00359, 00360, 00361, 00363, 00366, 00368, 00994, 01044, 01113, 01114, 01115), which lists "PETITIONERS: Scott W. Doyle; Jonathan R. DeFoose [DeFosse]; FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP" with the two friedfrank.com addresses; and the Board's Notice of Refund, Paper No. 12, entered July 24, 2015, in IPR2015-01114, which is captioned "For the PETITIONER: Scott Doyle." (docketalarm termination judgment, Paper 12 Notice of Refund)

Patent owner (IDT) — appearing as plaintiff in the companion E.D. Tex. case

Because IDT filed the underlying infringement suit (Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-535, E.D. Tex.), its counsel is worth noting for completeness:

• Justin B. Kimble — lead counsel for IDT in the PTAB matters; Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 4500 West, Dallas, TX 75201.
• Jeffrey R. Bragalone — Bragalone Conroy PC, Dallas (pro hac vice).
• Also listed on IDT's power of attorney for these IPRs: Terry A. Saad, Nicholas C. Kliewer, and T. William Kennedy (Bragalone Conroy), and George W. Webb III, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C., Houston.
  (IDT Power of Attorney, May 15, 2015)

Caveats and corrections to the case metadata

• No local counsel or in-house counsel appears on the PTAB record. PTAB practice does not require a local-counsel admission the way E.D. Tex. does, and no Mercedes in-house attorney is named in any Paper I could locate. In-house counsel for Mercedes-Benz is therefore not documented in the record — I will not guess at names.
• No sealed counsel listing issue: the petitioner's counsel is stated on the face of public Board papers, so nothing here is inferable only from sealed material.
• The "institution denied" label is a mislabel, not a second outcome. The Board did not deny institution and issue an institution decision on July 2, 2015. Rather: the parties reached settlement, advised the Board June 23, 2015, were authorized to file joint motions June 24, the joint motion to terminate was filed June 30, 2015 (Paper 25), and the Board entered judgment terminating all twelve Mercedes IPRs (Paper 26-era, dated July 2, 2015) under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, with no final written decision and no § 315(e) estoppel. The July 2, 2015 date that aggregators list as an "Institution Decision Date" is in fact the termination judgment date. Corroborating this, the Board granted petitioner's request to refund the $14,000 in post-institution fees (Paper 12, July 24, 2015) — which the Board only does when a case ends pre-institution. So the two "conflicting" statuses in the case summary are the same event reported inconsistently; settlement/termination is the accurate characterization.
• Source limitation: I could not pull the IPR2015-01114 docket directly from PACER (PACER does not host PTAB dockets); the record above rests on USPTO/PTAB papers mirrored on Docket Alarm and PTAB aggregators, plus contemporaneous law-firm and legal-press reporting (VitalLaw/IP Law Daily, Apr. 14, 2015; Sheppard Mullin press release, May 15, 2019). Attorney names and Reg. Nos. from those Board papers are reliable; the biographical notes on Doyle and DeFosse come from firm/press bios and should be treated as such.

I'll research this IPR proceeding and the counsel involved. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific counsel records for this proceeding.

Bottom line first — a posture clarification

IPR2015-01114 is not a district-court infringement action; it is an inter partes review at the PTAB. Under the case metadata you've given me, the "defendant" is Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT"), which appears in the PTAB caption as Patent Owner / Respondent (Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC appears as Petitioner).

So the "counsel of record for the defendant" is counsel for Patent Owner IDT. The record on that side is thin but clear, because IDT never filed a preliminary response or any substantive paper — the twelve related Mercedes IPRs (including -01114) were killed by settlement on July 2, 2015. The only counsel-of-record documents are IDT's Rule 42.10(b) power of attorney (May 15, 2015), the termination judgment caption, and the Board's Notice of Refund.

---

Counsel of record for Patent Owner / Respondent — Innovative Display Technologies LLC

Source documents: IDT's Power of Attorney dated May 15, 2015 (appointing Bragalone Conroy attorneys for IPR2015-01044, -01113, -01114, and -01115); PTAB Notice of Refund, Paper 12 (July 24, 2015) — "For the PATENT OWNER: Justin Kimble"; Judgment — Termination of Proceedings, July 2, 2015 (consolidated caption listing "PATENT OWNER: Justin B. Kimble / Jeffrey R. Bragaline, Bragalone Conroy P.C." and "George W. Webb III, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C.").

---

Counsel for the other side (context — Petitioner Mercedes-Benz)

In case you in fact wanted the Mercedes side (the defendants in the underlying E.D. Tex. suit, and here the petitioners):

• Scott W. Doyle (Reg. No. 39,176) — lead counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, 801 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. (doyle's signature block on the June 30, 2015 Exhibit List; named as Petitioner's contact on the Notice of Refund).
• Jonathan R. DeFosse — Fried Frank, Washington, D.C. (co-counsel; listed in the petition's service consent).

---

What is not confirmed / explicit caveats

1. No sealing issue, but no merits filings. IDT filed no preliminary response, no expert declaration, and took no depositions (per the joint motion to terminate). The only sealed item is the settlement agreement (filed as Ex. 1023/1025) and the accompanying § 42.74(c) confidentiality request — those do not name counsel.
2. Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar (Donald L. Otto, Cleveland, OH) appears on the certificate of service of Petitioners' June 30, 2015 Exhibit List in this docket. I could not confirm from the available record whether Otto represented IDT, a related entity, or was served as courtesy/co-counsel in a sibling matter. Treat this as unresolved rather than asserted.
3. Local counsel for E.D. Tex. — Ward & Smith Law Firm (T. John Ward, Jr. and Claire Abernathy Henry, Longview, TX) served alongside Bragalone Conroy for IDT in the parallel district-court litigation, but I found no evidence they appeared in IPR2015-01114. Do not attribute them to this PTAB docket without verification.
4. No in-house counsel for IDT appears on this record (IDT is an Acacia-affiliated NPE; no in-house attorney signature blocks were located).
5. Office locations: Bragalone Conroy's Dallas address is taken verbatim from the filings; AZA's Houston location is general firm knowledge but was not confirmed from a document in this docket.

---

Reconciling the "conflicting" status in the case summary

Both reported statuses describe the same July 2, 2015 event. IPR trackers that say "Institution Denied / Institution Decision Date July 2, 2015" are mislabeling the Judgment — Termination of Proceedings entered under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 on that date. The Board expressly found the proceedings "in the preliminary stages" and terminated them "without rendering a final written decision" after the parties' June 30, 2015 joint motion to terminate pursuant to a written settlement (35 U.S.C. § 317). The parallel E.D. Tex. case, IDT v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00535 (E.D. Tex.), was dismissed with prejudice on June 23, 2015. A companion IPR on the same '816 patent, IPR2015-00366 (also Mercedes), was terminated in the same judgment — as were IPR2015-00359, -00360, -00361, -00363, -00368, -00994, -01044, -01067, -01113, and -01115.