[Unknown Petitioner] v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

This case, [Unknown Petitioner] v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IPR2015-00490), is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194. The patent owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC, is based in Plano, Texas, and holds a portfolio of U.S. patents related to display and lighting technologies. While some entities with similar names are operating companies focused on manufacturing and printing display solutions, Innovative Display Technologies LLC's primary role appears to be that of a patent owner, likely involved in patent monetization or defense, as evidenced by its participation in IPR proceedings. The identity of the "Unknown Petitioner" in this specific IPR remains undisclosed in the available public information.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, is generally directed to light emitting panel assemblies, which are commonly used in various display applications. Given that this is an IPR proceeding, there isn't a directly "accused product" or "service" in the same vein as a district court infringement lawsuit. Instead, the IPR challenged the patentability of claims within the '194 patent based on prior art. The underlying technology that may have prompted the IPR, typically a product or service that a petitioner believes would infringe the patent, is not explicitly identified in the IPR records.

The procedural posture involves an IPR initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a specialized administrative tribunal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The case resulted in an adverse judgment against Innovative Display Technologies LLC. An adverse judgment in an IPR signifies that the patent owner has conceded the unpatentability of the challenged claims or taken actions, such as disclaiming claims, that the PTAB construes as a request for such a judgment. This outcome can carry significant implications, including estoppel, which prevents the patent owner from asserting claims that are not patentably distinct from those canceled or found unpatentable in subsequent proceedings. The PTAB provides a venue for challenging patent validity outside of district court litigation, often offering a faster and less expensive alternative, and its decisions can influence parallel or future infringement suits.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2015-00490 and Related Litigation

This summary outlines the legal developments concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 ("the '194 patent"), owned by Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT), including an Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and related district court patent infringement litigation.

Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, titled "Light Emitting Panel Assemblies," issued on November 27, 2007.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: IPR2015-00490

• Filing & Parties: The IPR proceeding, IPR2015-00490, was initiated by K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd. against patent owner Innovative Display Technologies LLC. The precise filing date for IPR2015-00490 is not explicitly available in the provided search results, though it falls within the 2015 IPR series.
• Outcome - Adverse Judgment: The IPR concluded with an Adverse Judgment against Innovative Display Technologies LLC. This judgment typically arises when a patent owner disclaims all claims challenged in the IPR. The PTAB has the authority to enter an adverse judgment at any time after an IPR petition is filed, even before a decision on institution, if the patent owner cancels all claims at issue. The specific date of the adverse judgment for IPR2015-00490 is not provided in the search results. An adverse judgment is considered a final decision from the PTAB and can be appealed to the Federal Circuit.
• Effect on Litigation: An adverse judgment creates an estoppel effect regarding claims in pending continuation patent applications.

Related District Court Litigation

Innovative Display Technologies LLC has been an active patent asserter in numerous patent infringement lawsuits across various district courts, often involving the '194 patent and other related patents.

• Initial Pleadings - Patent Infringement Complaints:
  • Innovative Display Technologies LLC filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits involving U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194, including against Apple Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Examples include Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., case no. 2:14-cv-00030, filed on January 17, 2014, and Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al. v. Apple Inc., case no. 2:14-cv-00301, filed on April 8, 2014, both in the Eastern District of Texas, and both explicitly listing patent 7,300,194.
  • Other defendants in various IDT cases, though not always specifically for the '194 patent, include Canon, American Honda Motor Co., Google, Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, and Vizio.
• Motions & Stays: In the context of IPRs, patent owners have sometimes sought additional discovery in parallel district court litigation to establish real parties-in-interest for the IPR petitioner. For example, in the IPR involving K.J. Pretech, IDT sought discovery concerning a supply agreement between K.J. Pretech and LG Display or LG Electronics, suggesting potential privity, which could impact the IPR. District courts frequently consider motions to stay infringement litigation pending the outcome of IPRs, although the timing and outcome of these motions can vary.
• Claim Construction (Markman) & Discovery: General information on patent litigation indicates that claim construction is a critical pre-trial phase. However, specific Markman outcomes or significant discovery milestones for the Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc. cases involving the '194 patent are not readily available in the provided search results.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: There is no explicit information in the provided search results detailing a trial, verdict, or post-trial motions specifically for the infringement cases involving the '194 patent.
• Final Disposition/Present Posture: The search results do not definitively state the final disposition of the district court cases involving the '194 patent following the adverse judgment in IPR2015-00490. Given that an adverse judgment in an IPR indicates the patent owner disclaimed the challenged claims, it is highly probable that the related district court litigation either settled, was dismissed, or resulted in findings of invalidity or non-infringement for the challenged claims.

Note on "Display Technologies LLC": It is important to distinguish Innovative Display Technologies LLC (patent owner in IPR2015-00490 for the '194 patent) from Display Technologies LLC (a separate entity associated with inventor Leigh Rothschild). The latter was involved in Valve Corp. v. Rothschild in the Western District of Washington, which concluded in February 2026 with a jury finding Display Technologies LLC and Rothschild liable for bad-faith assertions of patent infringement concerning a different patent (US8856221B2). This Valve case is not directly related to the '194 patent litigation.

In an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, the "plaintiff" role is filled by the Petitioner. To identify the counsel of record, it's necessary to first identify the Petitioner in IPR2015-00490. The provided search results confirm the case is an IPR but do not explicitly name the Petitioner or their legal representation.

Therefore, further investigation is required to identify the Petitioner and their counsel of record in IPR2015-00490. Without this information, details about specific attorneys, their firms, and experience cannot be provided.

The defendant, Innovative Display Technologies LLC, was represented by counsel from Bragalone Conroy P.C. in IPR2015-00490.

Here are the details for the counsel of record:

• Name: Justin B. Kimble

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Bragalone Conroy P.C.
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Justin B. Kimble has represented Innovative Display Technologies LLC in numerous related IPR proceedings and district court cases involving similar subject matter, such as light emitting panel assemblies.

• Name: Jeffrey R. Bragalone

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bragalone Conroy P.C.
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Jeffrey R. Bragalone is a shareholder at Bragalone Conroy P.C. and has represented Innovative Display Technologies LLC in various patent assertion and IPR proceedings, including cases in the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware. He has significant experience with the technology at issue, including developing invalidity defenses and infringement allegations for patents related to light emitting panel assemblies.