US 7434974

US Patent 7,434,974 — Summary

Note on sourcing. The full patent text was provided in the request (authoritative Google Patents record, fetched 2026-09-07). My supplemental web searches confirmed the bibliographic data and litigation history through USPTO PTAB/IPR filings and district-court records. I found no CAFC 2026 docket for this patent in my searches; I flag that as an open item rather than assume one exists.

Bibliographic Data

Priority chain: This is a continuation of US 10/784,527 (US 7,160,015), a division of US 09/256,275 (US 6,712,481), a continuation-in-part of US 08/778,089 (US 6,079,838), a division of US 08/495,176 (US 5,613,751).

Assignment history (per USPTO/Google Patents records): Solid State Opto Ltd → Rambus International Ltd (2010) → Rambus Inc. (2013) → Rambus Delaware LLC (2013) → Acacia Research Group LLC (2013) → Innovative Display Technologies LLC (2013).

Abstract (verbatim)

Light emitting panel assembly includes a light emitting panel member received in a cavity or recess in a tray or housing. The panel member has a pattern of light extracting deformities on or in at least one surface of the panel member to cause light received from at least one LED light source positioned near or against the light entrance surface of the panel member to be emitted from a light emitting surface of the panel member. The tray or housing acts as an end edge and/or side edge reflector for the panel member to reflect light that would otherwise exit the panel member through the end edge and/or side edge back into the panel member for causing additional light to be emitted from the panel member.

Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

There are 24 claims; the four independent claims are 1, 7, 13, and 17. Each is directed to a backlight-style "light emitting panel assembly." The common core (recited in all four) is:

• A light-emitting panel member having a light entrance surface and a light emitting surface;
• At least one LED positioned near or against the light entrance surface;
• A tray or housing with a cavity/recess in which the panel member is entirely received;
• A pattern of light extracting deformities on/in at least one panel surface that causes light to be emitted from the light-emitting surface;
• Tray/housing end walls and side walls act as end-edge and side-edge reflectors, bouncing light that would otherwise escape through the panel's edges back into the panel and toward the deformities to produce additional emitted light.

Claim 1 adds: the tray/housing provides structural support to the panel member and has posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount for mounting the assembly into a larger assembly or device. (Broadest claim — the housing is both a reflector cage and a mounting chassis.)

Claim 7 adds: the tray/housing's posts/tabs/features provide a mount or structural support for at least one other part or component (specification and dependent claims point to an LCD, printed circuit, film, etc.), and the tray/housing still structurally supports the panel member. (Distinguishes from claim 1 by supporting a separate component, not just mounting the assembly itself.)

Claim 13 adds: an additional component overlays the panel member, and the panel member itself has at least one of a tab, hole, cavity, or protrusion that positions the tray or housing relative to the panel member. (Self-locating/alignment feature on the panel, used to register the housing to the panel.)

Claim 17 adds: an additional component overlies the panel member, and the panel member's tab/hole/cavity/protrusion positions the additional component relative to the panel member — where that feature holds the additional component away from the panel to create an air gap between them. (Preserves the air-gap optical interface emphasized in the specification as preferable to full-surface adhesive lamination.)

Notable Litigation / Validity History (from search results)

• District court: Numerous cases in Delaware and Texas Eastern District Courts (2013–2014), brought by Innovative Display Technologies LLC against multiple automotive/electronics defendants (search results reference claims against BMW for navigation/driver-information displays, among others).
• PTAB IPRs on the '974 patent: IPR2014-01092 (denied institution); IPR2015-00368, IPR2015-00755, IPR2015-00831, IPR2015-00832, IPR2015-01115 (settled); IPR2015-00497 (not instituted — procedural); IPR2015-01868 (K.J. Pretech Co. — instituted; reached Final Written Decision); IPR2016-00910 (reached Final Written Decision). The Google Patents family listing also references a PTAB "Final Written Decision" for IPR2016-00910.

Uncertainties / Caveats

• CAFC 2026: I found no CAFC appeal docket for 7,434,974 in 2026 through my searches. If one exists, it was not surfaced; do not treat this as confirmation that none exists.
• Filing date: Google Patents states 2006-03-20; one IPR exhibit says "March 17, 2006." The 2006-03-20 date from the authoritative full text is used here.
• Status/ownership: The "Expired – Fee Related" status and assignment chain come from Google Patents metadata and PTAB records; I did not independently verify against a live USPTO PAIR/Patent Center query.
• Do not confuse 7,434,974 (Parker, sole inventor, appl. 11/378,080) with the similarly numbered 7,434,973 (Parker, Coghlan & Ezell, appl. 11/673,302) that appears in some search results — those are different patents.

I'll research the litigation history for US 7,434,974 across the litigation portals and court records.

Good initial data. Let me dig deeper into the specific district court cases and their outcomes.

Let me get the specific case list from the NPE database and verify the outcomes of the lead cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 ("the '974 patent")

As of April 26, 2026

Bottom line: US 7,434,974 has an extensive litigation history — but it is entirely historical. The patent was asserted by Innovative Display Technologies LLC (IDT) (with Delaware Display Group LLC as co-plaintiff in Delaware) in two main district-court waves between 2013 and 2016, across the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware, plus a cluster of PTAB petitions. The patent expired on 2015-06-27 (adjusted expiration 2015-10-08), no district-court case naming the '974 patent remains active, and I found no CAFC/Federal Circuit appeal for this patent. I also found no currently pending litigation.

Research caveat (important): I hit the research step limit before I could pull a final disposition entry for every single case. Where the outcome is confirmed by a record I retrieved, I say so and cite it. Where I could not confirm the final disposition, I label it "not verified" rather than guess. Several entries below rest on the Google Patents litigation feed for the '974 patent, which I cross-checked against the plaintiffs' own complaints, court opinions, and Acacia's SEC Form 8-K.

1. District Court Litigation

A. Eastern District of Texas — "First Texas Litigation" (filed June 2013)

Related/consolidated case numbers appearing in the '974 litigation feed: 2:13-cv-00524, -00525 (Huawei), -00526, -00527 (ZTE), -00783, -00784 (E.D. Tex.). Mappings of -00523/-00524 to Dell/HP are confirmed by the 8-K; the others are from the Google Patents feed and are not individually verified.

B. Eastern District of Texas — "Second Texas Litigation" / automotive wave (filed 2014)

Patents asserted in the Hyundai case (per a Korean IP-office case table): U.S. 7,404,660; 8,215,816; 6,755,547; 7,384,177; 7,300,194; 7,434,974. The "Second Texas Markman" — IDT v. Hyundai Motor Co., 2015 WL 2090651 (E.D. Tex. May 4, 2015, Judge Gilstrap) — construed seven claim terms of the shared "Display Patents," including the '974 patent.

The '974 Google Patents feed lists additional consolidated E.D. Tex. 2014 case numbers (2:14-cv-00030, -00142, -00143, -00144, -00145, -00146, -00200, -00202, -00300, -00301, -00302, -00532, -00535, -00624, -00720, -00721, -00722, -00723). I could not verify the defendant for each; they are consolidated members of the same automotive/carrier campaigns.

C. District of Delaware — Delaware Display Group wave (filed December 31, 2013)

In the Delaware lead consolidated case only two patents ultimately remained at issue: U.S. 7,537,370 and U.S. 7,434,974 (per the Jan. 16, 2017 opinion). On Oct. 21, 2015, IDT dismissed without prejudice all claims on three patents then under instituted IPR; the court then denied the joint motion to stay.

Additional Delaware actions (per the '974 Google Patents feed): 1:14-cv-00849 and 1:14-cv-00850. LG Display's own annual report confirms that in December 2015 Delaware Display Group LLC and IDT filed a new Delaware action against LG Display/LG Display America on three patents previously dismissed without prejudice. I could not verify the case number assigned to that December 2015 action.

2. PTAB Proceedings (AIA trials naming the '974 patent)

These were analyzed in the earlier "PTAB challenges" section and are summarized here only for completeness of the litigation list.

No IPR remains active. (Note: IPRs such as IPR2015-00487, -00745, -00897, -01717 and IPR2014-01094 that appear in search results are directed to U.S. 7,404,660, a sibling patent — not to the '974 patent — and are excluded here.)

3. What I did not find

• No CAFC / Federal Circuit appeal naming U.S. 7,434,974. (Consistent with the earlier section's finding; flagged as an open item, not a negative certainty.)
• No currently pending district-court or PTAB proceeding involving the '974 patent.
• No ITC (Section 337) investigation naming the '974 patent surfaced.
• The stray search hits showing "7434974" as a docket entry number (7th Cir. case 25-1244) or a Brazilian corporate registry number (UNIMED Fortaleza) are unrelated to this patent — a patent number is not a docket number, and I have not treated those as '974 litigation.

4. Data gaps to close before citing this in a filing

1. Final dispositions for the E.D. Tex. Acer lead case (2:13-cv-00522), BMW (2:14-cv-00106), and the Delaware Lenovo/LG/VIZIO trio (1:13-cv-02108/2109/2112). The Delaware docket shows the case was alive into January 2017 (post-summary-judgment); its ultimate termination (settlement vs. judgment) is unverified.
2. Defendant mapping for the consolidated E.D. Tex. 2014 numbers listed on the Google Patents feed but not tied to a named party in my searches.
3. Case number for the December 2015 Delaware LG Display re-filing (confirmed to exist by LG Display's annual report, number not retrieved).

Verification sources used: Acacia Research Corp. Form 8-K, March 6, 2015 settlement with Dell/HP (getfilings.com); E.D. Tex. claim-construction orders (Acer, 2014 WL 4230037; Hyundai, 2015 WL 2090651) and SJ opinion (2:14-cv-00201, Doc. 244); D. Del. opinions (13-2108-RGA, Nov. 6, 2015; Nov. 28, 2016; Jan. 16, 2017; Feb. 23, 2016 discovery opinion) via ded.uscourts.gov / Justia / casemine; the plaintiffs' own June 2013 E.D. Tex. complaint (PTAB-hosted PDF); Unicourt/dockets.justia docket entries for dismissals; RPX Insight and IPVerse PTAB records for IPR2016-00910 and IPR2015-01868; and the Google Patents litigation feed at https://patents.google.com/patent/US7434974/en.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings that surface from the patent's litigation metadata, even though the ODP canonical block shows none.

I've reached the research step limit, so I'm consolidating what the canonical ODP block says, what the patent's own litigation metadata surfaces, and what I could verify via web search — flagging clearly what remains unverified rather than inventing claim-level outcomes.

Proceedings overview

The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) block supplied for this task shows zero AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest — but that is contradicted by the patent's own Google Patents litigation metadata, which lists nine PTAB case numbers (from Unified Patents PTAB data), and web search independently confirms that at least the lead matters are real and went to a Final Written Decision stage. The nine surfaced matters break down by status as: 0 active, 2 reached Final Written Decision (IPR2016-00910, IPR2015-01868 — the latter joined by the former), 5 settled, and 2 institution denied (one procedural, one on the merits). Because the patent expired on 2015-06-27 (unchallenged, per the Board's record in IPR2015-01868) and all surfaced proceedings are closed, the defensive posture is: no defendant today faces an open PTAB threat or benefit — the leverage is purely historical (estoppel-free prior art and expired-claim litigation history), not an active IPR weapon.

IPR2015-01868 — K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2015 (exact date not verified; case-number range ~Aug 2015)
• Status: Final Written Decision (per metadata) — meaning trial ran to conclusion; claim-level FWD outcome not verified in my search results and not stated here
• Judge panel: Not verified in available records
• Petition grounds: Institution was granted on all challenged claims on all grounds — the challenged set was eight claims (independent claims 1 and 7 plus dependents; the record I verified identifies claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 under Ground 1 and claims 3–4 under Ground 2):
  • Ground 1 — claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 anticipated by Kisou (JP reference, inventor also referred to as "Etsuo") under § 102;
  • Ground 2 — claims 3, 4 obvious over Kisou + Yagi under § 103 (film-support structure in a tray);
  • Grounds 3–4 — remaining challenged claims over Kisou/Furuya + Niizuma combinations (obviousness), argued at the oral hearing.
• Institution decision: Instituted on all challenged claims and all four grounds — Decision, Paper 15, dated 2016-03-17. The Board adopted petitioner's construction of "deformities" as "any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted" (taken from the '974 patent's own definitional language), found the petition not time-barred under § 315(b), and found petitioner persuasive that Kisou's recessed triangular "light paths 31" on the rear surface of the light conductor were deformities that extract light.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Metadata lists FWD status. Oral hearing was held 2017-01-10 (joint hearing with IPR2015-01866 and IPR2015-01867 covering related patents 8,215,816 and 7,537,370). The claim-level verdict — which claims were canceled vs. patentable — was NOT available in my search results, and I will not guess.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement — case ran through hearing to FWD (per metadata).
• Appeal: None identified in my searches. Note the patent owner flagged at the hearing that the Federal Circuit had just agreed to hear Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom en banc on the reviewability of Board § 315(b) time-bar determinations — a signal it planned to preserve that issue, but I found no CAFC appeal docket for this case.
• Defensive value: This is the flagship validity test of the '974 patent and it went the full distance with institution on every claim and every ground. Until the FWD is pulled from PTAB E2E/PTACTS, treat this patent's claims as challenged-but-not-confirmed-canceled in this write-up — a defendant should read the actual FWD (linked below) before making any "dead claim" representation.

IPR2016-00910 — (Petitioner: VIZIO, per hearing transcript) v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016 (exact date not verified)
• Status: Final Written Decision (per metadata) — but this matter was joined into IPR2015-01868, so its FWD status is almost certainly the joint/lead-case FWD
• Judge panel: Not verified
• Petition grounds: Same patent (7,434,974); grounds as asserted against the joined proceeding
• Institution decision: The hearing transcript for IPR2015-01868 states: "Case Numbers 2016-910 and 2016-914 have been joined with these proceedings. The petitioner is K.J. Pretech, and VIZIO versus patent owner Innovative Display Technologies." Joinder means IPR2016-00910 rode the lead case's institution and schedule.
• Final Written Decision: Covered by the lead case FWD; claim-level outcome not independently verified.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement identified; terminated via the joined FWD.
• Appeal: None identified.
• Defensive value: Confirms a second, independent petitioner (VIZIO) attacked the same claims — the "multiple-petitioner" pattern typical of high-value LCD backlight assertions. Counsel for IDT stated in a 2016 pro hac vice filing that there were "60 total IPRs covering the patent-at-issue and its related patents" — this patent family was litigated and challenged at industrial scale.

IPR2014-01092 — Petitioner unknown (not verified) v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: Not Instituted — Merits (metadata; petitioner identity and art not verified)
• Defensive value: A failed early (2014) attempt on this patent — no estoppel against anyone, and it tells you the Board found the early petition's merits insufficient.

IPR2015-00497 — Petitioner unknown (not verified) v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: Not Instituted — Procedural (metadata; e.g., § 315(b) time-bar or defective service — not verified)
• Defensive value: Denied on procedure, not merits — no claim-level effect.

IPR2015-00368, IPR2015-00755, IPR2015-00831, IPR2015-00832, IPR2015-01115 — Petitioners unknown (not verified) v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (all five)
• Status: Settlement in each (metadata). Terms are not public in the records I retrieved — PTAB settlement terminations typically note only that the parties settled and the case was terminated; agreements are confidential unless filed.
• Defensive value: A cluster of five settled IPRs filed within a narrow 2015 window strongly suggests coordinated, multi-front challenges to this patent and its family (the Eastern District of Texas and Delaware litigations from 2013–2014 listed on the patent page are the backdrop), which the patent owner bought off or resolved. Settlements bind no third parties and create no estoppel for new defendants.

Strategic summary

Claims status. Independent claims 1 and 7 (and dependents 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11) of the '974 patent were fully instituted in IPR2015-01868 (joined by IPR2016-00910) — but I could not verify the FWD's claim-level disposition in the searches available to me. I will not represent any claim as canceled or sustained. What is verified: (1) the patent expired 2015-06-27; (2) the Board instituted on all eight challenged claims and all four grounds on 2016-03-17; (3) the oral hearing was 2017-01-10; and (4) the metadata marks both lead matters "Final Written Decision." Until you pull the FWD, the honest label for every claim is "instituted but outcome unverified," not "canceled." The five settled IPRs and two denials had no claim-canceling effect, so no claim of the '974 patent is confirmed canceled on this record.

Estoppel landscape (§ 315(e)(2)). Because every surfaced proceeding is closed (settled, denied, or final decision), no estoppel currently binds anyone who has not already been a party. Settlements bind only the settling petitioners and their privies; institution denials create no estoppel; and even the FWD matters estop only K.J. Pretech, VIZIO, and their privies from re-raising Kisou, Yagi, Furuya, Niizuma, or combinations thereof. A new defendant is free to run any § 102/§ 103 ground, including the exact Kisou/Yagi/Furuya/Niizuma combinations that the Board found sufficiently strong to institute on every claim. The Board's adoption of the broad "deformities" construction, and its rejection (at institution) of the patent owner's "light paths are only gaps" argument, are favorable, reusable analytical threads for any new petitioner.

Pattern signals. This is a textbook Unified-Patents-era defensive campaign against the Solid State Opto → Rambus → Acacia → Innovative Display Technologies chain. The patent's litigation page shows dozens of Delaware and Eastern District of Texas cases (2013–2014) plus a raft of PTAB filings, and IDT's own counsel described 60 IPRs across the family. The 2015 settlement cluster indicates the patent owner's strategy was to settle rather than fight to FWD where possible — but in IPR2015-01868 it fought, took institution on every claim, and let the case run to decision. The § 315(b) privy fight (K.J. Pretech/LG Display, preserved for the Wi-Fi One en banc question) shows the patent owner litigating procedural margins aggressively.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the actual FWD for IPR2015-01868 before making any claim-level representation to a client or court. The verified docket trail (Institution Decision Paper 15 of 2016-03-17, Patent Owner Response, Petitioner Reply, and the 2017-01-10 hearing transcript) is accessible via the USPTO PTACTS petition-document links surfaced in search, and the full docket is mirrored at Docket Alarm:
   • USPTO PTACTS / PTAB E2E: search Case IPR2015-01868 (and joined IPR2016-00910)
   • https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2015-01868/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7434974/
   • If the FWD canceled claims 1 and/or 7, quote the disposition verbatim — that is your cleanest defense. If it sustained them, you know an IPR-only strategy faces an uphill credibility battle and should weigh § 101/§ 112 arguments in district court instead.
2. No active proceeding exists — there is no institution-deadline or FWD-due-date to calendar. The absence of new IPRs post-2016 is itself a signal: after the family-wide 2013–2016 campaign and the 2015 expiration, challengers stopped spending on PTAB for this patent.
3. For any new defendant, the prior-art runway is wide open (no estoppel), and the most efficient next move is a focused § 103 chart on independent claims 1 and 7 using Kisou alone or Kisou + Yagi — the exact grounds the Board already found credible enough to institute on every claim — plus a district-court check on whether the accused product even meets the "tray or housing ... end walls and side walls ... act as end edge reflectors" and "structural support ... posts, tabs" limitations, which are the fight the patent owner actually won or lost in the unretrieved FWD.

Caveat: Petitioners for the settled and denied matters (IPR2014-01092, IPR2015-00368, IPR2015-00497, IPR2015-00755, IPR2015-00831, IPR2015-00832, IPR2015-01115) and the FWD's claim-level holdings were not verifiable within the search budget; those items are labeled as unverified rather than guessed.

Inventors

• Jeffery R. Parker — sole named inventor on US 7,434,974.
  • At the time of the original 1995 priority filing and the 2006 continuation filing, Parker was the founder/principal of Solid State Opto Limited (the original assignee recorded on this patent; the 2006-04-18 recorded assignment runs from "PARKER, JEFFERY R." to SOLID STATE OPTO LIMITED). Parker's earlier work (referenced in the specification to U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,897,771 and 5,005,108) was in light-emitting panel/backlight technology, the same field as this patent.
  • Unusual pattern to note: there is no multi-inventor departures signal here — the patent names one inventor, and the assignment record shows the expected inventor-to-company transfer. This is not the "inventors flee the assignee then portfolio fire-sale" pattern.

Original assignee

• Solid State Opto Limited (the entity named on the issued patent and recorded as original assignee via the 2006-04-18 assignment from Parker).
• Line of business: developer of light-guide / light-emitting-panel and light-redirecting film technology (the "Light emitting panel assemblies" family). The Taiwan industry-press write-up of the related litigation describes the lineage as Lumitex's optical division being transferred into a venture co-founded with Lee Mang-Shiang that became Solid State Opto Limited.
• Product status: the company's value was concentrated in this patent family (light-guide and backlight optics); there is no evidence in the record before me that the patent-owning entity shipped products embodying claim 1 after 2010.
• Current status: effectively monetized/exited — in 2010 Solid State Opto Limited assigned the family to Rambus International Ltd. (press accounts report ~US$26M for the optical patent portfolio, with a license-back). Solid State Opto Limited is no longer the owner of record of this patent.

Assignment timeline

Data-limitation note: I could not retrieve the USPTO reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent (attorney-of-record) fields in this session — the USPTO Assignment Center search returned no machine-readable results to my queries, and the live web indexes did not surface reel/frame data for US 7,434,974. The chronological chain below is taken from the USPTO-imported legal-event feed on Google Patents (recording dates), which mirrors the Assignment Center records. No reel/frame or correspondent values are stated below because I could not verify them; I have not fabricated them. The chain itself (six recorded conveyances) is well corroborated.

• Executed ~2006 / recorded 2006-04-18 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (original assignment)
  • Assignor: Jeffery R. Parker
  • Assignee: Solid State Opto Limited
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Inventor-to-company assignment for the continuation application that issued as US 7,434,974.

• Executed ~2010 / recorded 2010-02-18 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Solid State Opto Limited
  • Assignee: Rambus International Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Portfolio sale of the light-emitting-panel family to Rambus (publicly reported ~US$26M; Solid State Opto retained a license-back). This is the point at which an operating-technology company exited the chain.

• Executed ~2013 / recorded 2013-03-04 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Rambus International Ltd.
  • Assignee: Rambus Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal upstream reorg within Rambus (Rambus International Ltd. → parent Rambus Inc.).

• Executed ~2013 / recorded 2013-03-04 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Rambus Inc.
  • Assignee: Rambus Delaware LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorg — patent parked in Rambus Delaware LLC (same-day as the prior entry).

• Executed ~2013 / recorded 2013-06-26 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Rambus Delaware LLC
  • Assignee: Acacia Research Group LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Transfer to the Acacia Research group — a publicly traded patent-assertion company (NASDAQ: ACTG) — i.e., monetization of a non-core Rambus portfolio.

• Executed ~2013 / recorded 2013-06-27 — Reel/frame: not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Acacia Research Group LLC
  • Assignee: Innovative Display Technologies LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Parking of the patent in Acacia's wholly owned, single-purpose asserting subsidiary — recorded the day after the Acacia transfer, and ~5 months before the first wave of infringement suits.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7434974
    1995 : Priority filing by Parker
    2006 : Continuation filed
        : Assigned to Solid State Opto Ltd
    2008 : Patent issued
    2010 : Assigned to Rambus International Ltd
    2013 : Assigned to Rambus Inc
        : Assigned to Rambus Delaware LLC
        : Assigned to Acacia Research Group LLC
        : Assigned to Innovative Display Technologies LLC
        : First infringement suits filed
    2015 : Patent expired fee related

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The chain ends at Innovative Display Technologies LLC (recorded 2013-06-27), a Delaware LLC whose name and role are licensing/assertion only and which is the wholly owned asserting arm of Acacia Research Group LLC (recorded 2013-06-26). No product business is associated with the entity in any record I located. (Reel/frame not retrieved; dates per USPTO legal-event feed.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Both Acacia Research Group LLC (2013-06-26) and its subsidiary Innovative Display Technologies LLC (2013-06-27) belong to Acacia Research Corporation, one of the best-documented publicly traded patent-assertion firms and a fixture on RPX/Unified Patents/Patent Progress NPE lists. Unified Patents' litigation index embedded in the patent record shows Innovative Display Technologies LLC as plaintiff in dozens of cases (Delaware 1:13-cv-02106 through 1:13-cv-02112, 1:14-cv-00849/00850; E.D. Tex. 2:13-cv-00524 through 00527, 00783/00784; 2:14-cv-00030, 00106, 00142-00146, 00200-00202, 00300-00302, 00532/00535, 00624, 00720-00723, and more) naming this patent family, plus IPR challenges (IPR2015-00368, 00497, 00755, 00831/00832, 01115, 01868; IPR2016-00910).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not retrieve correspondent-of-record fields from the Assignment Center in this session, so I cannot verify whether a single attorney filed multiple links. This is a data gap, not a negative finding.

4. Cascading transfers — present. Four recorded conveyances occurred within roughly four months in 2013 (Rambus International → Rambus Inc. → Rambus Delaware LLC on 2013-03-04, then Acacia Research Group LLC on 2013-06-26 and Innovative Display Technologies LLC on 2013-06-27) — a classic two-hop cascade (reorg consolidation, then monetization transfer into an asserting LLC on consecutive days).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The transfer into the asserting entity Innovative Display Technologies LLC was recorded 2013-06-27; the first wave of Delaware and E.D. Tex. infringement suits naming this patent family was filed in late 2013 (e.g., Delaware 1:13-cv-02106 et seq.; E.D. Tex. 2:13-cv-00524 et seq.). That is within ~5 months — inside the 6-month window that indicates the chain was arranged to enable assertion with clean standing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy proceeding is associated with Solid State Opto, Rambus, or Acacia in connection with this patent.

7. Privateering — unclear. Rambus itself is primarily a licensing/IP company rather than a volume product manufacturer, so characterizing the Rambus → Acacia sale as classic "operating company privateering against competitors" is not cleanly supported. The transfer pattern is more straightforwardly NPE-to-NPE monetization (Rambus monetizing a non-core portfolio via Acacia).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at an asserting Acacia subsidiary.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The chain terminates at Innovative Display Technologies LLC, the wholly owned asserting arm of Acacia Research Corporation, a publicly traded, high-frequency patent-assertion firm — the strongest possible "known asserter" signal — and the patent was asserted in dozens of federal suits beginning within ~5 months of the 2013-06-27 transfer into that entity. Corroborating signals are the four-hop 2013 cascade (2013-03-04 Rambus reorg entries, then 2013-06-26 Acacia, 2013-06-27 Innovative Display Technologies) and the pre-litigation timing. Reel/frame numbers and correspondent names could not be independently verified this session, so those specific fields should be confirmed directly in the USPTO Assignment Center before citation in a filing.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "7434974") and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search (patent number search). Litigation docket cross-reference: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation (Innovative Display Technologies LLC cases) and https://patents.google.com/patent/US7434974/en (legal-events feed).

I performed the requested searches, but I need to be transparent about a data limitation before giving you an anticipation analysis.

1. Verified bibliographic record for the queried number (7434974)

Based on the authoritative Google Patents text provided and the searches run, the patent matching the literal identifier 7434974 is:

Priority chain (verified from the fetched text):
US08/495,176 (→ US 5,613,751, filed 1995-06-27) → division US08/778,089 (→ US 6,079,838) → CIP US09/256,275 (→ US 6,712,481) → division US10/784,527 (→ US 7,160,015) → continuation US11/378,080 (→ US 7,434,974).

The four independent claims all require, in substance: a light emitting panel member with a light entrance surface and a light emitting surface; at least one LED positioned near/against the entrance surface; a tray or housing with a cavity/recess in which the panel member is entirely received; a pattern of light extracting deformities on/in at least one surface; and tray end/side walls acting as end/side edge reflectors to return escaping light back to the deformities. Claims 1, 7, 13, and 17 differ mainly in the structural-function language (mounting posts/tabs, support of other components, alignment tabs/holes/protrusions, and air-gap maintenance).

2. Data limitation on the "References Cited" list

The full fetched text you supplied (and the Google Patents rendering) does not include the "Patent Citations" / "References Cited" section for US7434974. The searches I ran also did not surface a machine-readable examiner citation list for this specific grant:

• One result merely listed US7434974B2 as a family member in a PCT search report annex (WO2013116489A1).
• One result showed US7434974B2 being cited by a later Taiwan patent (TWI246576B) — that is post-grant citation evidence, not §102 prior art.

I will not fabricate an examiner citation table. If you can provide the front-page "References Cited" (or the USPTO Patent Center "Citation" tab / the PTO-1449 form), I can map each reference to claims with confidence. What I can responsibly give you now is the following, each item labeled by confidence.

3. References that are verifiable from the patent document itself

U.S. Patent No. 4,897,771 and U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (Parker; same assignee; incorporated by reference in the specification).

• These are the only external U.S. patents affirmatively identified inside US7434974 as describing suitable light-source types (LEDs and related sources).
• They are not viable §102 anticipatory references for the panel-in-tray claims, because they concern light-source/display technology, not the tray-reflector + deformities combination of claims 1–24. They would more plausibly be used only against the light-source genus language if at all, and even then §102 novelty of the claimed combination would be hard to overcome with them alone.

Family priority documents — US 5,613,751; US 6,079,838; US 6,712,481; US 7,160,015 (all Parker).

• These are the same disclosure and are the source of the § 120 priority claim; they are not § 102 prior art against the continuation because the effective filing date for 7434974's claims reaches back to 1995-06-27 through the chain. Their relevance is to enablement/written-description and potential obviousness-type double patenting, not anticipation.

4. Most relevant art categories for the claim set (analytical, not examiner-citation data)

Since the § 102 analysis date is effectively June 27, 1995 (assuming valid priority), any anticipatory reference must be publicly available before that date. The claims are directed to a fairly specific combination — an edge-lit light guide held entirely inside a tray whose walls double as edge reflectors, with LED(s) at the entrance surface, extracting deformities, and structural/mounting features (posts, tabs, holes, protrusions) on the tray/panel. The art areas most likely to yield anticipatory references are:

• Early edge-lit backlight and light-guide patents (pre-1995) — e.g., work by Tai, Whitehead, and the LCD backlight literature describing light boxes/panels with reflective housings. Such references would be probed primarily against independent claims 1, 7, 13, 17, especially the "entirely received in a cavity" + "end/side wall reflectors" limitations.
• Parker's own earlier U.S. 4,897,771 / 5,005,108 (above) for the LED-source limitations.
• Membrane-switch/illuminated-display housings with mounting posts (pre-1995) — relevant to the "posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount" language in claims 1 and 7 and the "tab/hole/cavity/protrusion" language in claims 13 and 17.
• Brightness-enhancing film / diffuser stack art (pre-1995) — relevant to dependent claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 20 (film positioned near the emitting surface).

5. Honest bottom line

• I can verify the patent record and claim structure with high confidence (Section 1).
• I cannot verify the actual examiner-cited references for US7434974 from the materials available to me; the fetched full text omits the citation section and my searches did not retrieve it. Any claim-by-claim § 102 table would therefore be speculation.
• To complete the task properly, the needed inputs are: (a) the front-page "References Cited" or PTO/SB-08 form for US11/378,080, and/or (b) the IPR petition grounds in IPR2016-00910 and IPR2015-01868 (the litigation data shows Final Written Decisions in both), which will name the specific prior-art references asserted against this patent.

If you provide the citation list or the IPR grounds, I will immediately produce the full per-reference citation, dates, description, and § 102 claim mapping you requested.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7,434,974 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Preliminary note on sources

The patent text you provided does not reproduce a formal "References Cited" section, so I have reconstructed the operative prior-art record from the prosecution/IPR history that was actually litigated against this patent, which is the most probative evidence of what the art would have rendered obvious:

• IPR2015-01868 (K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd., petitioning against claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10, 11) — instituted on all four grounds by the Board's March 17, 2016 Institution Decision.
• IPR2015-01115 (Mercedes-Benz) — exhibits list identifying the same Japanese references.
• IPR2016-00910 — reached a Final Written Decision per Google Patents' family record (grounds not retrievable in my searches; flagged as an open item).

Caveats: I could not retrieve the Final Written Decisions themselves, so I state the grounds as petitioned/instituted with high confidence but do not assert the ultimate merits outcomes. I also could not verify the full disclosure of the Japanese references beyond the IPR record excerpts; where I am extrapolating, I say so.

1. The claimed invention and its § 103 posture

The four independent claims (1, 7, 13, 17) share a core combination, each adding a distinct "integration" feature:

The dependent claims are conventional elaborations: claim 2 (bottom wall = back reflector), claims 3–5/10/11 (diffuser, brightness-enhancing film, or ray-angle-control film "near" the emitting surface), claim 6/12 (faceted entrance surface), claims 8/9/15/24 (the "other component" is an LCD, printed circuit, or display), claims 18–20 (protrusion/post molded into panel), claims 21–22 (light source located by tab/recess).

The claimed subject matter is squarely in the crowded, mature field of edge-lit LCD backlight units. The § 103 question is therefore not whether each element was known (it was), but whether the particular integration — panel-in-reflective-tray + edge reflector walls + mounting/alignment features + optional spaced film — was an obvious arrangement of known parts.

2. Principal prior-art references and what they show

Kisou — JP H7-064078A (JP 7-64078A)

An LCD backlight with a light conductor 30, lamp units L at an edge, a reflector 40, and recessed "light paths" 31 formed on the rear surface of the light conductor, giving the conductor a corrugated shape. Light entering the rear-side light paths is "split and diffused" and "stably transmit[s] the light from the lamp units to greater distances." A scatterer 32 contributes to emission from the light-emitting surface.

For the petitioned grounds, Kisou was the primary reference. The Board construed "deformities" broadly ("any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted" — consistent with the '974 specification at 4:36–40), making Kisou's rear-surface recessed light paths a colorable disclosure of the "pattern of light extracting deformities." (IPR2015-01868; Patent Owner disputed this, arguing Kisou's light paths are voids between conductor and reflector rather than surface deformities, and that they are an "alternative" to light-extracting deformities.)

Furuya — JP 6-214230

A backlight device addressing uniform surface illumination, disclosing (per the IPR record) a reflector-based approach and a light-guide-based approach that Furuya describes as alternatives. Used as the base reference for Ground 4.

Niizuma — JP H5-45651(U)

A surface-illumination device formed of two light panels/illumination zones, using overlapping light distributions to hide a central ridge, edge-illuminated from the short sides. Used in Ground 4 as the secondary reference supplying the reflective-frame/edge-illumination features.

Yagi (Ground 3), Funamoto and Tsuchiyama (related IPR record)

These references were applied to the film-positioning claims (3–5, 10, 11). Tsuchiyama discloses a "rectangular saucer-like reflection frame 36 and a light conducting plate 38" (a reflective tray receiving a light guide) with a "diffusion sheet 40 positioned on the light conducting plate." Funamoto discloses a prism sheet over a diffusion sheet, with microprisms that "redirect[] off-axis light toward the on-axis direction," i.e., control of output ray-angle distribution — the exact function recited in claim 5. (Quoted in the Giesselmann/Escuti declarations in the IPR2015-01866/01867/01868 record.)

Background knowledge (not a single printed reference)

By 1995–2006, wrapping a molded reflective frame (metal or white plastic tray) around the edges of a light guide, using that frame's end/side walls as edge reflectors to recapture light that would otherwise escape, mounting the backlight in a chassis with posts, tabs, and alignment features, and supporting an LCD stack and films over the panel were standard notebook/LCD-module practices — the kind of "known technique" and "design choice" that KSR v. Teleflex (2007) makes available to an obviousness showing.

3. Combination 1 — Kisou alone (or with Yagi/Funamoto/Tsuchiyama for the film claims)

Petitioned as: Grounds 1–3 of IPR2015-01868 — Kisou anticipating claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 (Ground 1); claims 5, 10, 11 obvious over Kisou (Ground 2); claims 3–4 obvious over Kisou + Yagi (Ground 3).

Claim-element mapping (claims 1 and 7):

The genuinely contested limitations are the functional and integration ones: (a) whether Kisou's light paths are "deformities causing light to be emitted from the light-emitting surface," and (b) whether Kisou shows a tray whose walls are edge reflectors providing structural support and mounting features.

Why a PHOSITA would combine / fill the gaps: Even assuming Kisou does not literally anticipate, the incremental steps are textbook § 103 moves:

• Reflective edge walls in a backlight housing were a known solution to the well-recognized problem of edge loss in edge-lit light guides; applying a reflective frame around Kisou's conductor to recapture edge-leaked light is applying a known technique to a known device to achieve a predictable efficiency gain.
• Tray-as-structural-chassis with posts/tabs was the conventional way to integrate a backlight into a display module; adding mounting bosses to a molded frame is an obvious design choice, not an inventive leap.
• For claims 3–5, 10, 11, Yagi/Funamoto/Tsuchiyama supply the only missing piece — a diffuser or brightness-enhancing/prism film positioned over the emitting surface — and the motivation is express: LCD backlights routinely stack diffuser and prism films over the light guide to homogenize output and "redirect off-axis light toward the on-axis direction" (Funamoto). Combining Kisou's light guide with the standard film stack is the predictable union of old elements, each performing its known function (KSR).

Weaknesses of this combination (which Patent Owner pressed and which could defeat it): If the Board accepts that Kisou's recessed light paths are not on the emitting light path and are an alternative to — not an instance of — light-extracting deformities, then the core element [1.d]/[7.d] fails, and no amount of motivation to combine repairs a missing claim limitation unless the secondary reference actually supplies it (requiring the Furuya/Niizuma combination below).

4. Combination 2 — Furuya in view of Niizuma

Petitioned as: Ground 4 of IPR2015-01868 — claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10, 11 obvious over Furuya + Niizuma (the Board found a reasonable likelihood on this ground).

Division of labor between the references:

• Furuya supplies the edge-lit light-conducting panel with light-extraction features and the reflector structure aimed at uniform illumination of a display.
• Niizuma supplies (per the petitioner and the Board's institution) the configuration of a light-conducting panel received in a housing/frame whose walls act as reflectors, with edge light sources — i.e., the "tray or housing having a cavity in which the panel member is entirely received" and "end/side walls as edge reflectors" elements that are the heart of every independent claim.

Motivation to combine (the standard § 103 rationales, as argued and as supportable on the record):

1. Same field, same problem. Both are LCD/surface-illumination backlights addressing brightness and uniformity of an edge-lit panel. A PHOSITA working on backlight efficiency would consult both.
2. Predictable result. Mounting Furuya's light-conducting panel inside Niizuma's reflective frame yields the predictable benefit of recovering light that would otherwise exit through the panel edges — exactly the function the '974 claims recite. There is no showing that the combination produces an unexpected result.
3. Express cross-teaching / no teaching away (petitioner's position). The petitioner argued the combination was "explicitly disclosed" in Niizuma and that Furuya's own text invites combining features across its embodiments ("various omissions, substitutions, and changes … may be made by those skilled in the art"). Because both references are in the same field, address the same problem, and do not negatively limit combination, a PHOSITA would have had a rational underpinning to combine them (KSR's "obvious to try" and "known technique" rationales).
4. The structural/mounting additions are de minimis. The posts/tabs of claims 1 and 7, the panel-side alignment features of claims 13 and 17, and the air-gap-maintaining spacers of claim 17 are all conventional chassis-engineering choices for stacking a backlight, films, and an LCD in a module — additions a PHOSITA would make for assembly tolerance, thermal/mechanical support, and optical (TIR-preserving air-gap) reasons expressly emphasized as desirable in the '974 specification itself (col. 7, describing why full-surface adhesive is disfavored and air gaps 30 are preferred).

Weaknesses of this combination (pressed by Patent Owner and argued at the IPR2015-01866/67/68 oral hearing):

• Teaching away / incompatible design goals. Patent Owner argued Furuya and Niizuma pursue opposite objectives: Furuya seeks a uniform display, while Niizuma is said to produce a deliberately non-uniform, two-zone illumination with overlapping light used to hide a central ridge. Combining a uniformity-driven device with a two-zone device lacks a "cogent reason."
• Structural incompatibility. Furuya describes its reflector approach and its light-guide approach as alternatives, not combinable embodiments; Niizuma edge-illuminates from the short side with two separate panels, whereas Furuya (per the hearing argument) arranges LEDs along the long side to reduce optical loss. Patent Owner argued the references "teach away from one another" and that only hindsight justifies the combination.

5. Independent-claim-specific observations

• Claims 1 and 7 (housing supports the panel and provides mounting for the assembly or for another component): These limitations track the integration of a backlight into a product (LCD module, instrument cluster). The strongest § 103 story is that reflective, load-bearing backlight frames with mounting bosses were ubiquitous in LCD modules and automotive displays before 2006; claims 1 and 7 read like a description of a standard notebook backlight chassis. Kisou's frame/reflector structure, upgraded with conventional posts/tabs (or combined with Niizuma's frame), makes these claims the most vulnerable.
• Claims 13 and 17 (panel-side alignment features; air gap): These are the least clearly disclosed in the Japanese references, because the references do not appear to show registration features on the light guide itself that locate the housing or an overlying component while maintaining an air gap. The obviousness case here is weaker and would need to lean on (a) common knowledge of molded alignment bosses/protrusions and (b) the well-known desirability of an air interface (rather than adhesive) to preserve total internal reflection — both conventional, but neither tied to a specific prior-art disclosure I can confirm from the retrieved record. This is where a petitioner would have the hardest burden, and where secondary considerations (e.g., the long-felt need for thin, uniform backlights; the commercial success of the IDT/Rambus licensing program) could matter most.
• Dependent film claims (3–5, 10, 11): Strongly obvious. Film stacks (diffuser over light guide, prism sheet over diffuser) were standard; Funamoto and Tsuchiyama each supply the missing film element with an express purpose (ray-angle control, diffusion) identical to the claim language.

6. Overall assessment

On the record available (the instituted IPR2015-01868 grounds, plus the related IPR record), the claims divide into two tiers of § 103 vulnerability:

1. High vulnerability (claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10, 11): Kisou (alone or + Yagi), and Furuya + Niizuma, each supply nearly the entire claimed assembly. The remaining gaps — reflective tray walls, structural/mounting features, and film placement — are conventional backlight-module engineering that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to add for efficiency, uniformity, and manufacturability. This is the classic KSR "combination of familiar elements according to known methods" case.
2. Lower vulnerability (claims 13, 17 and their dependents): The panel-borne alignment features and the air-gap-maintaining spacer function are the most invention-specific limitations and the least clearly shown in the identified references; a robust obviousness case against these would require better art (e.g., panel-integrated molded posts/spacers of the kind later shown in the family's own US 8,308,334, which maintains a film "in spaced relation from the panel member by spacers at a perimeter ... to form a hollow layer").

The ultimate merits in IPR2015-01868 and IPR2016-00910 were decided in Final Written Decisions I could not retrieve in this session; those decisions — particularly how the Board resolved the "deformities" construction dispute and the Furuya/Niizuma teaching-away question — would be the authoritative checkpoints for this analysis and remain open items.