US 7300194

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 7300194:

US Patent 7300194 Summary

• Title: Light emitting panel assemblies
• Inventors: Jeffery R. Parker
• Original Assignee: Solid State Opto Ltd
• Current Assignee: Innovative Display Technologies LLC
• Filing Date: October 6, 2005 (for application US11/245,408)
• Issue Date: November 27, 2007
• Abstract: Light emitting assemblies are described, featuring at least one light source and a film, sheet, plate, or substrate with precisely shaped optical elements or deformities on its surface. These elements include reflective or refractive surfaces designed to control the output ray angle distribution of the emitted light. The film, sheet, plate, or substrate can be placed near a light-emitting panel, with an air gap in between, or over a cavity in a tray where the light source is located, and from which light is emitted.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a light-emitting assembly. It includes a panel that emits light and at least one light source. Crucially, there's a separate film, sheet, plate, or substrate positioned near the panel's light-emitting surface, with an air gap between them. This separate element has specially designed reflective or refractive surfaces with optical elements or deformities. These features are specifically for controlling the emitted light so that at least some of it passes through a liquid crystal display (LCD) with minimal light loss.
• Claim 16: This claim focuses on a light-emitting assembly that incorporates a tray. The tray forms a cavity or recess, and at least one light source is placed inside this cavity. A film, sheet, plate, or substrate is positioned over the cavity, allowing light from the source to pass through. Similar to Claim 1, this film, sheet, plate, or substrate has well-defined optical elements or deformities on its reflective or refractive surfaces, engineered to control the emitted light for low-loss transmission through an LCD.
• Claim 28: This claim details a light-emitting assembly comprising at least one light source and a transparent film, sheet, plate, or substrate. This transparent element has distinct top and bottom surfaces, each containing multiple precisely shaped optical elements or deformities. At least some of these elements on either the top or bottom surface possess reflective or refractive properties. Their purpose is to control the emitted light, directing some of it to pass through an LCD with low loss.
• Claim 31: This claim describes a light-emitting assembly with a tray forming a cavity or recess, and at least one light source within it. A film, sheet, plate, or substrate is placed over the cavity, through which the light is emitted. This film, sheet, plate, or substrate has one or more reflective or refractive surfaces that are well-defined optical elements or deformities. These elements are designed to control the light output ray angle distribution to suit a particular application.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, no CAFC dockets specifically for 2026 related to US Patent 7300194 were found in the provided information or through a broader search within the given context. The patent is noted as "Expired - Fee Related" with an expiration date of October 30, 2015. Existing litigation records shown on the Google Patents page primarily date from 2013-2015.

The following litigation involving US Patent 7300194 has been identified, primarily based on information provided on the Google Patents page for US7300194B2 and supplemented by targeted search results:

I. U.S. District Court Cases

The plaintiff in these cases is consistently Innovative Display Technologies LLC, often alongside Delaware Display Group LLC, the current assignee of the patent. The nature of the suits is patent infringement related to LCD and backlight technologies.

A. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00106

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC
  • Defendant(s): BMW of North America, LLC et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: February 21, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: An order from March 30, 2015, is referenced in relation to this case.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00624

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): Mazda Motor Corporation et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: May 13, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00142

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): Canon U.S.A. Inc. et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: February 26, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00143

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): Garmin International, Inc. et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: February 26, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00723

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: June 25, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00524

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2013 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00525

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC
  • Defendant(s): Hewlett-Packard Company
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2013 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00526

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2013 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00527

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2013 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00783

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC
  • Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: October 1, 2013
  • Outcome/Status: A memorandum opinion and order was signed on June 17, 2014.

• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00784

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2013 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00030

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2014 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00722

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): [Verizon Communications, Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Verizon%20Communications%2C%20Inc.) et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: June 25, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00721

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): Sprint Corporation et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: June 25, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00144

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): MiTAC Digital Corporation et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: February 26, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00145

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): Nikon, Inc. et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: February 27, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00146

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): TomTom North America Inc. et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: February 27, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00200

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): Toyota Motor Corp. et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: March 10, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00201

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): Hyundai Motor Group et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: March 10, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00202

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: March 10, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00222

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2014 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00300

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): Volkswagen AG et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: April 7, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00301

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2014 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00302

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2014 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00532

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2014 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00720

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): AT&T Inc. et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Filing Date: June 25, 2014
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

B. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02106

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC
  • Defendant(s): Amazon.com Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Filing Date: December 31, 2013
  • Outcome/Status: As of February 25, 2016, a motion to compel compliance with subpoenas was granted in part and denied in part, and a motion for leave to amend was denied.

• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02107

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2013 (implied from related cases).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02108

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Filing Date: December 31, 2013
  • Outcome/Status: As of February 25, 2016, a motion to compel compliance with subpoenas was granted in part and denied in part, and a motion for leave to amend was denied.

• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02109

  • Plaintiff(s): Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies LLC
  • Defendant(s): [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Filing Date: December 31, 2013
  • Outcome/Status: As of February 25, 2016, a motion for leave to amend was denied.

• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02110

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2013 (implied from related cases).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02111

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2013 (implied from related cases).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02112

  • Plaintiff(s): Delaware Display Group LLC et al.
  • Defendant(s): VIZIO Inc. et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Filing Date: December 31, 2013
  • Outcome/Status: As of February 25, 2016, a motion for leave to amend was denied.

• Case Number: 1:14-cv-00849

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2014 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

• Case Number: 1:14-cv-00850

  • Plaintiff(s): Innovative Display Technologies LLC and/or Delaware Display Group LLC (implied from related cases).
  • Defendant(s): General Motors LLC
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2014 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Not specified in available search results.

II. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Cases

The patent owner for these Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings is Innovative Display Technologies LLC.

• Case Number: IPR2015-00490

  • Petitioner: Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Patent Owner: Innovative Display Technologies LLC.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2015 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Adverse Judgment.

• Case Number: IPR2015-00360

  • Petitioner: Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Patent Owner: Innovative Display Technologies LLC.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2015 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Adverse Judgment.

• Case Number: IPR2014-01097

  • Petitioner: Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Patent Owner: Innovative Display Technologies LLC.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2014 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Adverse Judgment.

• Case Number: IPR2015-00843

  • Petitioner: Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Patent Owner: Innovative Display Technologies LLC.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2015 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Settlement.

• Case Number: IPR2015-00749

  • Petitioner: Not explicitly mentioned in available search results.
  • Patent Owner: Innovative Display Technologies LLC.
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • Filing Date: Filed in 2015 (based on case number).
  • Outcome/Status: Settlement.

Proceedings overview

There are five AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 7300194. Three of these concluded with an "Adverse Judgment," indicating that claims were likely found unpatentable, while two concluded with a "Settlement." This outcome gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture. While some claims may have been invalidated, others might have survived, or the settlements may have preserved certain claims. Without specific details on the invalidated claims, a definitive assessment of the patent's strength is challenging.

IPR2015-00490 — Petitioner v. Patent Owner

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: While the exact filing date is not publicly available in the provided snippets, the proceeding was filed in 2015.
• Status: Adverse Judgment. This status typically means that the Patent Owner did not prevail, and claims challenged in the IPR were found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not publicly available in the provided search results. IPRs generally challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and/or 103 (obviousness) based on patents and printed publications.
• Institution decision: Details of the institution decision are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): An "Adverse Judgment" indicates that the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding at least some of the challenged claims unpatentable. The exact claims cancelled and the panel's reasoning are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the status is "Adverse Judgment."
• Appeal: Information on whether this FWD was appealed to the Federal Circuit is not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Defensive value: Given the "Adverse Judgment" status, it is highly probable that some claims were invalidated. A defendant should investigate the FWD to identify precisely which claims were cancelled, as any infringement theory relying on those claims would be significantly weakened.

IPR2015-00360 — Petitioner v. Patent Owner

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: While the exact filing date is not publicly available in the provided snippets, the proceeding was filed in 2015.
• Status: Adverse Judgment. This status typically means that the Patent Owner did not prevail, and claims challenged in the IPR were found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not publicly available in the provided search results. IPRs generally challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and/or 103 (obviousness) based on patents and printed publications.
• Institution decision: Details of the institution decision are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): An "Adverse Judgment" indicates that the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding at least some of the challenged claims unpatentable. The exact claims cancelled and the panel's reasoning are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the status is "Adverse Judgment."
• Appeal: Information on whether this FWD was appealed to the Federal Circuit is not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2015-00490, the "Adverse Judgment" suggests that claims were invalidated. A defendant should seek out the FWD to understand the scope of invalidation, as it could eliminate certain infringement contentions.

IPR2014-01097 — Petitioner v. Patent Owner

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: While the exact filing date is not publicly available in the provided snippets, the proceeding was filed in 2014.
• Status: Adverse Judgment. This status typically means that the Patent Owner did not prevail, and claims challenged in the IPR were found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not publicly available in the provided search results. IPRs generally challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) and/or 103 (obviousness) based on patents and printed publications.
• Institution decision: Details of the institution decision are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): An "Adverse Judgment" indicates that the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding at least some of the challenged claims unpatentable. The exact claims cancelled and the panel's reasoning are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the status is "Adverse Judgment."
• Appeal: Information on whether this FWD was appealed to the Federal Circuit is not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Defensive value: The "Adverse Judgment" implies claims were invalidated. A defendant should identify the specific claims affected by this decision, as it could substantially narrow the scope of potential infringement.

IPR2015-00843 — Petitioner v. Patent Owner

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: While the exact filing date is not publicly available in the provided snippets, the proceeding was filed in 2015.
• Status: Settlement. This means the parties reached an agreement and jointly requested termination of the proceeding.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Institution decision: Details of the institution decision are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated due to settlement. The PTAB will terminate an IPR upon joint request of the parties, "unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed".
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to settlement. The precise date and terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as there was no FWD.
• Defensive value: A settlement means the validity of the challenged claims was not decided on the merits by the PTAB. However, it indicates that the patent was challenged, and the settlement terms (if discoverable, though usually confidential) might shed light on the perceived strength of the patent or the challenger's position.

IPR2015-00749 — Petitioner v. Patent Owner

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: While the exact filing date is not publicly available in the provided snippets, the proceeding was filed in 2015.
• Status: Settlement. This means the parties reached an agreement and jointly requested termination of the proceeding.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges for this proceeding is not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art references, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Institution decision: Details of the institution decision are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated due to settlement. The PTAB will terminate an IPR upon joint request of the parties, "unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed".
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to settlement. The precise date and terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as there was no FWD.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2015-00843, this settlement means the validity of the challenged claims was not adjudicated by the PTAB. The existence of multiple settlements suggests a pattern of challenges, but without knowing the terms, it's hard to infer the patent's underlying strength.

Strategic summary

Based on the available information, US7300194 has been subjected to five Inter Partes Review proceedings. Three of these resulted in an "Adverse Judgment," indicating that some claims were found unpatentable by the PTAB. The remaining two IPRs concluded with a "Settlement," meaning the parties resolved their dispute without a final decision on the merits by the PTAB.

Crucially, the exact claims of US7300194 that were challenged, invalidated, or sustained are not available in the public snippets. To understand the current defensive posture, it is paramount to obtain the Final Written Decisions for IPR2015-00490, IPR2015-00360, and IPR2014-01097. These documents would detail which claims were cancelled, rendering them unusable for infringement assertions. Claims not challenged in these IPRs, or those that survived an "Adverse Judgment," remain presumptively valid. For the settled proceedings (IPR2015-00843 and IPR2015-00749), no estoppel attaches to the petitioner regarding the claims, as no Final Written Decision on the merits was issued.

The estoppel landscape is complex: for the "Adverse Judgment" IPRs, the respective petitioners (and their privies) are estopped from asserting in district court or other PTAB proceedings any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. For the settled IPRs, no such estoppel applies to the petitioners for claims where the merits were not decided. The overall pattern indicates that the patent has faced significant validity challenges, with at least three challenges resulting in adverse judgments against the patent owner. The presence of multiple IPRs, some with adverse judgments and others settled, suggests that the patent's scope or validity may have been narrowed or is at least perceived as vulnerable by challengers.

Recommended next steps

• Obtain Final Written Decisions: Immediately seek the Final Written Decisions for IPR2015-00490, IPR2015-00360, and IPR2014-01097. These decisions are critical to understanding which claims of US7300194, if any, have been cancelled. The USPTO's PTAB Decisions portal (search.uspto.gov/ptab/decisions) would be the primary resource for these documents. Without this, any infringement demand based on these patents is difficult to assess.
• Analyze surviving claims: Once the FWDs are reviewed, identify all claims of US7300194 that were explicitly cancelled. If your demand letter cites any of these cancelled claims, the patent owner has no case for those specific claims. Furthermore, analyze any claims that were upheld or not challenged to understand the remaining scope of the patent.
• Evaluate estoppel: For any future challenges, consider the estoppel effects on the petitioners (and their privies) from the IPRs that resulted in a Final Written Decision. Any prior art grounds "raised or reasonably could have been raised" in those proceedings are barred for those petitioners. For the settled IPRs, petitioners are not estopped from raising invalidity grounds in subsequent litigation or PTAB proceedings, as no FWD on the merits was issued.

Inventors

• Jeffery R. Parker: At the time of filing, Jeffery R. Parker was the inventor and assigned the patent to Solid State Opto Ltd. on October 21, 2005, indicating he was likely employed by or closely associated with Solid State Opto Ltd.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Solid State Opto Ltd.

Solid State Opto Ltd's primary line of business, based on the patent's subject matter, was likely in developing and manufacturing light-emitting panel assemblies, potentially for applications such as LCD backlighting, general illumination, and specialized lighting (e.g., medical, automotive). It is unclear from the patent records whether Solid State Opto Ltd shipped a product embodying the claims. Given the subsequent assignments to patent assertion entities, it is highly probable that Solid State Opto Ltd is no longer operating with this patent as a core asset, or it may be dissolved or inactive in this specific field.

Assignment timeline

• 2005-10-21 (executed) / recorded 2005-12-07 — Reel 030096/0200
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: PARKER, JEFFERY R.
  • Assignee: SOLID STATE OPTO LIMITED
  • Correspondent: MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP, 600 13TH STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
  • Context: Inventor assigned the patent application to the original corporate assignee.
• 2010-02-18 (executed) / recorded 2010-03-03 — Reel 023901/0173
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: SOLID STATE OPTO LIMITED
  • Assignee: RAMBUS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
  • Correspondent: WEAVER AUSTIN VILLENEUVE & SAMPSON LLP, P.O. BOX 70250, OAKLAND, CA 94612-0250
  • Context: Original assignee transferred ownership to an entity within the Rambus corporate structure.
• 2013-03-04 (executed) / recorded 2013-03-27 — Reel 029676/0970
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: RAMBUS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
  • Assignee: RAMBUS INC.
  • Correspondent: NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C., 901 N. GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR, ARLINGTON, VA 22203. This correspondent also handled the subsequent transfer on the same day.
  • Context: Internal corporate restructuring transfer within Rambus entities.
• 2013-03-04 (executed) / recorded 2013-03-27 — Reel 029676/0970
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: RAMBUS INC.
  • Assignee: RAMBUS DELAWARE LLC
  • Correspondent: NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C., 901 N. GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR, ARLINGTON, VA 22203. This correspondent also handled the prior transfer on the same day.
  • Context: Internal corporate restructuring transfer within Rambus entities, likely for legal or tax purposes.
• 2013-06-26 (executed) / recorded 2013-07-25 — Reel 030635/0503
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: RAMBUS DELAWARE LLC
  • Assignee: ACACIA RESEARCH GROUP LLC
  • Correspondent: WONG, PAUL H, 110 W. A STREET, SUITE 250, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101. This correspondent handled the subsequent transfer on the next day.
  • Context: Transfer from an operating company (Rambus subsidiary) to a known patent assertion entity (Acacia Research Group LLC).
• 2013-06-27 (executed) / recorded 2013-07-25 — Reel 030635/0503
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: ACACIA RESEARCH GROUP LLC
  • Assignee: INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Correspondent: WONG, PAUL H, 110 W. A STREET, SUITE 250, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101. This correspondent handled the prior transfer on the previous day.
  • Context: Transfer from a patent assertion entity to its subsidiary LLC, which is the current assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7300194
    2005 : Inventor to Solid State Opto Ltd
    2007 : Patent issued
    2010 : Assigned to Rambus International
    2013 : Assigned to Rambus Inc
         : Assigned to Rambus Delaware LLC
         : Assigned to Acacia Research Group
         : Assigned to Innovative Display Technologies
    2015 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present.
   • The transfer on 2013-06-26 (Reel 030635/0503) from Rambus Delaware LLC to Acacia Research Group LLC involves a known patent assertion entity.
   • The subsequent transfer on 2013-06-27 (Reel 030635/0503) to Innovative Display Technologies LLC, a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation, is also a transfer to a shell entity for licensing/assertion purposes.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present.
   • Acacia Research Group LLC became an assignee on 2013-06-26 (Reel 030635/0503). Acacia Research Group LLC is a widely recognized patent assertion entity.
   • Innovative Display Technologies LLC, the current assignee since 2013-06-27 (Reel 030635/0503), is an operating company subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation, involved in patent assertion.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present.
   • Paul H. Wong (110 W. A STREET, SUITE 250, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101) acted as the correspondent for both the 2013-06-26 transfer to Acacia Research Group LLC and the 2013-06-27 transfer to Innovative Display Technologies LLC (Reel 030635/0503). This recurrence of the same attorney handling a sequence of transfers to known NPEs is a strong signal.
4. Cascading transfers — Present.
   • There were four consecutive assignments within a short period in 2013: 2013-03-04 (Rambus International to Rambus Inc.), 2013-03-04 (Rambus Inc. to Rambus Delaware LLC), 2013-06-26 (Rambus Delaware LLC to Acacia Research Group LLC), and 2013-06-27 (Acacia Research Group LLC to Innovative Display Technologies LLC). The last two transfers, in particular, occurred on consecutive days and shared the same correspondent, Paul H. Wong, demonstrating a rapid progression of ownership culminating in a transfer to an NPE and its subsidiary.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present.
   • The transfers to Acacia Research Group LLC (2013-06-26, Reel 030635/0503) and Innovative Display Technologies LLC (2013-06-27, Reel 030635/0503) occurred in June 2013. The Google Patents litigation section shows multiple cases filed in District Courts in 2013, such as 1:13-cv-02106 and 2:13-cv-00524, indicating that these assignments immediately preceded a patent assertion campaign.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence of bankruptcy proceedings for the assignors was found.
7. Privateering — Unclear. The transfer from Rambus Delaware LLC (an operating company subsidiary) to Acacia Research Group LLC (a known NPE) on 2013-06-26 (Reel 030635/0503) is highly suggestive of a privateering arrangement. However, explicit details of such an agreement are not available from the assignment records alone.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The final assignee is an operating subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation, a known patent assertion entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The assignment chain for US Patent 7300194 exhibits multiple strong signals indicative of an NPE. Specifically, the patent was transferred to Acacia Research Group LLC on 2013-06-26 (Reel 030635/0503), a well-known patent assertion entity, and then immediately to its subsidiary, Innovative Display Technologies LLC, on 2013-06-27 (Reel 030635/0503). These transfers, handled by the same correspondent (Paul H. Wong), were part of a cascading series of assignments that immediately preceded multiple reported infringement lawsuits in 2013.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US7300194: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html?pno=7300194

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 7300194, I will examine the "Cited By" section of the patent on Google Patents, as this lists patents and publications that have cited 7300194 as prior art. I will also review the "References Cited" section of US7300194B2 on Google Patents, which lists prior art that the examiners considered during the prosecution of 7300194.

After reviewing the full patent text and the Google Patents page for US7300194B2, the "Cited By" section lists patents that cite US7300194B2, meaning these are later patents that considered 7300194 as prior art to them. The request is to find prior art for US7300194. Therefore, I need to look at the "References Cited" section within US7300194B2 itself, as these are the documents that were considered prior art to US7300194 during its examination.

The Google Patents page for US7300194B2 already provides a list of "Priority Applications" and "Applications Claiming Priority" which indicate the lineage of the patent. The most direct prior art will be the parent applications from which US7300194B2 claims priority.

Here's the breakdown of the most relevant prior art based on the patent's own claims of priority:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 7300194

US Patent 7300194 is a divisional application of prior patents, meaning it claims priority from earlier applications. These earlier applications are the most relevant prior art for this patent.

Here are the direct parent applications from which US7300194B2 claims priority, representing the most relevant prior art:

• 1. US Patent 7,160,015 (Light Emitting Panel Assemblies)

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,160,015
  • Publication Date: January 9, 2007
  • Filing Date: February 23, 2004 (application Ser. No. 10/784,527)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes light emitting panel assemblies including a transparent panel member for conducting light and controlling its emission from one or more light output areas. It details embedding or bonding light sources to eliminate air gaps, and using reflective or refractive surfaces for efficiency. It also covers patterns of light extracting deformities for desired light output distribution and using multiple colored light sources for colored or white light output.
  • Potential Anticipation: US7300194B2 is a division of US7160015B2. Therefore, US7160015B2 anticipates all claims of US7300194B2 to the extent that the subject matter of the claims of US7300194B2 is disclosed in US7160015B2. This means that if any claim in 7300194 is directly and entirely disclosed in 7160015, that claim would be anticipated.

• 2. US Patent 6,712,481 (Light Emitting Panel Assemblies)

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,712,481
  • Publication Date: March 30, 2004
  • Filing Date: February 23, 1999 (application Ser. No. 09/256,275)
  • Brief Description: This patent also describes light-emitting panel assemblies with transparent panel members and light sources mounted in a light transition area. It emphasizes eliminating air gaps, using reflective/refractive surfaces, and employing patterns of light-extracting deformities to control light output. It further covers using multiple colored light sources for desired color or white light.
  • Potential Anticipation: US7300194B2 is a division of US7160015B2, which itself is a division of US6712481B2. Therefore, US6712481B2 potentially anticipates claims of US7300194B2 if the claimed subject matter was disclosed in US6712481B2.

• 3. US Patent 6,079,838 (Light Emitting Panel Assemblies)

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,079,838
  • Publication Date: June 27, 2000
  • Filing Date: January 2, 1997 (application Ser. No. 08/778,089)
  • Brief Description: This patent describes similar light-emitting panel assemblies, focusing on a transparent panel member, light sources in a transition area, and light-extracting deformities for controlling light emission.
  • Potential Anticipation: US7300194B2 claims priority through a chain that includes US6079838A. Thus, US6079838A potentially anticipates claims of US7300194B2 if the claimed subject matter was disclosed in US6079838A.

• 4. US Patent 5,613,751 (Light Emitting Panel Assemblies)

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,613,751
  • Publication Date: March 25, 1997
  • Filing Date: June 27, 1995 (application Ser. No. 08/495,176)
  • Brief Description: This is the earliest patent in the priority chain. It covers light-emitting panel assemblies with a transparent panel, light sources in a transition area, and methods for controlling light output, including the use of light-extracting deformities.
  • Potential Anticipation: As the earliest priority document, US5613751A potentially anticipates claims of US7300194B2 if the claimed subject matter was disclosed in US5613751A. This patent establishes the priority date for much of the core invention.

The obviousness analysis for US Patent 7300194 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 hinges on the fact that it is a divisional application, claiming priority from a chain of earlier patents: US7160015B2, US6712481B2, US6079838A, and US5613751A. These parent applications, therefore, constitute the most relevant prior art. The disclosure of these prior art references, particularly the detailed embodiments described, would render the claims of US7300194 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).

General Motivation for Combination:

The entire patent family, including US7300194, shares the common objective of developing "light emitting panel assemblies each including a transparent panel member for efficiently conducting light, and controlling the light conducted by the panel member to be emitted from one or more light output areas along the length thereof." A PHOSITA in the field of light-emitting displays or illumination, seeking to improve efficiency, uniformity, and application-specific performance of such panels, would naturally consult the cumulative teachings within this related patent family. The overarching motivation for combining elements from these prior art documents would be to achieve "better control of the light output from the panel assemblies and for more efficient utilization of light, which results in greater light output from the panel assemblies." This intrinsic motivation would drive a PHOSITA to combine or select various disclosed features to refine or optimize the light-emitting panel assemblies for specific uses.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims:

1. Independent Claim 1:
This claim describes a light-emitting assembly including a light-emitting panel, at least one light source, a film/sheet/plate/substrate positioned near the panel's light-emitting surface with an air gap, where the film/sheet/plate/substrate has reflective or refractive surfaces with deformities for controlling emitted light to pass through a liquid crystal display (LCD) with low loss.

• Combination: US7160015B2 (or any of the earlier parent patents, such as US6712481B2, US6079838A, or US5613751A) provides direct and comprehensive disclosure.
• Analysis: The detailed description of US7300194B2, which is derived from its parent applications, explicitly teaches all elements of this claim. It describes a "transparent film, sheet or plate 27... attached or positioned against the side or sides of the panel member from which light is emitted". It also teaches the presence of "air gaps 30... formed between the respective panel surfaces and the back reflector 26 and/or film 27 when only adhered along the peripheral edges". Furthermore, the specification states that "the deformities 21 may also be used to control the output ray angle distribution of the emitted light to suit a particular application. For example, if the panel assemblies are used to provide a liquid crystal display backlight, the light output will be more efficient if the deformities 21 cause the light rays to emit from the panels at predetermined ray angles such that they will pass through the liquid crystal display with low loss."
• Motivation: A PHOSITA, reviewing the detailed disclosure of US7160015B2 (or its parents), would readily identify the components of a separate film/sheet/plate (27), the use of an air gap (30), and the application of light-extracting deformities (21) for efficient light control. The explicit teaching to use these deformities for redirecting light to pass through an LCD with low loss directly provides the motivation for this combination, as it addresses a known technical challenge in display backlighting.

2. Independent Claim 16:
This claim focuses on a light-emitting assembly with a tray forming a cavity, at least one light source within the cavity, and a film/sheet/plate/substrate positioned over the cavity with deformities for controlling emitted light for low-loss transmission through an LCD.

• Combination: US7160015B2 (or earlier parent patents).
• Analysis: The patent's detailed description, common across the family, explicitly illustrates and describes a "tray 35 having a cavity or recess 36 in which the panel assembly 32 is received." It further notes that "The tray 35 may act as a back reflector as well as end edge and/or side edge reflectors for the panel 33 and side and/or back reflectors 37 for the light sources 3." The concept of a film/sheet/plate with deformities designed for low-loss light transmission through an LCD is also thoroughly described within the same patent family's disclosure, as noted for Claim 1. The placement of such a film/sheet/plate over a cavity containing a light source is an inherent structural implication for light extraction from the cavity.
• Motivation: A PHOSITA, seeking to create integrated and efficient light-emitting assemblies, would be motivated to combine the disclosed tray structure (e.g., elements 35, 36 of FIG. 6) with the light control features of a film/sheet/plate having deformities. The explicit teaching of controlling light for LCD applications with low loss provides a clear reason to integrate these elements into a tray-based design, offering structural advantages and targeted light performance.

3. Independent Claim 28:
This claim describes a light-emitting assembly with a light source and a transparent film/sheet/plate/substrate having top and bottom surfaces, with deformities on or in both surfaces that have reflective or refractive surfaces for controlling emitted light for low-loss transmission through an LCD.

• Combination: US7160015B2 (or earlier parent patents).
• Analysis: The patent's detailed description explicitly states that "A pattern of light extracting deformities or disruptions may be provided on one or both sides of the panel members or on one or more selected areas on one or both sides of the panel members, as desired." This directly teaches the application of deformities on both top and bottom surfaces. As established previously, the application of these deformities for controlling light to pass through an LCD with low loss is also a clearly disclosed purpose within the patent family.
• Motivation: A PHOSITA, aiming for enhanced light output control, uniformity, or specific ray angle distribution (especially for an LCD application), would find it obvious to apply deformities to both sides of a transparent film/sheet/plate/substrate. The patent itself highlights that varying parameters like "density, opaqueness or translucence, shape, depth, color, area, index of refraction, or type of deformities 21 on an area or areas of the panels, the light output of the panels can be controlled." Employing deformities on both surfaces would be an obvious extension to achieve more precise or versatile light manipulation for the stated purpose of low-loss LCD transmission.

4. Independent Claim 31:
This claim describes a light-emitting assembly with a tray forming a cavity, a light source within it, and a film/sheet/plate/substrate over the cavity with deformities for controlling the light output ray angle distribution for a particular application.

• Combination: US7160015B2 (or earlier parent patents).
• Analysis: Similar to Claim 16, the "tray that forms a cavity or recess" with a light source positioned within is explicitly described and illustrated (FIG. 6) in the common disclosure of the patent family. The concept of a film/sheet/plate/substrate positioned over this cavity is a logical structural arrangement. Furthermore, the detailed description clearly states that "The deformities 21 may also be used to control the output ray angle distribution of the emitted light to suit a particular application."
• Motivation: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the disclosed tray and light source configuration with the light-controlling deformities on a film/sheet/plate. This combination is aimed at achieving specific light output characteristics, with the explicit teaching that deformities can be used to control "output ray angle distribution... to suit a particular application." This general motivation to tailor light output for diverse applications makes the claimed combination obvious.

Conclusion:

Given that US7300194B2 is a divisional application, the subject matter of its claims is directly disclosed within its parent applications (US7160015B2, US6712481B2, US6079838A, US5613751A). The specific combinations of elements and their functions, as claimed in US7300194B2, are either explicitly taught or would have been readily apparent to a PHOSITA from the detailed descriptions in these prior patents. The consistent motivation across the patent family to improve light output efficiency, uniformity, and adaptability for various applications, including LCD backlighting, further supports the obviousness of these combinations. Therefore, the claims of US7300194B2 would likely be considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of the disclosures of its own parent applications.

To accurately detail the patent term adjustments (PTA), patent term extensions (PTE), continuation applications, divisional applications, related family members, and the projected expiration date for US Patent 7300194, I will rely on information directly from the patent document on Google Patents and general USPTO rules regarding patent terms.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) and Patent Term Extension (PTE)

US Patent 7300194 shows no specific mention of Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) or Patent Term Extensions (PTE) on its Google Patents page.

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): PTA is granted to compensate for administrative delays by the USPTO during patent prosecution. It adds days to the 20-year lifespan of a U.S. patent. Without access to the specific prosecution history (file wrapper) for US7300194, the exact PTA days cannot be determined. The Google Patents page for US7300194 indicates an "Adjusted expiration" date, which typically includes any PTA.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): PTE is awarded to compensate for delays in obtaining regulatory approval for a patented product, primarily for certain drugs, medical devices, and other regulated products. There is no indication in the patent's description or classifications that it relates to a product subject to regulatory review for which PTE would typically be granted. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that US7300194 received a PTE.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

US Patent 7300194 is explicitly identified as a divisional application. The patent states: "This application is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/784,527, filed Feb. 23, 2004 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,160,015".

The "Priority Applications" and "Applications Claiming Priority" sections on Google Patents confirm its lineage:

• US7300194B2 claims priority from US11/245,408, filed 2005-10-06.
• US11/245,408 claims priority from US10/784,527 (now US7160015B2), filed 2004-02-23.
• US10/784,527 claims priority from US09/256,275 (now US6712481B2), filed 1999-02-23.
• US09/256,275 claims priority from US08/778,089 (now US6079838A), filed 1997-01-02.
• US08/778,089 claims priority from US08/495,176 (now US5613751A), filed 1995-06-27.

This establishes US7300194 as a divisional application in a long chain of related applications.

Related Family Members

The patent family for US7300194 includes numerous applications and patents, demonstrating a strategy of carving out different aspects of the invention into multiple patents. The Google Patents "Family Applications" section lists 34 family applications, including the current patent, US7300194B2. These are all related to "Light emitting panel assemblies."

Key related family members from which US7300194B2 directly claims priority (as detailed above) include:

• US7160015B2
• US6712481B2
• US6079838A
• US5613751A

Other related family members listed on the Google Patents page that are also part of this extensive family include (but are not limited to):

• US6755547B2
• US7226196B2
• US6749312B2
• US7077544B2
• US7195389B2
• US7004611B2
• US7322730B2
• US7178965B2
• US7165873B2
• US7357553B2
• US7354184B2
• US7374305B2
• US7736043B2
• US7384177B2
• US7434974B2
• US7404660B2
• US7467887B2
• US7703967B2
• US7537370B2
• US7404661B2
• US7434973B2
• US7963687B2
• US8123393B2

Projected Expiration Date

For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of a patent generally ends 20 years from the filing date of the earliest application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c).

The earliest priority date for US7300194B2 is June 27, 1995, from application US08/495,176.

Therefore, the statutory expiration date for US7300194 would be 20 years from June 27, 1995, which is June 27, 2015.

The Google Patents page explicitly states the "Legal status" as "Expired - Fee Related, expires 2015-10-30." This "Adjusted expiration" date of October 30, 2015, indicates that some Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) was applied, extending the term beyond the initial 20 years from the earliest priority date. The specific details of this adjustment would be in the patent's prosecution history (file wrapper).