US 7384177

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 7384177:

US Patent 7384177: Light Emitting Panel Assemblies

• Title: Light emitting panel assemblies
• Assignee (Current): Innovative Display Technologies LLC
• Inventor: Jeffery R. Parker
• Filing Date: October 6, 2005
• Issue Date: June 10, 2008
• Abstract: Light emitting assemblies include a tray that forms a cavity or recess containing one or more light sources. A sheet, film or substrate is positioned over the cavity or recess for controlling the light emitted from the assembly. The tray acts as a back, side or edge reflector, and has one or more secondary reflective or refractive surfaces.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a light-emitting assembly that includes a tray with a back wall and continuous side walls, forming a hollow, fully enclosed cavity. Inside this cavity, there is at least one light source. Overlying this assembly is a sheet, film, or substrate designed to control the light emitted. A key feature is that the tray itself functions as a reflector (back, side edge, and/or end edge) and also incorporates one or more secondary reflective or refractive surfaces (which can be flat, angled, faceted, or curved) to redirect a portion of the light from the light source in a specific way within the cavity.

• Claim 15: This claim focuses on a light-emitting assembly similar to Claim 1, with a tray, cavity, and an overlying sheet, film, or substrate for light control. The distinction here is the presence of at least two light sources within the cavity. The tray again acts as a reflector (back, side edge, and/or end edge) and features at least one secondary reflective or refractive surface (flat, angled, faceted, or curved). The purpose of these surfaces is specifically to improve the mixing of light rays within the cavity, aiming to produce a desired light output color or a more uniform light distribution.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search of CAFC 2026 dockets did not return any specific cases directly involving US patent 7384177. Information available relates to general patent litigation in the Federal Circuit in 2026, but no direct matches for this patent number were found.

I have reviewed US Patent 7384177 for known litigation. The Google Patents entry for US7384177 provides extensive litigation information, including District Court cases and PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) cases. Based on this information, the following litigation is known:

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 7384177:

PTAB Cases:

• Case Number: IPR2015-00489
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision
  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner not listed in provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: IPR2014-01362
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision
  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner not listed in provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: IPR2015-00756
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement
  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner not listed in provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: IPR2015-00359
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement
  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner not listed in provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: IPR2015-01044
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement
  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner not listed in provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: IPR2015-00857
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement
  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner not listed in provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: IPR2015-00835
  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Settlement
  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner not listed in provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

US District Court Cases (Delaware District Court):

• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02106
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02107
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02108
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02109
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02110
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02111
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:13-cv-02112
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:14-cv-00849
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:14-cv-00850
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:15-cv-01220
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:15-cv-01221
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 1:15-cv-01222
  • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

US District Court Cases (Texas Eastern District Court):

• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00142
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Critical
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00106
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00524
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00525
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00526
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00527
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00783
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:13-cv-00784
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00030
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00144
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00723
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00200
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00722
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00145
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00146
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00143
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00201
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00202
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00222
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00300
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00301
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00302
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00532
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00535
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00624
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00720
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Case Number: 2:14-cv-00721
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

Worldwide Family Litigation:

• Case Number: Not explicitly stated as a case number, but "First worldwide family litigation filed" is noted.
  • Jurisdiction: Global (Darts-ip link provided for family 22971622)
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Filed
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.

The Google Patents listing provides the jurisdiction and case numbers, and sometimes the outcome (e.g., "Final Written Decision" or "Settlement" for PTAB cases, and "Critical" or "Filed" for District Court cases). However, the specific plaintiffs, defendants, and filing dates for many of the District Court cases are not explicitly detailed within the provided Google Patents text. For the PTAB cases, the petitioner (plaintiff) is also not explicitly named in the provided text. Additional external search would be required to obtain these missing details for all listed cases, particularly for the district court filings.

Proceedings overview

There are 7 AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 7384177. Two of these resulted in Final Written Decisions, with one IPR resulting in claims being canceled and the other resulting in claims being sustained. Five IPRs were terminated due to settlement. This history presents a mixed defensive posture for a defendant; while some claims were found unpatentable, others were sustained, suggesting that certain infringement theories may still be viable for the patent owner.

IPR2014-01362 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2014-09-02 (Petition filing date)
• Status: Final Written Decision (Claims 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 were found unpatentable).
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Trenton Ward, Peter P. Chen, and Michael P. Tierney
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 15-27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art. Specifically, they asserted anticipation and obviousness over combinations including references such as Parker, Doughty, and other cited art.
• Institution decision: Instituted on March 11, 2015, for claims 15-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over various combinations of references. The Board determined that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on September 11, 2015. The Board found claims 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 unpatentable. The panel concluded that Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims were obvious over the cited prior art.
  • "For the foregoing reasons, and for claims 15–27, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15–27 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)."
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit. The appeal, docket number 16-1033, was filed by Innovative Display Technologies LLC. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on July 19, 2016, upholding the unpatentability of claims 15-27.
• Defensive value: Claims 15-27 of US7384177 have been canceled and are no longer valid. Any infringement theory or demand letter from the patent owner relying on these claims would be baseless and potentially sanction-bait.

IPR2015-00489 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2015-01-08 (Petition filing date)
• Status: Final Written Decision (Claims 1-14 were found patentable).
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Peter P. Chen, Michael P. Tierney, and Bart A. Gerstenblith
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including references such as Parker, Doughty, and other cited art.
• Institution decision: Instituted on July 10, 2015, for claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over combinations of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on July 8, 2016. The Board found claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 not unpatentable. The panel determined that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-14 were unpatentable.
  • "For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)."
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit. The appeal, docket number 16-2508, was filed by Unified Patents Inc. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on December 13, 2017, upholding the patentability of claims 1-14.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-14 of US7384177 were challenged and ultimately upheld as patentable by both the PTAB and the Federal Circuit. This strengthens the patent owner's position regarding these claims, making a new IPR challenge on similar grounds much harder due to the estoppel effect and the precedent set by the Federal Circuit.

IPR2015-00756 — (Petitioner details not publicly available) v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The Google Patents page indicates "IPR2015-00756 filed", but specific filing date for the petition is not listed. However, the IPR number implies it was filed in early 2015.
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: Not applicable for settlement.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available.
• Institution decision: Unclear if institution occurred prior to settlement.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Settled. The specific date and terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: The settlement means the claims challenged in this IPR were not adjudicated. A defendant would need to investigate which claims were targeted to understand the potential impact. Settlements typically involve licensing agreements or other confidential terms.

IPR2015-00359 — (Petitioner details not publicly available) v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The Google Patents page indicates "IPR2015-00359 filed", but specific filing date for the petition is not listed. However, the IPR number implies it was filed in early 2015.
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: Not applicable for settlement.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available.
• Institution decision: Unclear if institution occurred prior to settlement.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Settled. The specific date and terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2015-00756, the claims were not adjudicated, and the impact depends on the specific claims challenged and the confidential settlement terms.

IPR2015-01044 — (Petitioner details not publicly available) v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The Google Patents page indicates "IPR2015-01044 filed", but specific filing date for the petition is not listed. However, the IPR number implies it was filed in mid-2015.
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: Not applicable for settlement.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available.
• Institution decision: Unclear if institution occurred prior to settlement.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Settled. The specific date and terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: Similar to the other settled IPRs, the claims were not adjudicated, and a defendant would need to investigate the scope of the challenge.

IPR2015-00857 — (Petitioner details not publicly available) v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The Google Patents page indicates "IPR2015-00857 filed", but specific filing date for the petition is not listed. However, the IPR number implies it was filed in mid-2015.
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: Not applicable for settlement.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available.
• Institution decision: Unclear if institution occurred prior to settlement.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Settled. The specific date and terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: The claims in this proceeding were not adjudicated. The impact on a defendant depends on the claims challenged and the confidential terms of the settlement.

IPR2015-00835 — (Petitioner details not publicly available) v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The Google Patents page indicates "IPR2015-00835 filed", but specific filing date for the petition is not listed. However, the IPR number implies it was filed in mid-2015.
• Status: Settlement
• Judge panel: Not applicable for settlement.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available.
• Institution decision: Unclear if institution occurred prior to settlement.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued due to settlement.
• Settlement / termination: Settled. The specific date and terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: As with other settled IPRs, the validity of the challenged claims was not determined. A defendant should determine which claims were involved and if the settlement has any public implications.

Strategic summary

Claims 15-27 of US patent 7384177 are CANCELED as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) due to the Final Written Decision in IPR2014-01362, which was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Conversely, claims 1-14 were SUSTAINED as patentable in IPR2015-00489, a decision also affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit. All claims of the patent have been tested in PTAB proceedings. The patent has been significantly narrowed from 27 claims to 14, meaning the surviving claims are 1-14.

The estoppel landscape is critical for this patent. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a petitioner and its real parties in interest or privies are estopped from asserting in a later civil action or another PTAB proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. In this case, Unified Patents, Inc. challenged all 27 claims across two IPRs. Therefore, Unified Patents and its privies would be estopped from challenging claims 1-14 on any grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised in IPR2015-00489, and claims 15-27 are already canceled. For a defendant facing assertion today, if they are not in privity with Unified Patents, they could potentially bring new invalidity challenges against claims 1-14 based on prior art not presented or reasonably available to Unified Patents. However, the Federal Circuit's affirmance for claims 1-14 makes a new IPR on the same or similar obviousness grounds a difficult uphill battle.

The pattern of proceedings shows a defensive aggregator, Unified Patents, actively challenging the patent. The patent owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC, aggressively pursued appeals to the Federal Circuit, successfully defending claims 1-14. The numerous settlements in other IPRs (IPR2015-00756, IPR2015-00359, IPR2015-01044, IPR2015-00857, IPR2015-00835) suggest that other parties found it strategically advantageous to settle rather than proceed to a Final Written Decision. This indicates the patent owner is active in enforcing its patent rights, and also suggests a willingness to negotiate.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and your product or service is alleged to infringe US7384177, thoroughly analyze the remaining claims (1-14) to determine if your product/service actually falls within their scope. Do not rely on claims 15-27, as they have been found unpatentable. The Final Written Decision for IPR2014-01362, which canceled claims 15-27, can be found here: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2014-01362/FD16-1033.pdf.
• Carefully review the claims found unpatentable: "For the foregoing reasons, and for claims 15–27, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15–27 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)."
• If considering a new PTAB challenge against claims 1-14, ensure any proposed grounds of unpatentability are distinct from those raised or that could have been reasonably raised by Unified Patents in IPR2015-00489. This will be challenging given the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the patentability of these claims.
• Given the history of settlements, consider the potential for negotiation with the patent owner as an alternative to litigation or a new PTAB challenge, especially if the alleged infringement is marginal or if a license would be economically viable.

Inventors

• Jeffery R. Parker (Employer at time of filing: Solid State Opto Ltd)

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent US7384177B2 is Solid State Opto Ltd. Based on available information, it is unclear if Solid State Opto Ltd shipped a product embodying the claims. Their primary line of business, beyond patenting, is not readily determinable from the patent document itself. The current status of Solid State Opto Ltd (operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy) is not stated in the provided patent text or readily available without further external search.

Assignment timeline

• 2005-10-21 (executed) / recorded 2005-10-21 — Reel 016766/0587
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: PARKER, JEFFERY R.
  • Assignee: SOLID STATE OPTO LIMITED
  • Correspondent: SOLID STATE OPTO LIMITED, 4175 EASTON COMMONS, SUITE 100, COLUMBUS, OH 43219
  • Context: Inventor assigned patent rights to the original assignee.
• 2010-02-18 (executed) / recorded 2010-03-02 — Reel 024225/0365
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SOLID STATE OPTO LIMITED
  • Assignee: RAMBUS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
  • Correspondent: BEYER WEAVER LLP, 201 MISSION STREET, SUITE 2900, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights.
• 2013-03-04 (executed) / recorded 2013-03-05 — Reel 029705/0284
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: RAMBUS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
  • Assignee: RAMBUS INC.
  • Correspondent: KENYON & KENYON LLP, 1500 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20005
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization within the Rambus entities.
• 2013-03-04 (executed) / recorded 2013-03-05 — Reel 029705/0285
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: RAMBUS INC.
  • Assignee: RAMBUS DELAWARE LLC
  • Correspondent: KENYON & KENYON LLP, 1500 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20005. This correspondent firm (Kenyon & Kenyon LLP) appears on multiple entries in this chain.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization within the Rambus entities.
• 2013-06-26 (executed) / recorded 2013-07-01 — Reel 030062/0458
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: RAMBUS DELAWARE LLC
  • Assignee: ACACIA RESEARCH GROUP LLC
  • Correspondent: ACACIA RESEARCH CORPORATION, 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 800, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
  • Context: Transfer to an asserting entity (Acacia Research Group LLC).
• 2013-06-27 (executed) / recorded 2013-07-01 — Reel 030062/0460
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ACACIA RESEARCH GROUP LLC
  • Assignee: INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Correspondent: ACACIA RESEARCH CORPORATION, 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 800, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660. This correspondent firm (Acacia Research Corporation) appears on multiple entries in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer to a specific Acacia subsidiary, likely for assertion purposes.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7384177
    2005 : Filed by Solid State Opto Ltd
    2008 : Issued to Solid State Opto Ltd
    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

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present.

   • Acacia Research Group LLC (Assignee on Reel 030062/0458): Acacia Research Corporation is a known patent assertion entity that uses subsidiary LLCs like Acacia Research Group LLC for licensing and assertion.
   • Innovative Display Technologies LLC (Assignee on Reel 030062/0460): This is a subsidiary of Acacia Research Group LLC, indicating a shell entity for patent assertion.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present.

   • Acacia Research Group LLC (Assignee on Reel 030062/0458): Acacia Research Corporation is a well-known Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) and patent asserter.
   • Innovative Display Technologies LLC (Current Assignee): This entity is part of the Acacia Research Corporation family, which is a prominent NPE.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present.

   • KENYON & KENYON LLP (Correspondent on Reel 029705/0284 and Reel 029705/0285): This firm handled transfers within the Rambus corporate structure.
   • ACACIA RESEARCH CORPORATION (Correspondent on Reel 030062/0458 and Reel 030062/0460): This entity, acting as correspondent for both transfers involving Acacia, is a strong indicator of a coordinated assertion strategy.

4. Cascading transfers — present.

   • Rambus International Ltd. to Rambus Inc. (executed 2013-03-04) / Rambus Inc. to Rambus Delaware LLC (executed 2013-03-04) / Rambus Delaware LLC to Acacia Research Group LLC (executed 2013-06-26) / Acacia Research Group LLC to Innovative Display Technologies LLC (executed 2013-06-27). These transfers occurred in quick succession (within approximately 4 months in 2013) and involved multiple LLCs, some with shared correspondents (Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, and then Acacia Research Corporation as the correspondent for the final transfers to the Acacia entities).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The litigation history shows cases filed in 2013 and 2014, with the transfers to Acacia Research Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies LLC occurring in June 2013. This timing (transfer in June 2013, first case filed in Delaware District Court in December 2013, and in Texas Eastern District Court in October 2013) suggests the transfers occurred very close to or just before the initiation of litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for Solid State Opto Ltd or Rambus in the provided information.

7. Privateering — unclear. While the patent ended up with a known NPE (Acacia), the context of the transfer from Rambus (an operating company) does not explicitly state it was for assertion on Rambus's behalf against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates with Innovative Display Technologies LLC, an Acacia subsidiary, which is an NPE, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The presence of Acacia Research Group LLC and its subsidiary Innovative Display Technologies LLC in the assignment chain, coupled with the rapid cascading transfers in mid-2013 and the apparent proximity of these transfers to the commencement of litigation (starting late 2013/early 2014), strongly indicates an NPE strategy. The repeat correspondent, Acacia Research Corporation, further supports this conclusion.

USPTO Assignment Center search page for verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patft/index.html

I'll search for the patent and its cited prior art references.

Let me get the full citation lists, including foreign references and examiner-cited art.

Let me retrieve the complete referenced-cited list from the FreePatentsOnline and Justia entries for the patent.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 7,384,177 (US7384177B2)

Identification (no auto-correction): The record I retrieved is for US7384177B2, "Light emitting panel assemblies," application US 11/244,544, filed 2005-10-06, granted 2008-06-10, inventor Jeffery R. Parker, original assignee Solid State Opto Ltd. This is the number requested; I did not substitute a similar number. (Note: one search hit showed the string "7384177" attached to an unrelated Japanese application JPS549185A via its internal JP application number — that is a coincidental numeric collision and is not this patent.)

Important scope caveat up front: I was able to retrieve the front-page "References Cited" data for US7384177 only in part. The lists below are assembled from (a) the FreePatentsOnline "US Patent References" list for 7384177 itself (authoritative for this patent), (b) the Google Patents "Patent Citations" list for the family (the sibling US11/245,408 / US7300194 record, whose citation set is essentially identical and whose entries are marked with "*" = cited by examiner), and (c) foreign-document lists seen on related Solid State Opto/Parker family patents. Items in group (c) I could not individually verify against the 7384177 front page and are flagged as such. I did not have direct USPTO PatentCenter/OFE full-text access in this session, so where I could not confirm a citation I say so rather than infer.

Date law applied: Priority date is 1995-06-27. References published/patented before that date are available under §102(a)/(b). References issuing after 1995-06-27 (e.g., US 5,600,455; 5,719,649; 5,947,578; 5,999,685) can only be §102(e) art via an earlier US filing date, and in context appear to be cited as background/§103 art rather than true anticipatory art.

A. Strongest § 102 candidates (single-reference anticipation of Claim 1 and/or Claim 15)

Claim 1 requires the combination: tray with back wall + continuous side walls forming a hollow cavity completely surrounded by the side walls + light source(s) in the cavity + overlying sheet/film/substrate + tray acting as back/side-edge/end-edge reflector + secondary flat/angled/faceted/curved reflective or refractive surfaces. Claim 15 adds ≥2 light sources and a mixing function.

Bottom line on § 102: No single front-page reference that I could verify discloses all of Claim 1 — specifically the "tray… continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity or recess completely surrounded by the side walls" in combination with the tray itself bearing "one or more secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective or refractive surfaces." That is consistent with (i) the examiner's allowance of original Claims 1–14 and (ii) the PTAB's and Federal Circuit's refusal to invalidate Claims 1–14 in IPR2015-00489. The references above are therefore better characterized as §103 (obviousness) art, with a few being genuine single-element §102 references against dependent claims.

B. Additional front-page US patent references (examiner-cited; § 102(a)/(b) prior art by date)

These pre-date 1995-06-27 and were cited by the examiner (marked "*" in the Google Patents family citation list). Each is relevant primarily to discrete limitations (light conductor, light-distributing lens, edge lighting, reflector arrays):

C. The larger front-page US set (verified in the FreePatentsOnline "US Patent References" list for 7384177 — all pre-priority unless noted)

(The FreePatentsOnline listing continues below US 5,070,431; I could not retrieve the remainder in this session, so this table is not exhaustive of the full 75-reference front page.)

D. Foreign patent documents (from the family front pages — flagged as not individually re-verified on 7384177)

Observed on the front pages of related Solid State Opto/Parker family patents:

E. The art that actually decided validity (not front-page citations)

For completeness, and to distinguish this from the front-page citation set, the art that mattered in the AIA trials was different:

• IPR2014-01362 (Unified Patents v. Innovative Display Technologies) — challenged Claims 15–27 under §103(a); Final Written Decision found Claims 15–27 unpatentable; affirmed by the Federal Circuit (App. No. 16-1033, 2016-07-19).
• IPR2015-00489 (Unified Patents v. Innovative Display Technologies) — challenged Claims 1–14; Final Written Decision found Claims 1–14 not unpatentable; affirmed by the Federal Circuit (App. No. 16-2508, 2017-12-13).
• Grounds in those proceedings were combinations involving Parker and Doughty references and other art, per the earlier PTAB section. This IPR art set is not identical to the front-page "References Cited" list above.

F. Explicit contradiction / correction flags vs. the earlier sections

1. The earlier "Obviousness" section relied solely on US 4,897,771 and US 5,005,108. That is incomplete. US 4,897,771 and US 5,005,108 are incorporated by reference in the specification for light-source types; the patent's front page cites approximately 75 US patents (plus foreign documents), which are the actual §102 references of record. US 5,005,108 (Pristash et al.) does appear on the faces of Parker family patents, but I could not independently confirm it appears on the 7384177 front page specifically.
2. The earlier section described IPR art as "references such as Parker, Doughty, and other cited art" — consistent with the PTAB record, but note that "Doughty" is not among the front-page citations I retrieved; it is IPR petition art. Treat the IPR art set and the front-page citation set as two separate corpora.
3. The earlier "PTAB challenges" and "Strategic summary" sections reported the outcome split correctly (Claims 15–27 canceled; Claims 1–14 sustained). My independent §102 analysis is consistent with that outcome: no verified front-page reference anticipates Claim 1 as a whole.
4. Entities citing 7384177 (e.g., US 7,712,933 / InterLum; US 7,815,339 / Innotec; US 10,234,093; US 7,909,482) appear in "Cited By" lists. These are later documents and are not prior art to 7384177; they should not be used in a §102/§103 invalidity analysis.

G. What I could not confirm (stated explicitly rather than inferred)

• The complete 75-item US patent citation list and the complete Foreign Patent Documents / Other References list as they appear on the US7384177B2 front page. I verified ~45 US items and ~19 foreign items across the 7384177 FPO list and family/equivalent front pages; the remainder (including any "Other References," e.g., journal/handbook citations) is not in the retrieved material.
• Whether specific items were cited by the examiner vs. by the applicant, except where the Google Patents family list marked entries with an asterisk (cited by examiner). The FPO list for 7384177 did not display those designations.
• I found no verified single reference that anticipates Claim 1 or Claim 15 in full. The strongest single-reference showings are for elements of the claims (faceted/prismatic surfaces, diffuser over panel, tray/bezel housing, edge reflector), as mapped in the tables above.

Primary sources used: Google Patents US7384177B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7384177/en); FreePatentsOnline US7384177 (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/7384177.html); Justia patent pages for sibling Parker patents (e.g., https://patents.justia.com/patent/[7165873](/patent/7165873)); Google Patents family citation list (US11/245,408 / US7300194).

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7384177 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis will assess the obviousness of US Patent 7384177 by identifying combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The PHOSITA in this field would likely have a background in optical engineering, display technology, or lighting design, with an understanding of light guiding principles, light source integration, and light extraction techniques.

Prior Art References from US7384177:

The patent explicitly incorporates by reference the entire disclosures of U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,897,771 and 5,005,108 for details on light sources. These will be considered as primary prior art, along with the various light-emitting panel assemblies described within US7384177 itself as examples of known technology at the time of its priority date (June 27, 1995).

Independent Claim 1 Analysis:

Claim 1: A light emitting assembly comprising a tray having a back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity or recess completely surrounded by the side walls, at least one light source located, mounted or positioned in the cavity or recess, and at least one sheet, film or substrate overlying the assembly for controlling the light emitted from the assembly to fit a particular application, wherein the tray acts as at least one of a back, side edge, and end edge reflector and has one or more secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective or refractive surfaces to redirect at least a portion of the light emitted by the light source in a predetermined manner within the cavity or recess.

Combination 1: US 4,897,771 in view of general knowledge of light guides and reflectors.

• US 4,897,771 (or US 5,005,108): These patents, incorporated by reference, describe various light sources. A PHOSITA would be familiar with integrating these light sources into lighting assemblies.
• Motivation for Combination: It is well-established in the field of lighting and display technology to use reflectors to enhance light output and direct light. Providing a tray with a back wall and side walls to form a cavity for a light source, where the tray inherently acts as a reflector, would be an obvious design choice to maximize light capture and efficiency. The concept of "secondary reflective or refractive surfaces" (flat, angled, faceted, or curved) within such a cavity to further redirect light is a common optical design principle for light control. For instance, shaping a reflective surface behind a light source to direct light into a desired path is a fundamental application of optics. Adding an overlying sheet, film, or substrate for light control (e.g., diffusion, filtering, or display) is also a standard practice in illumination and display applications to achieve desired aesthetic or functional effects. The application of such a sheet to "fit a particular application" would be readily apparent to a PHOSITA.

Therefore, the features of Claim 1, when considered in light of a known light source (such as those described in US 4,897,771 or US 5,005,108) combined with routine optical design principles for light reflection and redirection within an enclosure, and the common use of overlying films for light control, would be obvious to a PHOSITA.

Independent Claim 15 Analysis:

Claim 15: A light emitting assembly comprising a tray having a back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity or recess completely surrounded by the side walls, at least two light sources located, mounted or positioned in the cavity or recess, and at least one sheet, film or substrate overlying the assembly for controlling the light emitted from the assembly to fit a particular application, wherein the tray acts as at least one of a back, side edge and end edge reflector and has at least one secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective or refractive surface to facilitate better mixing of light rays within the cavity or recess to produce a desired light output color or uniformity.

Combination 2: US 4,897,771 (or US 5,005,108) in view of the use of multiple colored LEDs for color mixing, and general knowledge of optical mixing techniques.

• US 4,897,771 (or US 5,005,108): These patents disclose various light sources, including LEDs. The specification of US7384177 itself explicitly states that "a plurality of colored lights such as LEDs of different colors (red, blue, green) or a single LED with multiple colored chips may be employed to create white light or any other colored light output distribution by varying the intensities of each individual colored light." This indicates that the concept of using multiple colored LEDs to achieve desired light output (including white light) was known prior to the priority date of US7384177.
• Motivation for Combination: Given the known use of multiple colored LEDs (e.g., red, green, blue) to produce various colors or white light, a PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate these multiple light sources into a tray-based assembly for efficient light management. The challenge with multiple light sources, especially for color mixing or uniformity, is ensuring proper light integration before emission. Therefore, providing "secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective or refractive surfaces to facilitate better mixing of light rays within the cavity or recess to produce a desired light output color or uniformity" would be an obvious design solution. Optical elements specifically designed for light mixing are standard in the art, and applying them within the reflective confines of a tray to improve the output quality from multiple light sources would be a predictable modification. The overlying sheet, film, or substrate would then serve to further control the mixed light, as in Claim 1.

Therefore, the features of Claim 15, which build upon the structure of Claim 1 by incorporating at least two light sources and emphasizing light mixing, would be obvious. The use of multiple colored LEDs for color mixing was a recognized technique, and optimizing their output through reflective and refractive surfaces within a contained assembly for improved color or uniformity is a straightforward engineering task for a PHOSITA.