Untitled case

Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, under case number 2:21-cv-00371, asserting claims against Samsung Elec. Co. and other unnamed entities. The plaintiff, Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd., appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), given the pattern of asserting a portfolio of patents against a major technology company like Samsung. The lawsuit alleges infringement of at least 17 patents, including US Patent 9158494. While the specific accused products, services, or technologies are broadly related to Samsung's offerings, the sheer number of asserted patents suggests a wide scope of alleged infringement.

US Patent 9158494, titled "Coated polymeric thermoplastic sheet material," generally describes a durable, dimensionally stable, flexible sheet material comprising a polyurethane resin firmly adhered to a backing, suitable for printable sheet material like map paper, which retains its properties under adverse conditions. This patent's technical focus is on material science, particularly for specialty sheet materials. The procedural posture places this case in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically known for its plaintiff-friendly reputation, fast trials, and high rates of success for patent holders, making it a popular choice for patent infringement litigation, especially for NPEs. Judge Rodney Gilstrap is a prominent judge in this district, often presiding over a significant portion of patent cases.

The case is notable primarily due to its venue in the Eastern District of Texas, which has seen a resurgence as a top patent litigation hotspot after a period of decline following the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision. The district's reputation for expeditious proceedings and a perceived plaintiff-friendly environment continues to attract patent assertions. The assertion of 17 patents by an apparent NPE against a major operating company like Samsung also highlights a common pattern in modern patent litigation, where large portfolios are used to target companies in broad infringement campaigns. No specific information regarding IPR linkage or unique market context making this case particularly notable beyond these general trends has been readily sourced.

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. against Samsung Elec. Co. in the Eastern District of Texas (case number 2:21-cv-00371) has seen several key legal developments since its filing.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. filed the complaint against Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd. and Samsung Group, alleging infringement of at least 17 patents, including US Patent 9,158,494. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas under case number 2:21-cv-00371. The initial filing occurred in 2021.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
While specific details regarding motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR are not readily available in the provided search results for this particular case, patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas frequently involves such motions. For example, some cases in the Eastern District of Virginia with similar case numbers indicate various pre-trial activities, though these are not directly related to the Multifold v. Samsung case. One general reference notes a "Dismiss (Uncontested). Grant. Issued" outcome for a patent case also numbered 2:21-cv-00371, but this appears to be a different case, as it doesn't align with the Multifold v. Samsung parties or patent.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
There is no specific Markman order or outcome explicitly referenced for the Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co. case (2:21-cv-00371) in the provided information. However, Markman hearings are a standard part of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:
No specific discovery milestones or strategic significance for this particular case are detailed in the provided search results.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
There is no information indicating that this case has proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
The current posture or final disposition of the case is not definitively stated. However, patent cases often end in settlement. One search result from October 2021 mentions the filing of this case in a "Patent Filings Roundup," which primarily discusses active litigation and IPRs, but does not provide a final outcome. Another result from May 2026 discusses a "Settlement Agreement" and the appointment of a "Settlement Administrator" in a case numbered 1:16-cv-00371, but this is a different case in a different court (N.D. Ohio) and is unrelated to Multifold v. Samsung.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
While the search results mention general trends in PTAB IPR filings and some specific IPRs against other companies and patents, there is no specific IPR or PGR proceeding directly linked to US Patent 9,158,494 or the Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co. case (2:21-cv-00371).

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for this case using multiple targeted searches.

Excellent — I have the key docket entries. Now let me identify the firms and roles for each plaintiff attorney.

Now let me pin down the firms for the pro hac vice attorneys and confirm the local counsel team.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:21-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was a two-tiered plaintiff team — a Tyler, Texas local-counsel firm that signed and filed everything, plus a New York–based pharma/tech IP litigation group that entered pro hac vice within days of filing. The complaint, corporate disclosure, and the only substantive motion appearing in the public docket were all filed by Robert Christopher Bunt of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. (Tyler, TX). Three New York attorneys — Timothy Kelso Gilman, Saunak K. Desai, and Gregory Springsted — made pro hac vice appearances on the same day (Oct. 4, 2021).

A caveat up front: the docket events are verifiable, but the firms of the three PHV attorneys are not stated in the free docket text. I've reconstructed their affiliation from corroborating sources and flag the confidence level for each below. I could not confirm a firm name on the face of the PHV notices themselves.

---

1. Local counsel / counsel of record

Bunt's name appears as filer on every plaintiff-side docket entry in the Justia snapshot through Nov. 8, 2021 — including the complaint's 18 attachments (Civil Cover Sheet and Exhibits A–Q, corresponding to the 17 asserted patents). See the docket at dockets.justia.com, 2:21-cv-00371 and UniCourt's summary noting the plaintiff was "represented by Robert Christopher Bunt of Parker Bunt & Ainsworth" (unicourt.com).

Not confirmed: Charles Ainsworth, Bunt's longtime partner at the same firm and a co-counsel in nearly all of Parker Bunt's parallel patent matters (e.g., ASUS Technology Licensing v. Celerity, E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-…; Headwater Research v. Samsung, 2:23-cv-00103), does not appear on the Nov. 2021 public docket snapshot for this case. I did not find an Ainsworth appearance in 2:21-cv-00371, so I am not listing him as counsel here. Note that the free Justia docket was last retrieved November 8, 2021, so any appearances after that date would not be reflected in the source I could access.

---

2. Pro hac vice counsel (New York)

All three entered on October 4, 2021 (Dkt. 7, 8, 9), each paying the $100 PHV fee:

Why the firm attribution deserves a caveat. Gilman, Desai and Springsted are a single, well-documented practice group that moved together. Schulte Roth & Zabel's own announcement of the lateral hire of Gilman and Christopher Gerson states that they "arrive from Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP" and that "they lead a team of seasoned litigators that also includes special counsel Saunak Desai and associates Greg Springsted and Ryan Singer," focusing on "plaintiff and defendant-side patent infringement" (SRZ release via Kinney Recruiting; srz.com PDF). Because the SRZ move and the subsequent July 2025 move to Kasowitz both post-date the October 2021 filing (Stroock's wind-down was a 2023 event), the most probable firm on the original PHV notices is Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York. I could not retrieve the PHV notice PDFs or the E.D. Tex. attorney-admission order to confirm the letterhead — treat the Stroock attribution as an inference, not a documented fact. What is documented: Gilman's current firm is Kasowitz (kasowitz.com profile), and Desai's SRZ affiliation is documented in his own 2023–24 case correspondence (Desai email, Geoscope Techs. v. Google, E.D. Va. 1:22-cv-01331, Dkt. 67; IPR2023-01212 Patent Owner notice).

Ryan J. Singer is a member of the same group (identified as a registered practitioner, Reg. No. 79,736, alongside Desai on the Geoscope PTAB papers), but I found no appearance by him in 2:21-cv-00371 and am not listing him as counsel of record.

---

3. Cross-checks and consistencies with the existing case summary

• Party caption confirmed and corrected. The AO 120 Report on the Filing of an Action filed in this case (E.D. Tex., docket 2:21-cv-371, filed 9/29/2021) names the plaintiff as Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. and defendants as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. — not "Samsung Group." The earlier "Defendant representatives" section already had the defendant entities right; the case-overview's "other unnamed entities"/"Samsung Group" phrasing (which appears in third-party trackers like Ex Parte) is inaccurate. See AO 120 (USPTO PTABs copy) and RPX litigation document (complaint).
• Patent count confirmed at 17. The AO 120 form and the complaint's Exhibit A–Q structure confirm 17 asserted patents, matching the UniCourt summary's list (which includes the '494 patent at issue here).
• ⚠️ Contradiction with the earlier "Key legal developments" section. That section says the disposition is "not definitively stated" and that no trial/verdict/dismissal is documented. The AO 120 termination copy in the file states: "ORDERED that all claims asserted by Multifold against Samsung and all claims asserted by Samsung against Multifold are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE," with a clerk date of 6/2/22. Although the AO 120 is a clerk's form rather than the opinion itself, this is a direct, patent-office-filed record of a with-prejudice dismissal about eight months after filing — consistent with a settlement-and-dismissal, not a trial. The earlier-sourced "Dismiss (Uncontested). Grant." hit for a differently-captioned 2:21-cv-00371 (N.D. Ind. Social Security case, WCL) is unrelated and should be disregarded; so should the N.D. Ohio 1:16-cv-00371 settlement-administrator hit.
• Serial-filer pattern. Same plaintiff-side team (Gilman/Desai/Springsted) went on to represent other Singapore "Pte. Ltd." NPE plaintiffs — Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (E.D. Va. and PTAB IPR2023-01212/01213) and Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00124, where Desai filed a PHV notice) — and Multifold itself later asserted the same portfolio against Google and Motorola in D. Del. (Nos. 1:23-cv-01323 and 1:23-cv-01173, per the IPR2025-00058 Patent Owner's mandatory notices). This is corroborating context for the counsel identification, not a substitute for it.

---

4. What I could not verify

• The firm names on the four 2021 PHV/notice filings themselves, and whether any of the three New York attorneys was formally designated "lead counsel" versus simply being the first/senior PHV entrant. The E.D. Tex. PHV orders (if any) were not in the free docket snapshot.
• Any plaintiff-side appearance after Nov. 8, 2021 (e.g., additional PHV counsel, withdrawal notices, or substitution). The Justia docket I could access is frozen at that date; PACER or a docket-alarm/RPX pull would be needed to close that gap for the Jan.–June 2022 window leading to the dismissal.
• Whether Charles Ainsworth or any other Parker Bunt attorney entered an appearance in this particular case. I found none in the available record.

Practical note for anyone relying on this for a filing or conflicts check: confirm the PHV notices (Dkt. 7–9) and the dismissal order directly on PACER, since (a) the firm letterhead is the one element I am inferring, and (b) the with-prejudice dismissal order text I'm relying on comes from the AO 120 form rather than the order itself.

Samsung, as a major technology company, is frequently involved in patent litigation. The case 2:21-cv-00371, Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co. et al., filed in the Eastern District of Texas, identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as defendants.

Based on available information for similar patent litigation cases involving Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas and other venues, the defendant's counsel typically includes a combination of in-house legal counsel from Samsung and experienced outside counsel from prominent intellectual property litigation firms.

Here are some attorneys and firms that have been identified as representing Samsung in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas and in broader intellectual property disputes:

Outside Counsel:

• Fish & Richardson P.C.

  • Firm Location: Dallas, TX. Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm with a strong patent litigation practice, frequently representing Fortune 100 companies.
  • Attorneys often involved in Samsung cases:
    • Wes Musselman (Principal)
      • Experience: Emphasizes patent prosecution and litigation, has represented clients in the Eastern District of Texas in patent infringement actions related to various technologies, including efficient compression/decompression of financial data and image-based check processing. He has been recognized as a "Best Lawyer" in America for Patent Law from 2016-2026 and an "IP Star" by Managing IP from 2013-2025.
    • Ricardo Bonilla (Litigation Attorney, Recruiting Principal in Dallas)
      • Experience: Focuses on commercial and intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patents. He has experience in obtaining summary judgments of non-infringement in patent lawsuits and in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Kirkland & Ellis LLP

  • Firm Location: Dallas, TX, among other global offices. Kirkland & Ellis has a large intellectual property litigation practice with over 200 attorneys dedicated to protecting and enforcing IP. They handle large-scale, "bet-the-company" cases across various technologies.
  • Attorneys often involved in Samsung cases:
    • Christopher Buxton (Associate)
      • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret matters before U.S. Federal Courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He has experience with technologies spanning pharmaceuticals, medical devices, telecommunications, and semiconductors, and has worked on cases in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.
    • Emily Sheffield (Associate)
      • Experience: Practices intellectual property litigation with a focus on patent infringement and trade secret litigation in U.S. Federal Courts and the USPTO. Her background in mechanical engineering aids in understanding complex technologies, and she has experience in all phases of litigation.

• Paul Hastings LLP

  • Firm Location: Dallas, TX, among other offices. Paul Hastings has a highly-ranked patent litigation practice and is known for representing major corporations in litigation across a wide array of technologies.
  • Attorneys often involved in Samsung cases:
    • Paul R. Genender (Co-chair of Complex Litigation and Arbitration practice, Chair of Texas Commercial Litigation practice, Co-chair of Dallas office)
      • Experience: A seasoned trial lawyer with a track record of courtroom success in a wide range of business disputes, including antitrust, breach of contract, and trade secret misappropriation. While his experience is broad, his leadership in the Dallas office and in complex litigation suggests involvement in significant cases.

In-House Counsel (Samsung):

• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Research America have in-house legal teams that manage patent litigation.
• Tim Jezek (Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics America)
  • Role: Focuses on IP litigation and related policy issues, with over two decades of experience in both in-house and law firm settings.
• Phillip Lee (Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics US IP Center)
  • Role: Veteran litigator with substantive experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing. Manages a docket of patent cases with outside counsel, negotiates settlements and licenses, and advises on IP issues.

It's important to note that the specific counsel of record for Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co. et al. (2:21-cv-00371) would be detailed on the case docket. While a direct PACER search for specific appearances in this case was not performed within this response, the listed firms and attorneys are consistently involved in Samsung's patent defense strategies in the Eastern District of Texas and nationwide.