Untitled case

Case Overview

Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 24-1749 (Fed. Cir.), was a short-lived appellate challenge to the ITC's final determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-1331, Certain Outdoor and Semi-Outdoor Electronic Displays, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof. The appellant, Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. ("MRI"), is an Alpharetta, Georgia-based operating company—not an NPE—that designs and manufactures commercial-grade, high-brightness LCD displays for outdoor/semi-outdoor digital signage and pioneered thermal-management technology enabling LCDs to survive direct sunlight (its founder, William Dunn, is the named inventor on the asserted patents). The appellee is the International Trade Commission, with the real parties in interest intervening: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), Samsung SDS America, Inc., Industrial Enclosures Corp. d/b/a Palmer Digital Group, and Coates US Inc. (per the CAFC's dismissal order, Doc. 19). MRI accused Samsung's OH-series (OHF and successors) LED-backlit outdoor and semi-outdoor LCD displays—imported and sold in the U.S., including through integrators such as Coates and Palmer Digital Group for QSR menu boards and kiosks—of infringing MRI's display-cooling patents.

Patents and Procedural Posture

In the underlying Section 337 investigation (complaint filed August 19, 2022; investigation instituted September 19, 2022), MRI asserted five display-cooling patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,854,595, 9,173,322, 9,629,287, 10,506,740, and 11,013,142 (confirmed by the ITC institution notice and contemporaneous press). The case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 9,629,287 as the patent at issue in this appeal; I could not confirm from retrieved sources whether the appeal covered only that patent or all five, as the notice of appeal was not retrieved. The '287 patent, System for using constricted convection with closed loop cooling system as the convection plate (granted April 2017 to MRI), claims an electronic display assembly cooled by a closed loop of isolated gas that cools the display's front surface combined with an open loop of ambient air cooling the rear, with the two airflows kept from mixing. The companion '595 and '322 patents cover systems using a "constricted convection plate" behind the display's posterior surface to define a narrow channel through which a fan drives cooling airflow (one-line sketches for the '740 and '142 patents could not be verified from retrieved sources).

Procedurally, this was an appeal under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c)/28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6), over which the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction—the venue matters because Section 337's remedy is an in-rem limited exclusion order barring importation rather than damages, making the ITC the preferred forum against imported goods and a significant source of leverage in parallel proceedings. MRI simultaneously sued Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas (filed August 19, 2022, the same day as the ITC complaint), Samsung countered with its own ITC investigation (337-TA-1349) against MRI over environmentally-protected display patents, and Samsung petitioned for PTAB IPRs on MRI's patents (e.g., IPR2023-00255 against the '287 patent and IPR2023-01203 against related patents). The appeal was docketed in April 2024; on August 26, 2024, all parties—including the ITC and the Samsung/Coates/Palmer intervenors—filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, and on August 29, 2024, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each side bearing its own costs, issuing the mandate the same day (nonprecedential, Doc. 19).

Why the Case Matters

The case is notable as one front of a multipolar dispute between a small domestic display manufacturer-innovator and a global electronics giant, fought simultaneously in the ITC (two mirror-image investigations), EDTX, and the PTAB—illustrating the modern "multi-forum" patent-war playbook where ITC exclusion orders, district-court damages, and IPR validity challenges proceed in parallel. MRI's asserted portfolio covers core thermal-management technology for outdoor LCD signage, a market MRI is credited with creating and one that has grown to hundreds of millions of dollars in sales (including Samsung's accused OH-line sales, per MRI's IPR briefing). The voluntary dismissal of the Federal Circuit appeal just ~four months after filing, with all parties stipulating and costs waived, strongly signals a global settlement of the underlying dispute rather than any merits adjudication—leaving the substantive validity/infringement questions (including the ITC's final determination on the '287 patent) unresolved and nonprecedential. Caveat: I was unable to retrieve the ITC's underlying final determination itself or MRI's notice of appeal, so the precise Commission rulings appealed (and whether the appeal concerned the '287 patent alone) rest on the case metadata and the CAFC order; the party and outcome facts above are confirmed by the Justia/CAFC order, USITC press releases, and contemporaneous trade reporting.

The initial search identified Case 24-1749 as Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. ITC — an appeal from an ITC Section 337 investigation involving Samsung display products and U.S. Patent 9,629,287. Let me now trace the underlying ITC proceeding and any related district court litigation.

I've now identified the underlying matter: ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1331 (MRI v. Samsung et al.), plus a related counter-investigation 337-TA-1349 (Samsung v. MRI) and parallel IPRs. Let me dig into the docket events, PTAB proceedings, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Case 24-1749 (Fed. Cir.) — Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Preliminary identification of the "litigation"

Federal Circuit No. 24-1749 is Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, an appeal from a U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Section 337 investigation, not from a conventional district-court patent suit. U.S. Patent No. 9,629,287 (the "'287 patent") was one of five patents MRI asserted in the underlying ITC investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-1331 (Certain Outdoor and Semi-Outdoor Electronic Displays, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof). The other four asserted patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 8,854,595; 9,173,322; 10,506,740; and 11,013,142 — all directed to cooling/thermal-management and structural technology for outdoor digital displays (USITC press release, 2022-09-19; Notice of Investigation, 87 Fed. Reg. 58132 (2022-09-23)).

Because the metadata for this "case" pointed to the '287 patent and No. 24-1749, the chronology below covers: (1) the ITC 337-TA-1331 proceeding MRI initiated (the merits proceeding), (2) the Federal Circuit appeal that is the case-numbered matter, (3) the closely related Samsung-initiated counter-investigation, and (4) parallel PTAB IPRs.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (ITC investigation 337-TA-1331)

• 2022-08-19 — MRI (Alpharetta, Georgia) filed a Section 337 complaint alleging that importation/sale of Samsung outdoor and semi-outdoor electronic displays infringed five patents, including the '287 patent, and sought a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders (USITC Notice of Institution, 2022-09-19; MRI's later filings confirm the 2022-08-19 complaint date).
• Named respondents: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDS Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDS America, Inc.; Coates Signco Pty Limited; Coates Visual LLC; and Industrial Enclosure Corporation d/b/a Palmer Digital Group (Notice of Institution).
• 2022-09-19 — The ITC voted to institute Investigation 337-TA-1331 (USITC News Release 22-100, 2022-09-19).
• There is no conventional "answer" in ITC practice; respondents file responses to the complaint and notice of investigation, and the ITC's Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) participates as a statutory party. The procedural schedule was set by the assigned ALJ (Order No. 7 referenced in the Markman proceedings).

2. Related district court history bearing on claim construction

• The '287 patent (with the '595 and '322 patents) had previously been litigated in Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Civiq Smartscapes, LLC, No. 17-269 (D. Del.), where the court issued a claim-construction Memorandum Opinion on 2018-09-27. The ITC ALJ's Markman decision in 337-TA-1331 expressly noted that three of the five asserted patents had been construed in that district court case (ITC Order, Exhibit 1034 in IPR2023-00199, dated 2023-05-15).

3. Counter-investigation: Samsung v. MRI (337-TA-1349)

• 2022-12-05 (supplemented 2022-12-19) — Samsung filed its own Section 337 complaint against MRI over "environmentally-protected LCD digital displays."
• 2023-01-04 — ITC instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1349, naming MRI as respondent (USITC News Release 23-001, 2023-01-04). This is the mirror-image offensive in the same commercial dispute.
• 2024-06-17/18 — An ALJ initial determination cleared MRI of infringement; Law360 reported on 2024-06-18 that the Commission decided to review several issues in that decision ("ITC To Eye Samsung Loss In LCD Patent Suit Against Rival"). Note: I could not confirm the final Commission determination in 337-TA-1349 from the sources retrieved; treat the ultimate disposition of the counter-investigation as unverified here.

4. Claim construction (Markman) — 337-TA-1331

• 2023-01-25 — Parties filed a joint claim-construction chart.
• 2023-02-01/02 — Respondents' and MRI's opening claim-construction briefs filed (per ITC Order; MRI's opening brief was filed out of time under Order No. 8 (2023-02-03)).
• 2023-02-15 — Rebuttal claim-construction briefs filed.
• 2023-03-01 — Markman hearing held before the ALJ.
• 2023-03-08 — Updated joint claim-construction chart filed.
• Disputed terms relevant to the '287 patent centered on its dual-loop cooling claim language — e.g., "open loop" of ambient air passing "along the backlight," a "closed loop of isolated gas," and cooling "by a combination" of the loops — later central to MRI's noninfringement arguments on claim 12 (MRI's Petition for Review of the Initial Determination, filed in IPR2023-00220 as Exhibit 2055). The ID adopted constructions that MRI challenged on review, particularly for "posterior display surface," "constricted convection plate/channel," and "heat exchanger" (MRI Petition for Review).

5. Discovery / pre-hearing motions of substance

• Respondents moved for summary determination of noninfringement as to the OH24B product, certain OM-series products, and unaccused claims, arguing MRI lacked infringement contentions/evidence (Respondents' Motion for Summary Determination, EDIS Doc. 3317; MRI's opposition at EDIS Doc. 3318). MRI opposed, arguing genuine disputes on claim construction and infringement and that the OH24B product was not accused.
• MRI's opposition brief confirms the strategic discovery posture: MRI's expert (Mr. Credelle) and Respondents' expert (Dr. Neikirk) disputed the same claim limitations that remained open after Markman, which MRI argued precluded summary determination.
• No motion-to-transfer, motion-to-dismiss, or district-court-style "stay pending IPR" motion is applicable in the ITC proceeding itself; instead the IPR strategy ran in parallel at the PTAB (see § 8).

6. Trial/hearing, Initial Determination, and Commission review

• An evidentiary hearing was conducted before the ALJ in 2023 (the record shows expert reports, motions in limine, and hearing filings; exact hearing dates are not confirmed in the materials retrieved).
• 2023-11-13 — The ALJ issued the Final Initial Determination (ID) on violation, finding no violation of Section 337 — i.e., no infringement of the asserted claims — and additionally finding certain asserted claims of the other patents invalid (per MRI's Petition for Review, the ID found no infringement of '287 claim 12 by accused mid-sized products and found the '595/'322 claims invalid over Kim and Takeuchi and the '740/'142 claims invalid over Karppanen).
• 2023-11-14 — Commission determination not to review an ID extending the target date (Commission Notices listing).
• Late 2023/2024-01-30 — MRI filed its Petition for Review of the Initial Determination with the Commission, challenging the noninfringement finding on '287 claim 12 and the validity findings on the other patents (Petition made part of PTAB record as Exhibit 2055 in IPR2023-00220 on 2024-01-30).
• 2024-02-28 — The Commission issued its final determination: it declined to review the ALJ's ID finding no violation and terminated the investigation (ITC Notice, 337_1331_notice02282024sgl.pdf).
• 2024-05-08 — The Commission denied MRI's petition for reconsideration/review (ITC Notice, 337_1331_notice05082024sgl.pdf), making the no-violation determination final.

7. Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24-1749) and final disposition

• 2024-04 (approx.) — MRI appealed the Commission's no-violation determination to the Federal Circuit as Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. ITC, No. 24-1749 (docketed April 2024 per case-tracker data; I could not independently verify the exact notice-of-appeal date from PACER).
• 2024-08-29 — The Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order dismissing the appeal pursuant to a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs (CAFC order posted 2024-08-29, cafc.uscourts.gov; PatSnap Eureka case summary).
• Outcome: The appeal was voluntarily dismissed with no merits decision, no damages, and no remedial order. Because Rule 42(b) dismissal is without adjudication, the underlying ITC no-violation determination stands as the effective final result of the merits proceeding, but no appellate precedent was created. The parties' settlement terms (if any) are not public from the sources retrieved.

8. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings

Samsung pursued inter partes review against MRI's display patents in parallel with the ITC fight. Proceedings identified in the record:

• IPR2023-00199 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.) — petition exhibits filed 2023-07-14 (prior art: Matsuoka '451, Gromatzky '440, Utsunomiya WO'660, Karppanen WO'725, Burke '828, German utility model Hannemann); an ITC order from 2023-05-15 was submitted as Exhibit 1034. This proceeding appears to target the thermal-management patents in the family.
• IPR2023-00220 (Samsung Electronics v. MRI) — record includes MRI's ITC Petition for Review (Exhibit 2055, filed 2024-01-30), showing the parties cross-referenced ITC and PTAB materials.
• IPR2023-01203 (Samsung Electronics v. MRI, per Patexia docket listing under "MRI v. Samsung") — patent-owner exhibits filed through 2024-05-15.

Important caveat: The available search results confirm these IPR numbers existed and involved this patent family/dispute, but I could not verify the IPR petition/institution decisions, which patents/claims were challenged (whether the '287 patent specifically was challenged), or the final IPR outcomes (institution denied vs. final written decision) from the sources retrieved. The IPRs were strategically significant as a parallel validity attack alongside Samsung's ITC defenses and its own counter-investigation, but their specific effect on the litigation cannot be fully stated on this record.

---

Bottom line

Net result for the '287 patent and the associated MRI-Samsung dispute: MRI lost at the ITC (no infringement found), failed to obtain Commission review, and then voluntarily abandoned its Federal Circuit appeal in August 2024 — leaving the ITC's no-violation determination as the operative outcome. No exclusion order issued against Samsung, and no appellate merits ruling was rendered.

Sources: USITC press releases (2022-09-19, 2023-01-04); USITC Commission notices for 337-TA-1331 (2024-02-28, 2024-05-08); Federal Circuit orders page (2024-08-29); Fish & Richardson-published ITC filings (Docs. 3317/3318); PTAB record exhibits (IPR2023-00199 Ex. 1034; IPR2023-00220 Ex. 2055); Law360 International Trade (2024-06-18); PatSnap Eureka case summary. Some dates (e.g., precise notice-of-appeal date, IPR institution/outcome dates, and final disposition of 337-TA-1349) could not be confirmed from the available sources and are flagged as unverified.

Counsel of Record for MRI (the plaintiff/complainant side)

A threshold framing point: the "case" in the metadata (No. 24-1749) is a Federal Circuit appeal, and it was dismissed on the merits never reached. The "plaintiff" in the underlying infringement action is Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. ("MRI") — the complainant before the ITC in Inv. No. 337-TA-1331 and the appellant before the Federal Circuit. MRI's counsel of record in both forums is Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, with the same core team appearing across the parallel ITC, CAFC, district-court, and PTAB fronts. No counsel has appeared for any other "plaintiff" (there is none — the ITC is the nominal appellee, and Samsung/Coates/Palmer are the respondents/intervenors, represented by Goodwin Procter).

At the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 24-1749)

Mitchell G. Stockwell — lead counsel of record for Appellant MRI

• Firm/office: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP (Atlanta-based practice; his e-filings in this appeal were from the firm's KT docket system). Caveat: I could not retrieve the CAFC entry-of-appearance form itself to confirm his office street address for this case; the identification rests on the docket's e-filer attribution.
• Role: The CAFC docket shows Stockwell as the attorney of record entering every substantive MRI filing in the appeal: the Appellant's Docketing Statement (Doc. 9, filed 5/24/2024), the motion to extend time to file the opening brief (Doc. 16, filed 6/27/2024, granted 6/28/2024), and the Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal under FRAP 42(b) (Doc. 18, filed 8/26/2024) that ended the appeal on 8/29/2024 (Doc. 19).
• Note: Stockwell is a veteran ITC/Section 337 and district-court patent litigator at Kilpatrick Townsend and was MRI's lead on the parallel Samsung litigation campaign; the CAFC entries strongly indicate he was lead appellate counsel. (Source: Patexia docket entries for 24-1749, Docs. 9, 16, 18, with "[Mitchell Stockwell]" as the e-filer.)

I did not locate a full entry-of-appearance list for MRI's appellate team (Doc. ~6/7 on the CAFC docket was not retrievable from the free sources), so it is possible additional Kilpatrick Townsend attorneys (e.g., David A. Reed) were co-counsel of record on the appeal without my being able to verify it. I am flagging that as a gap rather than inventing names.

At the ITC — 337-TA-1331 (the underlying infringement "case")

The signature blocks on MRI's own ITC filings (served in the investigation and lodged as exhibits in the parallel IPRs) identify the following Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton attorneys as Counsel for Complainant Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.:

Aarti Shah — lead counsel before the ITC

• Firm/office: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, 607 14th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 (signature block and case service list).
• Note: First-named signatory on MRI's ITC filings (e.g., the Updated Joint Claim Construction Statement and the Respondents' Notice of Prior Art service certificates in IPR exhibits); PatSnap's litigation summary likewise identifies her as MRI's lead counsel before the ITC. Substantial Section 337 practice before the Commission.

Russell A. Korn and David A. Reed — counsel (Atlanta)

• Firm/office: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, 1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309.
• Note: Reed also appears for MRI in the related CAFC appeal MRI v. Squires, No. 24-2224 (CourtListener party data), showing he carried MRI's broader Samsung-IPR appellate work.

Craig D. Cannon, Alton L. Absher III, and Andrea A. Anderson — counsel (Winston-Salem)

• Firm/office: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, 1001 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27101.

Dario A. Machleidt and Kathleen R. Geyer — counsel (Seattle)

• Firm/office: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3700, Seattle, WA 98101.

Matthew J. Meyer — counsel (Menlo Park)

• Firm/office: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, 1080 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
• Note: Well-known ITC litigator; the ITC evidentiary record in 337-TA-1331 reflects his involvement on MRI's trial team.

Role caveat: The ITC filings list these attorneys collectively as "Counsel for Complainant" without designating sub-roles (lead/of counsel/local counsel are not formal categories in ITC practice). The first-listed signatory convention and PatSnap's summary support Aarti Shah as lead; the others are team members. I have no source identifying any MRI in-house counsel of record, and no entry of appearance by MRI house counsel appears in the retrieved filings.

Opposing-side counsel (for context, not plaintiff counsel)

• Appellee ITC: Paul Lall, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. ITC (CAFC Doc. 8 docketing statement).
• Respondents/Intervenors (Samsung, Palmer Digital, Coates US): Goodwin Procter LLP — at the CAFC: Kevin P. Martin, Douglas J. Kline, Srikanth K. Reddy, Patrick J. McCarthy, Naomi L. Birbach, Gerard Cedrone, and Darryl Woo (entry of appearance, CAFC Doc. 10); before the ITC the Goodwin team included those attorneys plus Christie Larochelle, Harrison Gunn, Kara Grogan, Christine Potkay, Christina Denise Go, Elizabeth Low, Yoona Lee, and Jeremy Jones across Boston, New York, Washington DC, Redwood City, and San Francisco offices.

Sources and verification notes

• CAFC docket entries for 24-1749 (Docs. 8–19), including Stockwell's filings of the docketing statement (Doc. 9), extension motion (Doc. 16), and joint stipulation (Doc. 18), and the 8/29/2024 dismissal order (Doc. 19), via Patexia docket pages and Justia/CAFC order text.
• MRI's ITC signature blocks in Samsung v. MRI IPR2023-00220 Exhibit 2018 and IPR2023-00255 Exhibit 2027 (DocketAlarm copies of 337-TA-1331 filings).
• USITC Federal Register notice (5/8/2024) on the no-violation final determination, and USITC press release 22-100 (9/19/2022).
• PatSnap litigation summaries for 337-TA-1331 and the 24-1749 appeal.

Bottom line: If "counsel for the plaintiff" means the Federal Circuit appeal docket, the answer is Mitchell G. Stockwell (Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton) as counsel of record for appellant MRI. If it means the underlying Section 337 infringement case, the answer is the Kilpatrick Townsend team led by Aarti Shah (DC) with Korn/Reed (Atlanta), Cannon/Absher/Anderson (Winston-Salem), Machleidt/Geyer (Seattle), and Meyer (Menlo Park). Neither the appeal nor the ITC matter is sealed, but the appeal was voluntarily dismissed before any merits briefing, so no further appearances were made.

Counsel of record for the defendants/respondents

This matter is not a conventional district-court infringement suit. The underlying infringement proceeding was the ITC Section 337 investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1331) that MRI filed against Samsung and display integrators, and the case-numbered matter (No. 24-1749) is MRI's now-dismissed Federal Circuit appeal. In the appeal, the adversarial "defendant-side" parties are (a) the respondent/intervenor Samsung entities and display integrators and (b) the nominal appellee, the ITC. The operative "defendants" — the Samsung respondents — were represented by Goodwin Procter LLP at every stage.

1. Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24-1749) — counsel of record for the respondent/intervenor parties

Per the CAFC docket (Patexia case listing for 2024-1749, Doc. 10, filed May 24, 2024), an entry of appearance was filed for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDS America, Inc.; Industrial Enclosures Corp. d/b/a Palmer Digital Group; and Coates US Inc. for:

• Kevin P. Martin — Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA. Appears to have been the filing attorney and docket contact for the intervenors on the appeal. A seasoned Goodwin patent trial/appellate partner (the CAFC docket entry is attributed to "[Kevin Martin]").
• Douglas J. Kline — Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA. Long-serving lead of Goodwin's representation of Samsung across ITC/PTAB/district-court display disputes; signed the principal respondent briefs in 337-TA-1331.
• Srikanth K. Reddy — Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA. Patent litigator on the Samsung team in the underlying ITC investigation and in parallel IPRs (e.g., IPR2023-00220/00221/00255).
• Patrick J. McCarthy — Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC. ITC- and PTAB-focused litigator; signatory on respondent filings in 337-TA-1331 (e.g., the motion for summary determination of noninfringement, FR Doc. 3317).
• Naomi L. Birbach — Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY. Patent litigator on the Samsung respondent team in the ITC investigation.
• Gerard Cedrone — Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA. Goodwin patent litigator handling trial/appellate and ITC matters.
• Darryl Woo — Goodwin Procter LLP, San Francisco, CA. The long-standing Goodwin relationship partner for Samsung's U.S. ITC/patent litigation (signature blocks in 337-TA-1331 filings place him in Goodwin's San Francisco office).

Note on roles: Federal Circuit entries of appearance do not designate "lead vs. local counsel." Kevin P. Martin was the attorney who e-filed and was listed as the docket contact for the intervenors; the same Goodwin team (Martin, Kline, Reddy, McCarthy, Birbach, Woo, Cedrone) formed the core respondent-side group throughout the ITC investigation and the parallel IPRs.

2. Federal Circuit appeal — counsel of record for appellee ITC

• Paul D. Lall and Wayne W. Herrington — entered an appearance May 6, 2024 "as counsel for Appellee ITC" (CAFC Doc. 2, per the Patexia docket listing). They are almost certainly attorneys in the ITC Office of the General Counsel (Washington, DC), which represents the Commission in § 337 appeals. Caveat: I could not independently verify their titles/offices beyond the docket entry within the available sources, so treat the OGC affiliation as highly probable but not separately confirmed.

3. Underlying ITC investigation (337-TA-1331) — respondents' counsel

The same firm, Goodwin Procter LLP, represented all respondents — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDS Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDS America, Inc.; Coates Signco Pty Ltd./Coates US Inc.; and Industrial Enclosures Corp. d/b/a Palmer Digital Group — with a broader team appearing on substantive filings, including the attorneys listed above plus Christie L. Larochelle, Harrison Gunn, Kara Grogan (Boston), Christine Potkay, Christina Denise Go (New York), Elizabeth J. Low, Yoona Lee (Redwood City, CA), Jacqueline Genovese Bova, Jeremy Jones (Washington, DC), and Sanjeet Dutta (service contact). Signature blocks on the respondents' summary-determination motion (FR.com public filing, Doc. 3317) confirm this lineup. (MRI/complainant was represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP — Mitchell G. Stockwell, Russell A. Korn, David A. Reed, Dario A. Machleidt, Alton L. Absher III, Matthew J. Meyer — whose corrected CAFC appearance was Doc. 7, May 13, 2024.)

Practical notes

• The appeal was voluntarily dismissed on August 29, 2024 (Doc. 19) under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) before any merits briefing, so no further counsel designations or brief-signing roles ever developed; the entries above are the complete counsel-of-record set for the "defense side" on appeal.
• No local counsel was required at the Federal Circuit, and no appearances are sealed.
• If the EDTX parallel suit (MRI v. Samsung, No. 2:22-cv-00320) is the reference point instead, Samsung's counsel there was likewise Goodwin Procter (the PTAB mandatory notices in the companion IPRs list the same Goodwin team), but I did not retrieve the EDTX docket itself to confirm separate pro hac vice admissions.

Sources: Patexia CAFC docket listing for Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. ITC, No. 2024-1749 (Docs. 2, 7, 9, 10, 19); Justia/CAFC order (Doc. 19, Aug. 29, 2024); Goodwin Procter signature blocks on respondents' filings in 337-TA-1331 (FR.com Docs. 3317/3318); IPR2023-00220/00221/00255 PTAB records (DocketAlarm); USITC Federal Register notices for 337-TA-1331.