Untitled case

Case Overview: 2:21-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex.) — U.S. Patent No. 9,792,007

Note on sourcing: Case metadata for this matter is thin and partially unverified. Google Patents litigation metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 9,792,007 as the patent at issue in case 2:21-cv-00371, filed in 2021 in the Eastern District of Texas, when Z124 Co. was the named assignee. I could not independently verify the defendant's identity, the presiding judge, or the current docket status from available searches, so those points are flagged rather than asserted.

Parties and posture

The plaintiff is Z124 Co., a non-practicing entity/patent assertion company that holds patents originating from I/O Controls Corporation, the developer of early dual-screen ("clamshell tablet") mobile computing concepts. Z124 has a history of asserting this family of multi-display patents against device makers. Notably, the patent has since changed hands: a USPTO PTAB filing shows Multifold International Incorporated Pte. as patent owner of the '007 patent in IPR2025-00061, with Google LLC as petitioner (petition dated Oct. 17, 2024) — indicating an assignment away from Z124 post-filing and an active parallel PTAB challenge. The defendant in the district case is not confirmed in available sources; searches did not surface the caption, answer, or docket entries.

Accused technology and asserted patent

The accused technology is multi-display/multi-monitor computing — systems that present one application's image window across two or more display screens, manage input focus and configurable input areas for the focused application, and dynamically resize the primary window (e.g., to encompass both displays) when a second application or function terminates. This maps to modern dual-screen laptops, foldable smartphones, and extended-display desktop environments.

U.S. Patent No. 9,792,007 — "System and method for managing application image windows across multiple displays": it claims systems and methods for displaying a first application's image across a plurality of display monitors, showing input options for the focused application in a configurable area while permitting input from both the configurable area and the display, and adjusting the first image window's size to span multiple monitors in response to a command terminating a second application. The PTAB petition materials (including the Dr. Sandeep Chatterjee declaration) confirm the claim scope covers multi-monitor window management, with the primary prior-art grounds built on the Purcell reference (dual-monitor window resizing) combined with Nicholas and related references.

Venue, procedural context, and why it matters

The case sits in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (the "2:21-cv-00xxx" numbering), filed in 2021. E.D. Tex. has historically been the nation's most patentee-friendly venue, with fast dockets, local patent rules, and a historically high plaintiff win rate — a standard choice for NPE assertion campaigns of this type. Under the post-TC Heartland venue regime, venue in E.D. Tex. is only proper where a defendant has a regular and established place of business or where infringement "acts" occurred, so a Z124-style NPE filing there typically signals the defendant(s) had some Texas presence (e.g., retail stores or offices) — or that the case was later transferred. Neither the judge assignment nor any transfer motion could be confirmed from available sources.

Why the case is notable

The case is notable on several fronts: (1) it exemplifies the NPE assertion pattern in E.D. Tex., with a patent-holding entity enforcing legacy I/O Controls multi-screen patents acquired years after the underlying products failed commercially; (2) it has a direct PTAB linkage — Google's IPR2025-00061 petition challenging the '007 patent over Purcell/Nicholas-style prior art, filed well after the district case began, raising potential § 101/§ 102/§ 103 defenses and possible stays; and (3) the asserted technology sits squarely on the market context of foldable phones and dual-screen laptops (e.g., Samsung Galaxy Z Fold/Book, Lenovo Yoga Book, Microsoft Surface Duo/Neo), meaning the patent family's value is tied to the modern resurgence of multi-display consumer devices. The ownership shift from Z124 to Multifold International mid-litigation also reflects the monetization lifecycle of this patent family. Unverified caveats: defendant identity, case disposition (settlement, judgment, or dismissal), and the outcome of IPR2025-00061 were not confirmed in the available search results.

Based on the available sources (Justia docket, UniCourt, Ex Parte case tracker, USPTO PTACTS AO-120 records, Docket Alarm IPR listings, Stanford NPE Litigation Database), here is the reconstructed chronology for Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:21-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division). Note that several intermediate docket entries (answer, motions, any claim-construction order) are not retrievable from the free sources I found, and I flag those gaps explicitly rather than guess.

Case Overview

• Court / Judge: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding.
• Parties: Plaintiff Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. ("MII" or "Multifold"); Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC") and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA").
• Patents-in-suit: Multiple Multifold patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,792,007 ("Focus Change Upon Application Launch," issued 2017-10-17), U.S. Patent No. 8,836,842 ("Capture Mode Outward Facing Modes," issued 2014-09-16), and U.S. Patent No. 8,966,053 ("Modal Launching") — the complaint asserted roughly seventeen claims for relief across the patent family. The user's metadata flags only the '007 patent, but the complaint (per RPX/UniCourt records) swept in the broader Z124/Multifold portfolio.
• Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 (direct, induced, and contributory infringement), seeking damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, interest, and an accounting.
• Status: Closed (per Ex Parte tracker); terminated by a dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims (per the USPTO AO-120 record).

Chronology

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2021-09-29 — Complaint for patent infringement filed (Dkt. 1), along with AO-120 patent notice (Dkt. 2), corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 3), and issued summonses to SEC and SEA (Dkts. 4–5). MII was represented by Robert Christopher Bunt (Parker Bunt & Ainsworth), with pro hac vice counsel Timothy Kelso Gilman, Saunak K. Desai, and Gregory Springsted (Dkts. 7–9, 2021-10-04).
• 2021-09-30 — SEA served; answer originally due 2021-10-21 (Dkt. 6).
• 2021-10-14 — Waiver of service sent to SEC; answer due 2022-01-12 (Dkt. 10).
• 2021-10-19 / 2021-11-08 — Unopposed motion to extend time to answer (Dkt. 11) granted by Judge Gilstrap (Dkt. 12, signed 2021-11-05).
• Answer / counterclaims: The free docket records I found stop at 2021-11-08. The AO-120 record's judgment language ("all claims asserted by Samsung against Multifold") confirms Samsung filed counterclaims at some point, but I could not verify the answer date, the substance of the counterclaims, or whether they were invalidity/unenforceability counterclaims. This is an unsourced gap.

2. Pre-Trial Motions

• I found no verified record of motions to dismiss, to transfer, for stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment in this case. The docket did not publicly surface such motions in the sources reviewed. Given the case closed by way of a full dismissal with prejudice, it is likely the case settled before any merits rulings, but that inference is not a substitute for a verified docket.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• No Markman order was found in the available sources. Nothing indicates the case reached claim construction before termination.

4. Discovery Milestones

• Beyond service and the answer-extension order, no discovery milestones (infringement/validity contentions, expert reports, depositions) are documented in the accessible record. The case appears to have resolved before substantive discovery of strategic significance was reported.

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• No trial occurred. There is no verdict, no JMOL motion, and no fee award documented. The matter was resolved by dismissal rather than adjudication.

6. Final Disposition

• Dismissal with prejudice: The USPTO PTACTS AO-120 record for docket 2:21-cv-371 contains the following decision/judgment entry: "ORDERED that all claims asserted by Multifold against Samsung and all claims asserted by Samsung against Multifold are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE." This indicates the case ended via a stipulated/consent dismissal with prejudice covering both MII's infringement claims and Samsung's counterclaims — the hallmark of a global settlement. The Ex Parte case tracker lists the case status as Closed.
• Caution: I could not retrieve the dismissal order itself (docket number, exact date, or whether it was a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation or court-ordered dismissal). The dismissal date is therefore not verified; based on the case being filed 2021-09-29 and the closure flag, the termination almost certainly occurred in 2022–2023, but that is an estimate.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR2025-00061 — Google LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. (Petition filed ~2024-10-17; institution decision pending/unknown): challenges U.S. Patent No. 9,792,007 — the same patent at issue here, but filed by Google, not Samsung, and after the district court case had closed. It therefore had no operative effect on this litigation (no stay could have been sought in a closed case).
• IPR2025-00038 — Motorola v. Multifold on related patent 9,665,126 (not the '007 patent at issue in this case) is also unrelated to Samsung.
• No Samsung-filed IPR/PGR on the '007 patent was found in the sources reviewed, and no PTAB proceeding tied to this Samsung case was identified.

Summary of Outcome

Multifold sued Samsung (SEC/SEA) in the Eastern District of Texas on 2021-09-29 over a portfolio of dual-screen/device patents including U.S. 9,792,007. After initial pleading-stage activity (service, pro hac vice admissions, one answer-extension order), the case was resolved by dismissal with prejudice of all of Multifold's claims and all of Samsung's counterclaims — consistent with a confidential settlement. There was no trial, Markman ruling, or merits decision, and no Samsung IPR. The '007 patent later resurfaced in 2023 Delaware litigation by Multifold against Motorola (1:23-cv-01173) and in Google's 2024–2025 IPR2025-00061, both separate from this Samsung case.

Verification caveats: The dismissal order's exact date and docket number, the answer/counterclaim filings, and the absence/presence of substantive pre-trial motions could not be confirmed from the free sources available (Justia's docket for this case stops at 2021-11-08; PACER would be needed for the full record). The "dismissed with prejudice" language is verified from the USPTO AO-120 record, which is authoritative for the disposition.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff — Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Case confirmed: Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:21-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex., filed Sept. 29, 2021, Judge Rodney Gilstrap) — patent infringement suit asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,792,007 (among others) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Docketed appearances for the plaintiff (per the Justia docket for this case, retrieved Nov. 8, 2021) are as follows:

1. Robert Christopher "Chris" Bunt

• Role: Lead/local counsel — signed the complaint (Dkt. 1), corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 3), waiver-of-service return (Dkt. 10), and extension motion (Dkt. 11). UniCourt's case summary identifies him as the attorney who filed the action.
• Firm: Parker Bunt & Ainsworth, PC (per UniCourt's case summary; office location not independently verified in this session, though the firm is Texas-based and commonly serves as E.D. Tex. local/lead counsel).
• Experience note: Regular patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas; represents patent holders in infringement actions before Judge Gilstrap.

2. Gregory Springsted

• Role: Pro hac vice counsel for plaintiff — appeared via Notice of Attorney Appearance – Pro Hac Vice on Oct. 4, 2021 (Dkt. 7).
• Firm/office: Not verified in available sources during this session. (The docket entry confirms the appearance but not his firm; no firm affiliation for Springsted appeared in the retrieved records.)
• Experience note: n/a — not independently confirmed.

3. Saunak K. Desai

• Role: Pro hac vice counsel for plaintiff — appeared via Notice of Attorney Appearance – Pro Hac Vice on Oct. 4, 2021 (Dkt. 8).
• Firm/office: Not verified in available sources during this session. (Docket confirms the appearance only.)
• Experience note: n/a — not independently confirmed.

4. Timothy Kelso Gilman

• Role: Pro hac vice counsel for plaintiff — appeared via Notice of Attorney Appearance – Pro Hac Vice on Oct. 4, 2021 (Dkt. 9).
• Firm/office: Not verified in available sources during this session. (Docket confirms the appearance only.)
• Experience note: n/a — not independently confirmed.

Additional context

• Local counsel: Only Bunt is clearly identified with a firm (Parker Bunt & Ainsworth) in the sources retrieved. The three pro hac vice attorneys (Springsted, Desai, Gilman) all appeared on behalf of plaintiff Multifold on the same day, suggesting a coordinated plaintiff-side team, but their firm affiliations could not be confirmed from the PACER/Justia/UniCourt records retrieved in this session. I did not find firm rosters, Law360/Reuters profiles, or court opinions identifying their employers within the available search steps, so I will not guess.
• Case outcome/status: The case is closed. The USPTO AO 120 form filed in the case reflects a judgment ordering that all claims asserted by Multifold against Samsung, and all counterclaims, were dismissed with prejudice — consistent with the "Closed" status shown on the docket aggregator.
• Caveat: The docket entries above come from the Justia mirror (last retrieved Nov. 8, 2021) and UniCourt; a fuller PACER view (e.g., any later substitution of counsel, additional pro hac vice appearances, or withdrawal notices) was not available in this session. If later counsel entries exist on PACER, they are not reflected here.

Bottom line: The verified plaintiff's counsel of record are Robert Christopher Bunt (Parker Bunt & Ainsworth), Gregory Springsted, Saunak K. Desai, and Timothy Kelso Gilman (the latter three admitted pro hac vice; firms unverified).

Case identification

The case metadata resolves to Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:21-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, Judge Rodney Gilstrap), filed September 29, 2021.

• Plaintiff: Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. (a Singapore company; the Z124-related portfolio assignee holding the patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,792,007, "FOCUS CHANGE UPON APPLICATION LAUNCH," issued Oct. 17, 2017 — the '007 patent listed as patent 12 of 14 asserted in the complaint).
• Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively "Samsung").
• Status: Closed. The USPTO AO 120 filing reflects a judgment entered ~June 2, 2022 ordering all claims asserted by Multifold against Samsung and all counterclaims by Samsung against Multifold dismissed with prejudice (i.e., a settlement dismissal; no merits opinion).

Defense counsel — verified status

I could not verify the identity of Samsung's counsel of record from the publicly available sources retrieved. Specifically:

1. The Justia docket snapshot (last retrieved Nov. 8, 2021) shows only docket entries 1–12, all of which are plaintiff-side filings: the complaint, summonses, corporate disclosure, pro hac vice appearances for Multifold's counsel (Timothy Kelso Gilman, Saunak K. Desai, Gregory Springsted), waiver of service for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (answer due Jan. 12, 2022), and an unopposed extension of time to answer (Dkt. 11–12, granted Nov. 5, 2021). No defendant appearance, answer, or defense-firm notice of appearance appears in that snapshot, which predates Samsung's answer deadline.
2. The Ex Parte/RPX and UniCourt summaries confirm the parties and the Gilstrap assignment but do not list defense counsel.
3. The USPTO AO 120 record confirms the dismissal with prejudice but lists no attorneys.

Because the docket entries post-dating November 2021 (Samsung's answer, any motions to dismiss, attorney appearance forms, and the stipulation of dismissal) were not retrievable in this session, the actual defense team is unconfirmed. I am not naming any attorneys as Samsung's counsel because doing so would be fabrication — no retrieved source establishes who appeared for the defendants.

What is known about the plaintiff-side team (for context only)

• Robert Christopher Bunt — Parker Bunt & Ainsworth (plaintiff's local/lead counsel on the complaint, per UniCourt).
• Timothy Kelso Gilman, Saunak K. Desai, Gregory Springsted — pro hac vice appearances for Multifold (Dkts. 7–9).

Practical next steps to confirm defense counsel

• Pull the PACER docket for 2:21-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex.) and review entries ~13 onward (expected January 2022): Samsung's answer, notices of appearance, and any motion to dismiss (Multifold's complaint asserted 14 patents including '007, so a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge or early IPR strategy is plausible).
• Check PTAB/IPR records for IPRs filed by Samsung against the asserted Multifold patents (including '792,007) in late 2021/2022 — the petitioning counsel would typically be the same firm handling the district-court defense.
• Samsung's customary E.D. Tex. defense counsel in this era have included large IP boutiques and national firms (e.g., Quinn Emanuel, Alston & Bird, Fish & Richardson), but I cannot confirm which firm entered an appearance here without the docket.

Bottom line: No defense counsel of record could be verified from the available public sources; the docket snapshot ends before Samsung's first appearance, and the case settled/dismissed with prejudice by mid-2022. PACER or a paid docket service (DocketNavigator, Bloomberg Law, CourtListener full text) is required to identify Samsung's attorneys with certainty.