Defendant

Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.

4 cases as defendant.

Cases
4
Active
0
4 closed
Filed
2022
Top venue
PTAB
2 cases
Also appears as a plaintiff in 8 cases → View as plaintiff

Company profile

Company overview. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. ("MRI") is a privately held designer and manufacturer of outdoor and semi-outdoor digital LCD displays headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia (metro Atlanta). Founded in 2004 as a technical spin-off of American Panel Corporation, MRI operates a roughly 220,000 sq ft facility covering metal fabrication, glass processing, PCB/SMT production, LCD preparation, and final assembly. Public directories put headcount at roughly 100–200 employees (BuiltIn lists ~154); revenue is not publicly disclosed, with third-party estimates (e.g., Prospeo) around $6M/year — unverified. MRI also runs LG-MRI, a joint venture with LG Electronics that licenses MRI and LG IP.

Products / operations. MRI designs and builds rugged, high-brightness LCD displays for digital out-of-home advertising and wayfinding. Major lines include BoldVu® outdoor LCDs (used in bus shelters, kiosks, EV chargers), BoldVu® Lite indoor/semi-outdoor units, TransitVu™ transit displays, and Digital InfiniteTouch® touch controllers, supported by SmartVu® cloud monitoring and service agreements. Its core engineering focus is thermal management — keeping direct-sun displays cool and bright over long service lives — which is also the subject of its asserted patents.

Patent-litigation posture. MRI is an operating company and an active, primarily plaintiff-side enforcer of its own display-cooling portfolio: 4 of 5 tracked appearances are as plaintiff. Its principal enforcement action, MRI v. Samsung Electronics et al. (2:22-cv-00320, filed Aug. 2022), was brought in the plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas (referred to Magistrate Judge Payne) and asserted five patents (e.g., U.S. 8,854,595; 10,506,740; 11,013,142) covering cooling systems for outdoor/semi-outdoor LCD displays against Samsung and Samsung SDS. The same day it filed a related Section 337 complaint at the ITC.

Notable context. The dispute became two-way: Samsung petitioned for IPRs (e.g., IPR2023-00221) and filed its own ITC investigation (337-TA-1349) against MRI, which was terminated by settlement in September 2024; MRI's Federal Circuit appeal of its ITC case (MRI v. ITC, No. 24-1749) was voluntarily dismissed. MRI's appeals of PTAB decisions invalidating its cooling patents (MRI v. Squires, Nos. 24-2224/24-2300) were affirmed by the Federal Circuit in April 2026. An earlier enforcement action (MRI v. Civiq Smartscapes, D. Del. 2017) rounds out the portfolio.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.

Final written decision; outcome not confirmed
Docket:
IPR2023-00255
Filed:
2022-12-15
Patents:9629287

Samsung and others filed inter partes review of US Patent 9,629,287. The patent file wrapper records a final written decision, but the substantive outcome is not confirmed in the narrative.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.

Final written decision; affirmed on appeal
Docket:
IPR2023-00254
Filed:
2022-12-13
Terminated:
2024-06-18
Patents:10506740

Samsung petitioned for inter partes review of the '740 patent. The PTAB issued a final written decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.

Final Written Decision - Appealed
Docket:
IPR2023-00221
Filed:
2022-12-07
Terminated:
2024-06-18
Patents:11013142

Samsung petitioned for inter partes review of all claims 1-15 of the '142 patent. The Board held all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, and the decision was appealed (noted as 2024-2231).

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.

Final Written Decision; all challenged claims held unpatentable
Docket:
IPR2023-00199
Terminated:
2024-06-18
Patents:8854595

Samsung petitioned for IPR challenging claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 of the '595 patent. The PTAB instituted review and held all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.