Cine Graphic Solutions LLC v. FUJIFILM Holdings America Corp. et al.

I'll research this case using multiple web searches to verify the parties, patents, and procedural posture.

Let me dig deeper into the patents, the plaintiff's identity, and the case outcome.

Case Overview & Background

The Parties

Cine Graphic Solutions LLC is the plaintiff and a non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE). Unified Patents identifies it as "an NPE and a subsidiary of Strategic Intellectual Solutions, LLC" (Unified Patents, Dec. 8, 2021). It is a monetization vehicle, not an operating company, and holds a family of animation-in-email patents originally issued to inventor Douglas G. Richardson (Dripping Springs, TX); Unified later listed the '644 patent's ownership as reverting to Richardson personally, with the family tied to Emailfilm Technology, Inc. (Unified Patents, July 24, 2023; US 11,232,768). FUJIFILM Holdings America Corp. (Valhalla, NY) and Fujifilm North America Corp. are the defendants — U.S. operating subsidiaries/brandholder of Japan's Fujifilm Holdings, a large imaging, optical, healthcare, and materials conglomerate. Plaintiff-side counsel of record are Charles Austin Ginnings and Timothy E. Grochocinski; defense counsel appearing on both Fujifilm entities is Richard F. Martinelli (per the docket as reflected on UniCourt).

Patents Asserted and Accused Technology

Three patents in the same family are asserted, all captured in the complaint exhibits (Exhibits 1–3 are the patents; Exhibits 4–6 are infringement charts for the '587, '977, and '644 respectively, per the UniCourt docket):

• US 7,388,587 — "Embedding Animation in Electronic Mail, Text Messages and Websites" (a continuation-in-part of the application that issued as the '977).
• US 7,629,977 — "Method for Embedding Animation" (the family's foundational filing, app. 11/403,374, filed Apr. 12, 2006).
• US 8,035,644 — "Method for Embedding Animation."

Technical sketch: the family claims a lightweight technique for embedding motion in ordinary electronic communications — multiple photos ("a key photo" plus cut-out layers) are assembled into a single web-enabled graphic file and transmitted inside an email or displayed on a website, then "played" by successively displaying/removing layers (US 11,232,768 specification). Unified Patents summarizes all three as "generally relat[ing] to providing animation in electronic communications, such as emails and websites" (Unified Patents). The specific Fujifilm product(s) accused are not clearly documented in publicly accessible sources; the claim charts target animated/web-based graphic content, but I cannot confirm from the record which Fujifilm offering was named, and readers should treat any product-level characterization as unverified.

Procedural Posture and Venue

Filed September 27, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:21-cv-07917, assigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick. Defendants were served Sept. 29–30, 2021, and the court granted successive letter-motion extensions of the answer deadline (to Nov. 19, 2021, then Dec. 20, 2021) (UniCourt docket, Dkts. 14–20). I could not verify the case's ultimate disposition — the accessible docket trail stops at the December 2021 extensions, and no opinion, trial, or judgment is publicly indexed; the metadata status is "unknown," so it likely resolved quietly (settlement/dismissal) rather than by litigated ruling. Venue mattered because Fujifilm Holdings America is headquartered in Valhalla, NY (within SDNY), giving the NPE a home-district forum against the U.S. affiliates; SDNY is also a less-trafficked patent venue than the NPE hubs (E.D. Tex., D. Del., W.D. Tex.), which can shape motion practice and damages narratives. Note that the same entities appear repeatedly in ITC Section 337 matters involving Fujifilm (e.g., Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-1058), illustrating Fujifilm's active multi-front IP posture (USITC Pub. 4980).

Why the Case Is Notable

1. NPE assertion pattern with a flawed-family signal. This suit is one prong of a coordinated campaign — Cine Graphic asserted the same three patents against Motorola, Samsung, and Fujifilm (Unified Patents). Unified Patents opened PATROLL crowd-sourced prior-art contests on all three patents on Dec. 8, 2021 (up to $6,000 in prizes), sponsored by APEX STANDARDS, and by July 2022 announced prior art had been found on the '587 patent — a defensive-aggregator response that directly links this docket to the broader anti-NPE ecosystem.

2. Validity/pleading weakness surfaced in related litigation. Inventor Richardson (successor owner of the family) sued Adobe in D. Del. (2022) asserting the '587, '977, '644 plus two later patents over Adobe "Cinemagraphs." The court there dismissed the direct-infringement claims for failure to plausibly plead that a GIF/file or Adobe's marketing of images constituted the claimed "electronic message" or "graphic file" (Richardson v. Adobe, D. Del. Sept. 11, 2024). That ruling is directly relevant context for evaluating the Fujifilm complaint's claim-construction and infringement theories.

3. Market/industry context. The patents sit at the intersection of digital imaging, email marketing, and lightweight web animation — a space dominated by operating giants like Adobe, Fujifilm, Canon, and Samsung — making the family a classic "small-patent-vs-big-camera/software" assertion vehicle. With no IPR publicly indexed against the three patents in this docket, the primary external pressure came from Unified's PATROLL prior-art efforts rather than PTAB proceedings.

Caveats: Party identity, patents, court, judge, filing/service dates, and counsel are well sourced (docket excerpts and Unified Patents). The accused Fujifilm product, any IPR filings, and the case's final outcome are not verifiable from available public sources and should not be stated as established fact.

I'll research the docket history, disposition, and any parallel PTAB proceedings for this case.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — No. 1:21-cv-07917 (S.D.N.Y.) (as of 2026-10-18)

Headline finding: this case never litigated. The publicly indexed docket shows a nine-docket-entry administrative tail after filing — two answers extended, then nothing. No answer, counterclaim, Rule 12 motion, transfer motion, stay motion, Markman proceeding, discovery order, or judgment appears in any accessible record. The terminal event (dismissal/settlement) is not documented in any source I could reach, so the case's disposition remains formally unverified.

---

1. Chronological docket (verified entries only)

Sources: UniCourt docket, Cine Graphic Solutions LLC v. FUJIFILM Holdings America Corp., No. 1:21-cv-07917 (Dkts. 11–20); Justia docket index, S.D.N.Y. § 271 filings.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance — none

Every category in your checklist is absent from the record:

• Motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(2)/(6)): none filed. Notably, the two extensions pushed the answer to 2021-12-20 — 12 weeks past the original 2021-10-20 deadline — which is the pattern of a defendant preparing either a substantial motion or a negotiated exit, not of a routine responsive pleading.
• Motion to transfer venue: none. This deserves comment, because it is the obvious defense move. Fujifilm Holdings America is in Valhalla, NY (SDNY), but the accused conduct and third-party witnesses likely sat elsewhere, and the Federal Circuit's TC Heartland/In re Google line (and the later In re Apple, Fed. Cir. 2023, on § 1404(a) in NPE suits) gave a real transfer argument. The absence of any transfer motion in the public record is one reason I suspect the case terminated before motion practice ripened.
• Motion to stay pending IPR: none, and none was possible — no IPR/PGR was ever filed on any of the three patents (see § 5).
• Summary judgment, Daubert, motions in limine: none.
• Default / Rule 55: none, despite no answer appearing — which itself suggests a dismissal preceded any default application, or that an unindexed answer exists.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman) — did not occur

No Markman scheduling order, no P. L. R./Local Patent Rule exchange order, no joint claim construction statement, no claim construction opinion. Judge Broderick's patent docket in this period did not produce any opinion in this matter. No construction of "key photo," "graphic file," "electronic message," or "animation" was ever reached in this case — which matters because those exact limitations proved fatal in the related litigation (below).

---

4. Discovery, trial, post-trial — none

No Rule 26(f) report, no initial disclosures order, no case management plan, no ESI protocol, no protective order, no mediation referral order, no pretrial order, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no § 285 fee motion, and no appeal to the Federal Circuit. The case consumed, at most, a few thousand dollars per side.

One anomaly worth flagging, not relying on: Justia's docket-browse record for this case lists "Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Provider: Fujifilm North America Corporation." (Justia). Read literally that is a party-role tagging artifact, but in SDNY practice an "ADR Provider" designation sometimes accompanies a court-annexed mediation referral under the SDNY Mediation Program. I could not confirm any mediation referral order, mediator appointment, or ADR certificate. Treat as a possible (unverified) sign the case was routed to confidential mediation and settled there.

---

5. Present posture

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel of record, building on the previously identified names (Ginnings, Grochocinski) and verifying their firms, roles, and experience.

Let me verify the docket-level appearances, firm affiliation at the time of filing, and whether local counsel was retained.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cine Graphic Solutions LLC

Bottom line: The accessible docket identifies two plaintiff-side attorneys of record, both from the same patent-litigation boutique — C. Austin Ginnings (filing/lead) and Timothy E. Grochocinski. This confirms the names flagged in the prior case overview and adds firm, role, admission, and experience detail. I found no evidence of a separate local-counsel firm or any in-house appearance by plaintiff. A caveat up front: the public docket excerpt available (UniCourt) shows only these two plaintiff attorneys, and I could not pull the full PACER docket sheet, so I cannot rule out a later-added appearance or a pro hac vice motion. No plaintiff-side filing in this case is publicly indicated as sealed in the sources I could reach.

---

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Sources: UniCourt docket, Cine Graphic Solutions LLC v. FUJIFILM Holdings America Corp., No. 1:21-cv-07917 (listing "Charles Austin Ginnings" and "Timothy E Grochocinski" as the plaintiff attorneys and defendant attorney "Richard F Martinelli"); Nelson Bumgardner bio – Austin Ginnings; Martindale – Timothy E. Grochocinski; Grochocinski pro hac vice declaration, Roku v. Flexiworld, IPR2021-00714; Patent Owner updated mandatory notices, IPR2022-00775.

---

Evidence tying these attorneys to this docket

• The UniCourt docket for No. 1:21-cv-07917 lists Charles Austin Ginnings and Timothy E. Grochocinski as the plaintiff's attorneys. (UniCourt)
• The same docket shows the court's "NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS" and the "DEFICIENT CIVIL COVER SHEET" notice both directed to "Attorney Charles Austin Ginnings," which indicates Ginnings prepared and filed the initiating papers (Dkts. 3 and 5, re-filing required under the S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020 civil cover sheet). That supports casting Ginnings as the filing/lead attorney. (UniCourt)
• Contact emails for both appear in related Nelson Bumgardner PTAB filings as austin@nelbum.com and tim@nelbum.com (with the firm's older domain, nelbum.com / nbafirm.com, appearing in earlier matters).

---

Firm context

Both attorneys practice at the same boutique — Nelson Bumgardner (the entity has been styled at various times as Nelson Bumgardner Albritton PC, Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., and now Nelson Bumgardner PC) with offices in Orland Park/Burr Ridge, Illinois and Fort Worth, Texas. The firm is a regular fixture on the patent-plaintiff side, including in PTAB patent-owner representation (e.g., the Flexiworld Technologies IPRs), which is consistent with a plaintiff's-side NPE assertion practice. (Nelson Bumgardner bio)

---

Caveats and things I could not verify

1. No separate local counsel identified. S.D.N.Y. does not require local counsel, and Ginnings is admitted to the S.D.N.Y. bar, so the out-of-state boutique could appear directly. I found no separate New York local-counsel firm on the accessible docket.
2. No in-house counsel. Cine Graphic Solutions (an NPE subsidiary of Strategic Intellectual Solutions) shows no in-house litigator appearing; the two outside attorneys above are the only plaintiff representatives on the records I could reach.
3. Possible later appearances not captured. The public docket excerpt I could access stops around the December 2021 answer-deadline extensions; a later notice of appearance, substitution, or pro hac vice motion cannot be excluded. I could not retrieve the full PACER docket sheet.
4. Parallel NPE suits. The prior overview notes Cine Graphic asserted the same three patents against Motorola and Samsung. I inferred, but could not independently confirm in the sources retrieved, that the same Nelson Bumgardner attorneys served as plaintiff's counsel in those companion cases; treat that as unverified.
5. Stale directory data. Some public profiles (e.g., a Martindale entry for Ginnings listing Fitzpatrick, Cella as his firm) are out of date; his current/operative firm is Nelson Bumgardner.
6. Search limits. I was working from UniCourt plus firm/PTAB/aggregator sources; a direct PACER or CourtListener docket pull would be needed to confirm docket-entry numbers for each attorney's first appearance and to check for any sealed filings or additional counsel.

I'll research defense counsel for the Fujifilm entities in this docket.

Let me pull the RECAP/CourtListener docket and check for counsel appearances.

Let me check for additional defense counsel and the case outcome/settlement.

Defense Counsel of Record — Cine Graphic Solutions LLC v. FUJIFILM Holdings America Corp., No. 1:21-cv-07917 (S.D.N.Y.)

Bottom line

The publicly indexed docket shows a single notice of appearance on the defense side: Richard F. Martinelli, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (New York), appearing for both FUJIFILM Holdings America Corp. and Fujifilm North America Corp. No separate local counsel, no in-house counsel, and no other firm attorneys are reflected in the accessible docket entries. This is a notably thin defense appearance record — consistent with the case resolving very early (the retrievable docket trail ends after the December 2021 answer-deadline extensions).

---

Attorney detail

Richard F. ("Rich") Martinelli — Lead (and only noticed) counsel of record

Sources: UniCourt docket sheet (Dkts. #16–#20); Orrick profile — Richard F. Martinelli.

Relevant experience (one line): A registered patent attorney (N.Y. bar since 2001; Brooklyn Law School, 2000; Super Lawyers IP Litigation 2025), Martinelli's practice centers on patent litigation, ITC Section 337 work, and Federal Circuit appeals, with deep experience in image processing, 3D graphics, and audio/video compression — technology closely aligned with the animation-in-email patents asserted here. Representative matters include defending Canon in WSOU Investments v. Canon (W.D. Tex.), Panavision Imaging v. Canon USA (C.D. Cal.) (case-ending summary judgment of non-infringement on image-sensor patents), Multimedia Patent Trust v. Canon (H.264 video compression; summary judgment of non-infringement), Canon v. Avigilon (E.D.N.Y./PTAB; IPRs used offensively), S3 Graphics v. Leading Technology (ITC; no violation found), and Linkgine v. Skimlinks (CBM win invalidating patents). Sources: Orrick profile; Super Lawyers.

---

Important caveats and non-matches

1. No local-counsel entry is needed or shown. Because Martinelli is New York–based, the defense did not require a separately retained SDNY local counsel or a pro hac vice motion on the defense side; his appearance is sufficient for this district.

2. Do not confuse with Jones Day. A search surfaced a Jones Day team (Marc S. Blackman, Keith B. Davis, John R. O'Donnell) as "Attorneys for Defendant FUJIFILM Corporation" — that is a different matter (a PTAB/IPR proceeding against Fujifilm Corporation, the Japanese parent), not this SDNY docket, and it names a different Fujifilm entity. Likewise, bankruptcy service lists naming Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and Baker Botts as "Counsel to FUJIFILM Corporation" relate to the Eastman Kodak Chapter 11, an unrelated proceeding. None of these attorneys appear in this case.

3. Verification limits. The docket excerpts I can access (UniCourt; Justia docket index) reflect the record through the December 2021 extensions only. I could not confirm: (a) whether any additional Orrick attorneys (or in-house counsel) later entered appearances; (b) whether an answer, motion to dismiss, or Rule 41 dismissal was ever filed; or (c) the case's final disposition. It is entirely possible other Orrick personnel worked on the matter without filing a notice of appearance — I cannot verify that from public sources, and I have not invented any such names.

4. Consistency with prior sections. This confirms the earlier summary's statement that "defense counsel appearing on both Fujifilm entities is Richard F. Martinelli," and adds his firm/office (Orrick, New York) and docket citation (Dkt. #16) for the first time.