Litigation

Douglas G. Richardson v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

unknown

6:17-cv-00428

Patents at issue (1)

8035644

Summary

Inventor-led suit by Douglas G. Richardson against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. in E.D. Tex., docket 6:17-cv-00428, filed in 2017. The narrative did not verify the final outcome.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. This is an inventor-led, single-plaintiff patent suit. Plaintiff Douglas G. Richardson is an individual — a professional photographer/videographer based in Austin, Texas, who began shooting digitally in 2001 and in 2005 invented what he branded the "Cinegif," an image containing an isolated area of motion designed to draw the viewer's eye. The complaint (¶¶ 17–22) details his commercial work for advertisers including Jaguar Land Rover of Austin, Maserati of Austin, Keller Williams, Century 21, John Deere, Kraft, Starwood, Chick-fil-A and Deep Eddy Vodka. He is not an operating company, university, or classic PAE; the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies him simply as an "Individual" asserter (category 9) — a genuine inventor enforcing patents he personally owns. Defendants are [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd. (Korean parent) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (U.S. subsidiary; its corporate disclosure statement identifies SEC as parent). Samsung's litigation team included Fish & Richardson (Neil P. Sirota, Robert L. Maier) working with E.D. Tex. local counsel Potter Minton (Michael E. Jones, Timothy S. Durst, Christopher R. Patrick) and Earl Thames; Richardson was represented by Jennifer Tatum Lee and Steven Douglas Urban.

Asserted patents and accused technology. The complaint asserts three patents, not one: U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,388,587 (issued 6/17/2008), 7,629,977 (issued 12/8/2009), and 8,035,644 (issued 10/11/2011), all titled "Method for Embedding Animation in Electronic Mail and Websites" / "Embedding Animation in Electronic Mail and Websites." (Note: the case metadata supplied lists only the '644 patent; the operative complaint asserted all three.) Technically, they claim a method of creating an animation from stills taken of a scene: a base "naked photo," sequential images capturing only a moving element, cut-out layers superimposed on the base image, and the composite stored as a web-enabled graphics file (e.g., a .gif, per '977 claim 6) and transmitted with electronic communication so the recipient sees only a localized, isolated area of motion — the design goal being reduced file size for efficient wired/wireless transmission. RPX records the case as having 19 accused products in the "Consumer Electronics and PCs" market sector, but the specific Samsung devices/features at issue (plausibly phone/tablet/camera animated-GIF or "motion photo" functionality) are not confirmed in the sources I could retrieve — treat product-level detail as unverified.

Procedural posture and why the venue matters. Filed July 24, 2017, in the E.D. Tex., Tyler Division, docket 6:17-cv-00428, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap; cause of action 35 U.S.C. § 271, with a willfulness allegation and a jury demand. Samsung answered on 10/20/2017 with counterclaims, and the court entered a Discovery Order and Docket Control Order (12/15/2017) setting Markman for 6/26/2018, mediation completion by 7/12/2018, pretrial conference 12/17/2018, and jury selection 1/14/2019 — all before Judge Gilstrap. The parties agreed to mediate before former E.D. Tex. Chief Judge David Folsom (Order Referring Case to Mediator, 12/4/2017). That venue choice is the familiar one for its speed and plaintiff-friendly track record, and Gilstrap was at the time the district's dominant patent judge. RPX reports the case closed on 8/11/2018 — roughly a month after the mediation deadline — which is consistent with an early settlement, though I could not retrieve the actual dismissal/settlement entry itself, so the precise disposition is not confirmed.

Why it is notable. The case sits at the intersection of two trends. First, it is a rare example of an individual, practicing small-business inventor suing a global consumer-electronics conglomerate on his own patents rather than a proxy asserting a purchased portfolio — and the patents later migrated to a monetization vehicle: Cine Graphic Solutions, described by Unified Patents as an NPE and a subsidiary of Strategic Intellectual Solutions, LLC, which went on to assert the '644 patent against Motorola, Samsung, and Fujifilm. Second, the '644 patent became a defensive-aggregation target: Unified Patents ran a PATROLL crowdsourcing contest (announced July 24, 2023) offering $2,000 for prior art on at least claim 1 of U.S. 8,035,644, with APEX STANDARDS supplying prior art and claim charts — signaling that the patent was still being asserted years after this suit. On the IPR linkage specifically: I found no inter partes review petition by Samsung against the Richardson '587, '977, or '644 patents in connection with this case, and no PTAB proceeding is confirmed — the numerous "644 patent" hits for Samsung in PTAB/ITC materials refer to a different patent, Samsung's own U.S. 7,486,644 (HSUPA rate-matching), which must not be conflated with Richardson's '644. Finally, Richardson has publicly claimed he "sued large tech giants (Samsung, Fuji, Motorola) and won," and Stanford's database lists him only as an asserter in this single E.D. Tex. action; the related campaigns against Motorola and Fujifilm are documented through the Unified/PATROLL materials rather than in sources I could fully verify. Sourcing caveats: (1) the accused Samsung products are unverified; (2) the 8/11/2018 closure is drawn from RPX and should be corroborated against the PACER docket or the dismissal order; (3) no case-specific PTAB IPR is confirmed; and (4) the three-patent set comes from the complaint, correcting the single-patent case metadata.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case systematically across dockets, opinions, and PTAB records.

Good progress. The docket shows the case closed 2018-08-11. Let me dig into the final disposition and any PTAB proceedings.

Let me get the full docket and the mediation/dismissal entries.

Richardson v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 6:17-cv-00428 (E.D. Tex.)

Research caveat up front: I was able to reconstruct the pleadings and pre-trial timeline largely from the Unified Patents litigation portal, RPX Insight, and the Justia/Stanford NPE dockets, but I could not retrieve the final docket entries (the mediation report text and the dismissal instrument) before my research budget ran out. Everything below is sourced; where I am inferring rather than confirming, I say so explicitly. I found no PTAB IPR/PGR on the asserted patents arising from this case.

Case metadata (confirmed): Filed 2017-07-24; Tyler Division; assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Smith County; nature of suit patent, 35 U.S.C. § 271; jury demanded by plaintiff. Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA). RPX reports the case closed 2018-08-11, ~384 days after filing, with 19 accused products.
Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/6:2017cv00428/[177407](/patent/177407) ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-177407-richardson-v-samsung-electronics ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/6:17-cv-00428

Note on the patent-in-suit: Your case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 8,035,644. The complaint actually asserted three patents — the '644 patent plus U.S. Patent Nos. 7,388,587 and 7,629,977 — all titled "Method for Embedding Animation in Electronic Mail and Websites," all naming Douglas G. Richardson as inventor and sole owner, and all claiming priority to provisional application No. 60/670,402 (filed 2005-04-12). Issuance dates alleged: '587 on 2008-06-17; '977 on 2009-12-08; '644 on 2011-10-11. The '644 patent is a continuation-in-part of application No. 11/586,016 (which matured into the '587 patent). Subject matter: the "Cinegif" — a still image with an isolated area of motion, stored as a single web-enabled graphic file (e.g., a .gif) and transmitted with electronic communications.
Source: Complaint, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/[12545769](/patent/12545769) ; S.D.N.Y. opinion in Richardson v. Adobe, Inc., https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10195881](/patent/10195881)/richardson-v-adobe-inc/

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Date Event
2017-07-24 Complaint filed (Dkt. 1) against SEC and SEA; jury demand.
2017-07-25 Notice of appearance, Jennifer Tatum Lee, for plaintiff.
2017-07-26 SEA personally served; answer due 2017-08-16.
2017-08-15/18 Notice of appearance, Steven Douglas Urban, for plaintiff.
2017-08-21 Defendants' unopposed first extension application (SEA); waiver of service executed by SEC (foreign defendant), waiver sent 2017-08-21, answer due 2017-10-20.
2017-09-08 Order granting extension (Dkt. 8): SEA's response deadline extended to 2017-10-20.
2017-09-08 – 2017-10-04 Defense appearances: Neil P. Sirota, Robert L. Maier, Timothy S. Durst, Michael E. Jones, Christopher R. Patrick.
2017-10-20 Answer, defenses, and counterclaim by SEC and SEA (Dkt. 15) — i.e., declaratory-judgment counterclaims of non-infringement and/or invalidity of the three patents. Corporate disclosure statements filed (SEA identifying SEC as parent).
2017-11-10 to 2017-11-24 Plaintiff's answer to the counterclaim; notices of change of address.

Defense-side appearances are consistent with Samsung's national patent counsel (Fish & Richardson) working with Tyler local counsel (the "Thames" signature on the answer — Earl Thames is a Potter Minton, Tyler, Texas attorney). I am flagging the firm attribution as an inference from the signature block and later Samsung filings in other E.D. Tex. matters; I did not verify the retainer/admission documents.
Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/6:17-cv-00428 ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/6:2017cv00428/177407

2. Case management, mediation referral, and scheduling

Date Event
2017-10-27 Order setting scheduling conference for 2017-11-28 (Marshall).
2017-11-24 / 12-01 Plaintiff's Notice of Designation of Mediator — Judge David Folsom (retired E.D. Tex. Chief Judge).
2017-12-04 Order referring case to mediation; David Folsom added as mediator.
2017-12-05 / 12-12 Agreed docket control order and agreed discovery order submitted.
2017-12-15 Discovery Order signed (including E.D. Tex. Patent Rule modifications for software-limitation contentions).
2017-12-21 Protective Order signed.
2017-12-19/21 (DCO) Docket Control Order: Markman/claim construction hearing 2018-06-26; pretrial conference 2018-12-17; jury selection 2019-01-14; mediation completion due 2018-07-12.

The early referral to a retired chief judge as mediator is the strategically significant development in this case: it set the case on a settlement track two months before claim construction even began.
Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/6:17-cv-00428

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

  • Motions for extension of time to answer — the only Rule 12-stage motions. Granted 2017-09-08 to 2017-10-20 (Dkt. 8).
  • No motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(2)/(3)/(6)) appears on the docket.
  • No motion to transfer venue (no § 1404(a) motion) appears.
  • No motion to stay pending IPR — consistent with my finding (below) that no IPR or PGR petition was ever filed against the '587, '977, or '644 patents, at least not one I could locate at the PTAB. Without a co-pending PTAB proceeding, there was nothing to stay for.
  • Amended scheduling motions: "First Amended Docket Control Order" 2018-04-18; "SECOND AMENDED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER, granting 46 Motion to Amend/Correct" 2018-05-18. These are administrative extensions, not dispositive motions.
  • No summary-judgment motion appears before the case closed.

I cannot rule out a sealed or shortly-after-May-2018 motion that the truncated docket excerpt did not surface, but nothing in the available record suggests substantive dispositive motion practice.
Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/6:17-cv-00428

4. Claim construction (Markman)

The case did not produce a claim construction opinion. The Markman/claim construction hearing was set for 2018-06-26 (Marshall, before Judge Gilstrap), and the parties filed technical-tutorial compliance notices in the run-up. On 2018-05-03, Judge Gilstrap entered an Order Appointing Technical Advisor, appointing Mr. David Keyzer as the court's technical advisor, with fees and expenses assessed equally between plaintiff and defendants — a signal the court expected a technically complex Markman. The case was resolved (closed 2018-08-11) around the time of the scheduled hearing, so claim construction was effectively overtaken by settlement. I found no Markman order or opinion, and no claim construction was ever appealed.
Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll research press coverage of this case across multiple angles.

Let me dig into the specific entities and search for press coverage.

Bottom line: I could not find mainstream or legal-trade press coverage of Richardson v. Samsung (6:17-cv-00428). Targeted searches on the case caption, the party names, the asserted patent numbers (8,035,644; 7,388,587; 7,629,977), and settlement/verdict angles returned no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra articles about this docket. What exists instead is docket-database and NPE-industry coverage, summarized below. Because there is no news reporting to characterize, I am describing those sources rather than press accounts, and flagging where they go beyond the record.

What the available sources establish about the case. Justia Dockets records the suit as filed 2017-07-24 in the E.D. Tex. Tyler Division before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, naming Douglas G. Richardson as plaintiff and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as defendants, with a jury demand. The Unified Patents litigation portal reproduces docket entries showing Samsung's appearances by Earl Thames, Neil Sirota, Robert Maier and others, an October 2017 answer and counterclaim, and referral of the case to mediation before former E.D. Tex. Chief Judge David Folsom (order signed 2017-12-04), with the Docket Control Order setting mediation completion for 2018-07-12 and jury selection for 2019-01-14. Separately, the complaint text reproduced by RPX Insight states that Richardson asserted three patents — 7,388,587, 7,629,977, and 8,035,644 — describing his 2005 "Cinegif" invention (an image with an isolated area of motion) and naming clients including Jaguar Land Rover of Austin, Maserati of Austin, Keller Williams, John Deere, Kraft and Chick-fil-A. That is a notable discrepancy worth recording: the case metadata in this summary lists only '644, while the complaint as published on RPX asserts three patents in the same family. RPX Insight's case page lists the matter as closed on 2018-08-11, after 384 days, with 19 accused products and a market sector of consumer electronics/PCs. I found no source — court record or otherwise — stating a trial verdict, judgment, damages award, or settlement amount, and RPX records no outcome beyond the closure date; given the mediation deadline and the roughly one-month gap to closure, an early resolution is plausible but I cannot source it, so I will not assert it.

Where coverage/commentary goes beyond the court record. The most substantive commentary comes from Unified Patents, the defensive patent aggregator, which announced on 2022-07-26 that prior art had been found against the '587 patent and characterized the owner as "Cine Graphic Solutions, an NPE and a subsidiary of Strategic Intellectual Solutions, LLC," with the patents "asserted against Motorola, Samsung, and Fujifilm." Unified ran a public PATROLL crowdsourcing contest on the '644 patent (December 2021–March 2022) and announced on 2023-07-24 that a $2,000 prize went to contributor Vibhor Dimri for '644 prior art, again noting former ownership by "Cine Graphic Solutions, an NPE and a subsidiary of Strategic Intellectual Solutions, LLC" (Unified Patents; PATROLL contest page). These posts treat the Samsung suit as part of a multi-defendant campaign rather than a standalone event, and the NPE labeling is Unified's characterization, not a court finding. A company profile of Richardson's venture Cinegif likewise states that the company "made significant strides in protecting its intellectual property, including a notable lawsuit against Samsung in 2017," but gives no outcome or dollar figure. By contrast, a 2024 podcast interview with Richardson (iHeart episode listing) describes him as "the inventor of a form of animation with 7 patents, who sued large tech giants (Samsung, Fuji, Motorola) and won!" — a self-reported claim I could not corroborate in any court filing or docket entry I located, and one that should be treated as an interviewee's assertion rather than verified reporting. Note also that the same patent family resurfaced later in Richardson v. Adobe in the S.D.N.Y., where a September 2024 opinion on Adobe's motion to dismiss addressed Cinegif/Cinemagraph infringement allegations and cited the '587 patent's citation during Adobe's prosecution (CCH copy of opinion); that is a different case and does not report on this Samsung docket.

Caveats. Every factual statement above comes from docket aggregators (Justia, RPX, Unified Patents' court-data portal), the NPE-defense blog of a party that actively campaigns against these patents, a startup database, or the inventor's own interview. None is independent journalism about this case. If a damages figure, settlement term, or dismissal rationale exists, it is not visible in any press or public source I could retrieve, and the reader should not assume any outcome beyond the RPX-recorded closure on 2018-08-11.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case.

Let me dig into the docket entry and the plaintiff's signature blocks.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Richardson v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 6:17-cv-00428 (E.D. Tex.)

Case snapshot used for this analysis: Inventor-plaintiff Douglas G. Richardson sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on July 24, 2017 in the Tyler Division before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 7,388,587, 7,629,977 and 8,035,644 (all titled variations on "Method for Embedding Animation in Electronic Mail and Websites"). The case was closed on August 11, 2018 after roughly 384 days of litigation, with mediation referred to former Judge David Folsom (Docket No. 17, order at Dkt. 18). (RPX Insight docket; Unified Patents portal docket)

The docket reflects three attorneys appearing for the plaintiff, all Austin-based and all appearing within the first month after filing. They filed as a small, close-knit group working out of the same Austin address (609 Castle Ridge Rd., Suite 450), and none of them is a Tyler/Marshall-based local counsel.

1. Cabrach John "Cab" Connor — lead / trial counsel

  • Role: Lead counsel for Plaintiff. In a contemporaneous filing in another Richardson-related patent matter, Connor signed expressly as "Lead Counsel" for the plaintiff, and he was the attorney who filed the complaint, the AO-120 form, and the corporate-disclosure filings in this docket. He is the only plaintiff-side attorney in the group registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 53,837).
  • Firm / office: At filing (July 2017), Connor practiced in his own Austin boutique, which was later reorganized as Connor Kudlac Lee PLLC and today is Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC, 609 Castle Ridge Road, Suite 450, Austin, TX 78746. (A February 9, 2026 Third Court of Appeals clerk letter lists both Connor and Jennifer Tatum Lee at "Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC, 609 Castle Ridge Rd Suite 450, Austin, TX 78746.") The firm-name change means the docket's original 2017 firm designation may differ from the current name; I could not retrieve the complaint's signature block itself to confirm the exact 2017 firm caption.
  • Patent litigation experience: A prolific, plaintiff-side patent litigator in Texas, often for individual inventors and NPEs. Representative matters include Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Xerox Corp. (E.D. Tex. No. 2:21-cv-00345) (P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions), Pinn, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (C.D. Cal. No. SACV 19-1805-DOC) (appeared with local counsel; he argued in that action), JumpSport, Inc. v. Target Corp. (E.D. Tex. amended complaint), GroupChatter, LLC v. Spok Holdings, Inc. (E.D. Tex. No. 6:18-cv-00048), Dayline Innovations, Inc. v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. (E.D. Tex. No. 2:22-cv-00074), RampWerks, LLC v. REI (E.D. Tex. No. 2:24-cv-00245), Confirmetrics, LLC v. ThreatMark, Inc. (E.D. Tex. No. 6:22-cv-00487), and IP Buds, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (E.D. Tex. No. 2:23-cv-00475). He has also served as patent-owner lead counsel in IPRs (e.g., IPR2019-00932). (Bloomberg Law docket, RampWerks v. REI; Bloomberg Law docket, IP Buds v. Samsung; Martindale profile)
  • Docket appearances here: Filed the complaint and accompanying AO-120/disclosure filings (July 24, 2017); listed as plaintiff's counsel of record on the docket sheet. (Justia docket)

2. Jennifer Tatum Lee (also appears as Jennifer A. Tatum / Tatum Lee) — plaintiff's counsel (co-counsel)

  • Role: Co-counsel for Plaintiff; entered a Notice of Attorney Appearance on July 25, 2017 (the day after filing) — the earliest plaintiff-side appearance on the docket. She also filed plaintiff's Answer to Samsung's counterclaim, the mediator designation, and notices of change of address (Nov. 10, 2017), i.e., she was one of the two actively filing plaintiff-side attorneys in this case. (She is not lead counsel; Connor signed as lead in the firm's other matters.)
  • Firm / office: Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC (formerly Connor Kudlac Lee PLLC), 609 Castle Ridge Road, Suite 450, Austin, TX 78746. Texas Bar No. 24046950.
  • Patent litigation experience: Longtime co-counsel with Connor on inventor/NPE patent suits, including Pinn, Inc. v. Apple (C.D. Cal.) (appeared in the June 11, 2020 claim construction/hearing transcript alongside Connor), JumpSport v. Target, and various E.D. Tex. patent actions; also active in Texas state appellate work for IP-holding entities. (Pinn hearing transcript; Third COA clerk letter, Feb. 9, 2026)
  • Docket appearances here: Dkt. entries of 7/25/2017 (appearance), 11/10/2017 (change of address), 11/2017 (Answer to counterclaim), 12/01/2017 (mediator designation).

3. Steven Douglas "Steve" Urban — plaintiff's counsel (co-counsel)

  • Role: Co-counsel for Plaintiff; Notice of Attorney Appearance filed August 15, 2017 (docketed Aug. 18, 2017) "on behalf of All Plaintiffs," plus a Notice of Change of Address filed Nov. 24, 2017.
  • Firm / office: Law Offices of Steven D. Urban, Austin, Texas — the same Building/Suite as Connor's firm in this period (609 Castle Ridge Rd., Suite 450, Austin, TX 78746); his firm now lists a 505 W. 12th St., Suite 206, Austin address. Texas Bar No. 24028179; also admitted in Michigan (1998) and the Fifth Circuit.
  • Patent litigation experience: A general commercial-trial lawyer (board certified in Consumer and Commercial Law, former partner at Taylor Dunham L.L.P. before opening his own Austin firm in 2012), whose practice expressly includes intellectual property litigation and who advertises experience in patent, copyright, and trademark disputes. Unlike Connor, he is not a USPTO-registered patent attorney, and I found no other patent case with him as lead counsel — he appears to have been retained in this matter primarily as an Austin-based trial/general litigator alongside Connor's patent-focused team. (Martindale firm profile; urbanlawoffices.com bio)
  • Docket appearances here: 8/15/2017 appearance; 11/24/2017 change of address.

Important caveats and negative findings

  • No Tyler/Marshall local counsel appeared for the plaintiff. Unusually for E.D. Tex. patent practice, all three plaintiff-side attorneys were Austin-based, and none is designated "local counsel" on the docket. The Tyler/Marshall-side appearances in this case (e.g., Earl Glenn Thames, Jr. of Potter Minton and Michael E. Jones of Potter Minton, plus Fish & Richardson's Neil P. Sirota, Robert L. Maier and Timothy S. Durst) are defense-side entries for Samsung — they are not plaintiff's counsel. Do not attribute them to Richardson.
  • Lead-counsel designation in this specific case is not explicit on the face of the docket. The E.D. Tex. docket sheet lists all three plaintiff attorneys as "attorneys to be noticed" without a stated "LEAD ATTORNEY" label; my characterization of Connor as lead rests on (a) his filing of the complaint and all case-initiating papers here, (b) his being the sole USPTO-registered attorney, and (c) his express "Lead Counsel" designation for plaintiff in the firm's contemporaneous JumpSport v. Target filing.
  • I could not retrieve the complaint's signature block or a sealed/limited-access filing. The complaint text is available through RPX/Unified dockets, but I was unable to pull the PDF signature page with its firm caption and bar numbers for the 2017 filing date, so the exact 2017 firm name for Connor and Lee (e.g., "Connor & Lee" vs. another iteration) is unverified. If you need it, the complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 7/24/2017) should be pulled directly from PACER.
  • No in-house counsel appeared. Douglas G. Richardson is an individual inventor-plaintiff; no corporate parent or in-house attorney is on the docket for him. (The patents were later associated with Cine Graphic Solutions/Strategic Intellectual Solutions, and the '644 patent was subject to a Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art contest and IPR activity, but those post-date and sit outside this docket.)
  • Case status: the E.D. Tex. docket shows the case closed on August 11, 2018, consistent with settlement/voluntary dismissal following the court-ordered Folsom mediation; no trial or merits judgment is reflected. (RPX Insight)

Bottom line: the plaintiff's counsel of record were Cabrach John "Cab" Connor (lead; USPTO Reg. No. 53,837), Jennifer Tatum Lee, and Steven Douglas Urban — with Connor and Lee practicing together out of Austin (today Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC) and Urban in his own Austin firm co-located at the same suite at the time.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record for this case, building on the appearances already identified in the prior sections.

Let me verify each defense attorney's firm affiliation and background.

Defense Counsel of Record — Richardson v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 6:17-cv-00428 (E.D. Tex.)

Research note / caveat up front. The defense-side appearances below are reconstructed from the docket entries reproduced on the Unified Patents litigation portal and the Justia docket. I was not able to pull the Answer/Counterclaim PDF signature block (Dkt. 15) or the formal "LEAD ATTORNEY" designation from PACER within this research budget, so the role labels below (lead vs. local vs. of counsel) are inferred from filing conduct and firm type, not read off a formal docket label. Where I could not confirm a firm affiliation, I say so explicitly. No in-house Samsung counsel appears on the docket.

The defense structure follows the standard E.D. Tex. pattern: national patent counsel at Fish & Richardson P.C. working with Tyler local counsel at Potter Minton, P.C.

Docket appearances by defense counsel

Attorney Firm (at the time / current) Location Docket entry Inferred role
E. Glenn Thames, Jr. Potter Minton, P.C. Tyler, TX Filed the unopposed extension application (8/21/2017); signed the Answer, Defenses & Counterclaim (Dkt. 15, 10/20/2017) and both corporate disclosure statements Local counsel; the filing/signing attorney for the responsive pleading
Neil Phillip Sirota Fish & Richardson P.C. (2017); now Baker Botts LLP Washington, D.C. Notice of appearance 9/8/2017 (entered 9/13/2017) National/lead patent counsel
Robert Lawrence Maier Fish & Richardson P.C. Dallas, TX Notice of appearance 9/2017 National counsel (of counsel/second chair)
Timothy S. Durst Fish & Richardson P.C. (2017); now O'Melveny & Myers LLP Dallas, TX Notice of appearance 9/2017 National trial counsel
Michael E. Jones Potter Minton, P.C. Tyler, TX Notice of appearance 10/4/2017 Local counsel (senior E.D. Tex. patent litigator)
Christopher Richard Patrick Likely Potter Minton, P.C. (unverified) Tyler, TX Notice of appearance 10/24/2017 Local counsel (inferred)

Individual notes

Neil Phillip Sirota — The clearest documented link to this case. His professional bio expressly lists "Richardson v. [Samsung] (E.D. Tex.) — represented Samsung in patent suit related to photo animation effects," which is this matter (the Richardson patents claim the "Cinegif" isolated-motion animation technique). He is a career Samsung patent-defense lawyer whose representative matters include AGIS Software v. Samsung, Cypress Lake Software v. Samsung (stayed pending IPR), Grecia v. Samsung, Koninklijke KPN v. Samsung, Anvik v. Samsung, Apeldyn v. Samsung, and Ushijima v. Samsung — several resolved by summary judgment or stay. He was at Fish & Richardson at the time of this filing and is now at Baker Botts. (Baker Botts bio)

Robert Lawrence Maier — Fish & Richardson principal who appears alongside Sirota on multiple Samsung defense teams (e.g., Nodle Technology v. Samsung, E.D. Tex. No. 2:25-cv-01242, where he filed the appearance jointly with Sirota). His continued appearance on Samsung matters is verified from those dockets; his specific role in this case beyond the appearance entry is not spelled out on the truncated docket.

Timothy S. Durst — A first-chair, Chambers-ranked trial lawyer who handled patent and trade-secret trials for Samsung and AT&T. He was a Fish & Richardson principal in Dallas in 2017 and joined O'Melveny's new Dallas office in September 2021; he is now an O'Melveny partner and was a 2026 Texas Lawyer "IP Attorney of the Year" finalist. His O'Melveny bio confirms he has "represented AT&T and Samsung in intellectual property cases" and handled patent defense for a "multinational consumer electronics company" involving mobile phones and other devices. (O'Melveny bio; EDTX Bench Bar panelist page)

⚠️ Flag: The earlier "Case overview" section in this file groups Durst with Potter Minton. That grouping appears incorrect — the search evidence (O'Melveny bio, Chambers, Fish & Richardson EDTX Bench Bar listings) indicates Durst was Fish & Richardson in 2017, not Potter Minton. Treat the "Fish & Richardson" attribution as the better-supported one.

E. Glenn Thames, Jr. — Longtime Potter Minton shareholder (110 N. College Ave./500 Plaza Tower, Tyler) and the attorney who actually signed and filed the Answer and Counterclaim and the corporate disclosure statements for both Samsung entities. Filing conduct makes him the de facto local counsel of record driving the responsive pleadings. (Justia docket)

Michael E. Jones — Potter Minton's senior patent litigator (State Bar No. 10929400; firm now at 102 N. College Ave., Suite 900, Tyler). He is a fixture on Samsung's E.D. Tex. defense teams in the Gilstrap-era dockets (e.g., Headwater Research v. Samsung, Wilus Institute v. Samsung), where he appears as local counsel with Fish & Richardson as lead. His 10/4/2017 appearance here fits that same role. (Potter Minton appearance in parallel Samsung matters)

Christopher Richard Patrick — Appeared 10/24/2017, immediately after the answer was filed. He is grouped with the Potter Minton Tyler team on timing, but I could not independently confirm his firm affiliation, so treat "Potter Minton" as an inference pending verification against the Dkt. 15/notice PDFs from PACER.

Negative findings

  • No in-house Samsung counsel appears on the docket; Samsung's parent (SEC) was served by waiver and its U.S. subsidiary (SEA) by personal service, both defended by outside counsel.
  • Counsel churned minimally. The defense team was stable from the October 2017 answer through the August 2018 closure — no substitution or withdrawal of counsel appears before the case closed.
  • No lead-counsel designation is visible on the public docket sheet. Fish & Richardson is the natural national-lead firm (Sirota was the primary Samsung patent-defense relationship attorney), with Potter Minton as Tyler local counsel — but this is inference, not a docket label.

Bottom line: Samsung was represented by Fish & Richardson P.C. (Neil P. Sirota, Robert L. Maier, Timothy S. Durst) as national patent/trial counsel, working with Potter Minton, P.C. of Tyler, Texas (E. Glenn Thames, Jr., Michael E. Jones, and apparently Christopher R. Patrick) as local counsel. The docket does not formally label a lead attorney, and I could not confirm the Dkt. 15 signature block from the primary source.