Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC ("HID") is a non-practicing entity — a patent-assertion vehicle formed by, and disclosed in this case as a subsidiary of, Quest Patent Research Corporation (OTC: QPRC), a publicly traded IP-monetization company that runs multiple assertion campaigns through shell subsidiaries (Multimodal Media, Taasera Licensing, Deepwell IP, and HID). HID's Rule 7.1 disclosure at Dkt. 3 identifies Quest Patent Research Corp. as its corporate parent (docket at CourtListener/Justia). HID does not make or sell products; it acquired the asserted patents in February 2023 from Newfort Fab, LLC (d/b/a Tower Semiconductor Newport Beach, Inc.), with the assignment recorded at the USPTO on March 24, 2023, and this Samsung suit was its first litigation on the portfolio (Mondaq, "QPRC's Harbor Island Files First Suit"). The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea) and [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), the world's largest memory/semiconductor and smartphone manufacturer and its U.S. distribution arm. HID is represented by Fabricant LLP (Alfred Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent Rubino, Joseph Mercadante, Richard Cowell); Samsung's PTAB counsel is Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner (Joshua Goldberg, Abhay Watwe, Chen Zang, Biju Chandran, Shawn Chang). Samsung's district-court local counsel is not fully verified from the sources reviewed.

The accused technology and asserted patents. HID sues not on Samsung's finished phones but on the semiconductor die inside them — alleging infringement based on scanning-electron-microscope imaging of chip-level structures. The complaint (Dkt. 1) names: a Samsung Antenna Switch and Coupler die (PK5562_01); Samsung CMOS image sensors (e.g., S5KHM3SX); backside-illuminated sensors (e.g., S5K2G1XX); and the Galaxy S22 Ultra and downstream customer products (Google Pixel 7 Pro, Motorola Moto G Stylus 5G, Leopard Imaging camera modules) as incorporating the accused dies. The four patents-in-suit (Joint Claim Construction & Prehearing Statement, Dkt. 75, Apr. 15, 2025; complaint analysis at Ex Parté) are:

Procedural posture and venue. Filed Feb. 27, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, Case No. 2:24-cv-00140, assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap with referral to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne; a jury was demanded. The court entered a Docket Control Order (Dkt. 38, Aug. 5, 2024) setting an aggressive schedule — Patent Local Rules 4-1 through 4-5 claim-construction exchange, a Markman hearing set for July 8, 2025 before Judge Payne, and an original trial setting of Jan. 5, 2026 (see Dkt. 38 and the Joint Claim Construction statement, Dkt. 75). Samsung's first stay motion was denied on Dec. 19, 2024 (Dkt. 62). The venue matters for the usual reasons that have made Marshall a magnet docket: a small number of judges (here Gilstrap/Payne), fast and firm scheduling, local patent rules that front-load claim construction, and an established NPE-plaintiff bar. The case is currently stayed, which per Samsung's Sept. 25, 2025 related-matters update to the PTAB occurred after IPR institution and without any substantive district-court ruling (PTAB filing).

Why it is notable. First, it is a QPRC/NPE assertion campaign built on a purchased fab/process portfolio from Tower Semiconductor's Newport Beach operation — the kind of manufacturing-technology patents (TSVs, deep-trench isolation, backside metal, SOI RF switches) that read on ubiquitous building blocks across the smartphone and sensor supply chain, giving the patents broad potential reach beyond Samsung to any chipmaker using similar structures. Second, the case is tightly linked to parallel PTAB proceedings: Samsung filed four IPRs covering all four patents — IPR2024-01402 ('886), -01403 ('673), -01404 ('609), and -01405 ('826) — all of which were instituted (March–April 2025); HID's requests for Director Review were denied (Paper 14, Apr. 22, 2025), and a panel change substituted APJ Jung for APJ Saindon (Paper 15, May 14, 2025). A parallel third party, NXP Semiconductors, filed IPR2025-00954 against the '886 patent (filed May 2, 2025; institution Sept. 22, 2025), signaling that HID has asserted the same portfolio against other chipmakers (see its parallel NXP suit, Harbor Island Dynamic v. NXP Semiconductors, No. 2:24-cv-00717, involving NXP's TDF8530TH SOI-based car-audio amplifier). Third, the PTAB outcomes drove the posture of the district case: available PTAB docket data indicates final written decisions issued around mid-March 2026 holding the challenged '886 claims unpatentable, and HID has appealed to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 26-1886, filed June 1, 2026, from IPR2024-01402). That combination — a stayed Marshall case, an all-patents IPR sweep by the defendant, Director Review denials under the current USPTO administration, and a Federal Circuit appeal — makes this a useful bellwether for how a non-practicing entity's purchased semiconductor-process portfolio fares against both PTAB and the Federal Circuit, and for the practical leverage of downstream-incorporation allegations (Samsung dies in Google/Motorola products) in NPE licensing disputes.

Sourcing caveats: Party names, court, case number, patents, assignment history, docket-control dates, IPR numbers, institution/Director-Review dates, and the stay are well supported by the docket, PTAB filings, and PTAB docket aggregators cited above. The precise final written decision dates and outcomes, and the exact scope of the Federal Circuit appeal, come from third-party PTAB docket aggregators (e.g., IPVerse, Ex Parté) rather than primary PTAB/CAFC text; I was unable to pull the FWD opinions or the Federal Circuit docket directly, so those details should be confirmed against PACER and the PTAB docket before being treated as final. No claim construction ruling on the merits is reflected in the sources reviewed, consistent with the parties' statement that the district court issued no substantive ruling before the stay.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and parallel PTAB proceedings.

Good foundation. Let me dig into the docket specifics, stay motion, and PTAB outcomes.

Below is a chronological account of the key legal developments, grounded in the docket entries, PTAB papers, and secondary sources I could locate. Where a fact rests on a single or indirect source, I flag it.

Case snapshot

• Caption/court: Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00140-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) — Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap (district), Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (referred).
• Asserted patents: U.S. 7,745,886 ('886, SOI switching circuit); 7,772,673 ('673, deep trench isolation); 9,147,609 ('609, through-silicon via structure); 9,245,826 ('826, anchor vias/backside metal adhesion).
• Parties' posture: HID is a Quest Patent Research Corp. (QPRC) subsidiary; it acquired the portfolio from Newfort Fab LLC (d/b/a Tower Semiconductor Newport Beach) in Feb. 2023, recorded 2023-03-24 (Mondaq, "QPRC's Harbor Island Files First Suit"). HID is represented by Fabricant LLP (Alfred R. Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino III, Joseph M. Mercadante, Richard M. Cowell). Samsung is represented in the PTAB by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Joshua L. Goldberg, Abhay Watwe, Chen Zang, Biju Chandran, Shawn Chang); a Texas local-counsel firm appeared for Samsung in the district case (extension motion signed by Melissa Smith).
• Accused products: Samsung CMOS image sensors (e.g., S5KHM3SX) and backside-illuminated sensors (S5K2G1XX), and the PK5562_01 Antenna Switch/Coupler die, as used in the Galaxy S22 Ultra and downstream devices (Google Pixel 7 Pro, Motorola Moto G Stylus 5G). Complaint analysis: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:24-cv-00140/doc/analysis/1

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2024-02-27 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1) asserting all four patents; jury demand; Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying QPRC as corporate parent (Dkt. 3); AO 120 form mailed to USPTO (Dkt. 2); summons issued (Dkt. 7).
• 2024-03-05 — Samsung Electronics America served (return filed 2024-03-12, Dkt. 10). Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. accepted/waived foreign service under the parties' agreement.
• 2024-03-15 — Unopposed motion to extend answer deadline and waive foreign service (Dkt. 11).
• 2024-03-21 — Order granting extension; answers due 2024-06-24 (Dkt. 12).
• Answers/counterclaims: The Justia docket snapshot ends in March 2024 and I could not retrieve the actual answer. That Samsung contested the case is established by its service of P.R. 3-3/3-4 invalidity contentions (which expressly incorporate the four IPRs and cross-reference companion actions) and by the Joint Claim Construction Statement. I have no confirmed record of the specific counterclaims asserted (e.g., DJ counts), so I do not state them.

2. Case management and schedule (the operative dates before the stay)

• 2024-08-05 — Docket Control Order entered (Dkt. 38); Discovery Order (Dkt. 39) and Protective Order (Dkt. 44) followed. Key dates set:
  • P.R. 3-3/3-4 invalidity contentions: 2024-09-26 (with subject-matter-eligibility contentions)
  • P.R. 4-1 exchange: 2025-03-04; P.R. 4-2: 2025-03-25; P.R. 4-3 joint statement: 2025-04-15
  • Substantial completion of document production: 2025-05-27
  • Markman hearing: 2025-07-08, Marshall, before Judge Payne
  • Fact discovery close / motions to compel: 2025-08-18; expert reports (burden party) 2025-08-18; rebuttal experts 2025-09-08; expert discovery close 2025-09-22; dispositive/Daubert motions 2025-09-29; pretrial disclosures 2025-10-20
  • Jury trial: 2026-01-05
  • The DCO also directed that indefiniteness be raised in Markman briefing rather than by early summary judgment, and required a joint notice on mediation within 14 days of the claim construction order.
    Source: Docket Control Order text reproduced as Patent Owner Ex. 2001 in IPR2024-01405 and Pet. Ex. 1036 in the same IPR.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• No motion to dismiss or transfer by Samsung appears in the sources I could access.
• First motion to stay pending IPR — denied. 2024-12-19: Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Dkt. 62). Samsung moved to stay after filing its four IPRs (Sept. 2024), i.e., pre-institution; Judge Gilstrap denied it. This order is cited as an exhibit in IPR2024-01403 ("Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending IPR, Dkt. 62, in Harbor Island v. Samsung").
• Second (post-institution) stay — granted. The PTAB record confirms the district case was stayed, and HID/Samsung represented to the Board that "both of the above district court cases have been stayed and the court did not issue any substantive ruling before the stay" (Joint Related-Matters Update, 2025-09-25, IPR2024-01402/03/04/05). A brief in a later PTAB filing cites Dkt. 81, at 4 (E.D. Tex. May 19, 2025) in the context of Judge Gilstrap's practice of granting post-institution stays "eight months before trial" — consistent with a stay order entered on or about 2025-05-19, after all four IPRs were instituted. I flag this date/entry as probable but not directly verified from the order text.
• No summary judgment or Daubert practice occurred; the dispositive-motion deadline (2025-09-29) was overtaken by the stay.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2025-04-15 — Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed (Dkt. 75), listing disputed terms across all four patents, e.g.:
  • '826: "disposed in at least one corner of a semiconductor substrate" — HID proposed a functional construction about an anchor via outside an inscribed rounded shape to prevent corner damage; Samsung proposed "Indefinite." "Backside / backside metal layer" also disputed.
  • '673: "an electronic device"; "trench chamfered corner[s]" — HID: "a corner with material removed to form a bevel…"; Samsung: "corner of a trench with a straight cut edge."
  • '609: "each of said plurality of through silicon vias has a pinched off region at a bottom portion…" (disputed).
• Samsung served an expert declaration (Dean P. Neikirk, Ph.D., $800/hr) supporting indefiniteness of the '826 "in at least one corner" term (Ex. 1038 in IPR2024-01405).
• 2025-07-08 Markman hearing never occurred, and no claim construction order issued: the case was stayed in May 2025, and the Board noted in December 2025 that "the district court litigation was stayed prior to any development of Samsung's positions." So the case never reached a Markman ruling.

5. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• P.R. 3-1/3-2 infringement contentions and P.R. 3-3/3-4 invalidity contentions were served (invalidity contentions incorporate by reference all four IPRs and their claim charts: Exs. A1–A6, B1–B10, C1–C9, D1–D10).
• 2025-05-27 — deadline to substantially complete document production and exchange privilege logs.
• 2025-05-13 — claim construction discovery cutoff (P.R. 4-4).
• Fact discovery was approaching its close (2025-08-18) when the stay froze the case; expert reports (2025-08-18/09-08) and the September 2025 expert/dispositive deadlines never matured.
• The practical strategic significance: the stay halted the case after substantial party investment (DCO, discovery order, protective order, contentions, claim-construction exchange and expert work) but before any validity/infringence merits ruling — a posture the Board weighed in its Fintiv analysis when instituting.

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

Samsung (joined by NXP Semiconductors N.V. on the '886) filed four IPRs in September 2024:

Key developments:

• 2025-04-22 — The Office denied HID's requests for Director Review of all four institution decisions (Paper 14, signed by Senior Lead APJ Michelle N. Ankenbrand performing Director Review duties; Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recused). This cleared the path for the trials and undercut HID's Fintiv arguments.
• 2025-05-14 — Panel change: APJs Hyun J. Jung, Gregg I. Anderson, and Arthur M. Peslak (Jung replacing William V. Saindon).
• 2026-01-06 — Consolidated oral hearing for IPR2024-01403 and -01405; 2026-01-07 hearing for IPR2024-01402. Petitioner's counsel framed the '673 case as "is it inventive to add a chamfer to a prior art isolation trench"; HID's sole Ground 1 rebuttal was non-analogous art (Koshimizu), and for Grounds 2–3 that Norstrom's trench lacked plural chamfered corners / was not "situated in the substrate."
• 2026-02-09 — '673 FWD: all challenged claims unpatentable.
• 2026-03-13 — '826 FWD: all challenged claims unpatentable; HID moved for Director Review (filed 2026-04-06; petitioner response 2026-04-14). At the '826 hearing Samsung had offered to withdraw its district-court indefiniteness challenge to avoid inconsistency, illustrating the tight coupling between the IPR and the stayed litigation.
• 2026-03-17 — Bloomberg Law reports that the Board found challenged claims of an HID patent "directed to a circuit for correcting distortion of radio signals" unpatentable as anticipated/obvious in an IPR by Samsung, Samsung Electronics America, and NXP Semiconductors N.V. (the co-petitioner on the '886). Caveat: Bloomberg's technical description of the patent is imprecise, so I treat the identification of this as the '886 FWD as probable, not certain.
• Effect on the litigation: The IPRs drove the case into a stay (May 2025) and, through the '673, '826 (and reportedly '886) FWDs invalidating all challenged claims, have substantially eliminated the asserted patent claims. The '673 FWD's cancellation of claims (absent a successful appeal) would defeat the '673 infringement claim outright.

Companion/parallel district case: NXP Semiconductor N.V. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, No. 2:24-cv-00717-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.), also stayed with no substantive ruling (per the 2025-09-25 Related-Matters Update).

7. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions

• None. The 2026-01-05 jury trial was never held; no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions. All merits deadlines fell away with the stay.

8. Final disposition / present posture (as of 2026-09-10)

• The district case remains stayed (per the authoritative case status) and has produced no substantive ruling — no claim construction order, no summary judgment, no trial, and no publicly reported settlement or dismissal in the sources I reviewed.
• Meanwhile, the PTAB has invalidated all challenged claims of the '673 (FWD 2026-02-09) and '826 (FWD 2026-03-13, now under Director Review), and reportedly the '886 (2026-03). The '609 FWD is unconfirmed in my sources.
• Practical outlook: If the FWDs become final (subject to any Federal Circuit appeal and the pending Director Review on the '826), the asserted claims will be cancelled and the E.D. Tex. action would be expected to be dismissed as moot or voluntarily dismissed by HID; conversely, a successful HID appeal (or Director Review reversal) could revive the litigation, in which case the case would resume from the post-contentions/claim-construction phase with the July 2025 Markman hearing effectively reset.

Sourcing confidence summary

• High confidence: filing date/parties/counsel structure; the four patents; DCO dates and trial date; the pre-institution stay denial (Dkt. 62, 2024-12-19); the Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 75, 2025-04-15) and that no Markman ruling issued; the four IPR numbers/patents/institution dates; the 2025-04-22 denial of Director Review; the '673 FWD (2026-02-09) and '826 FWD (2026-03-13) invalidating all challenged claims; the stay confirmed in the PTAB Related-Matters Update.
• Moderate confidence (verify against PACER): the exact date and document number of the stay order (probable Dkt. 81, ~2025-05-19); whether the '886 FWD is the March 2026 Bloomberg-reported decision; the outcome/date of the '609 (IPR2024-01404) FWD; and the specific contents of Samsung's answer/counterclaims.
• Key sources: Justia docket (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2024cv00140/[228247](/patent/228247)); RPX Empower dockets for the litigation and IPR2024-01402; Docket Alarm PTAB pages for IPR2024-01403/-01405 (including Pet. Ex. 1036 = Dkt. 75, and the 2025-04-22 Director Review order); USPTO PTACTS filings; IPVerse (IPR2024-01403); Bloomberg Law IP docket report (2026-03-17); Mondaq/QPRC SEC disclosures.

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me search additional angles, including the plaintiff's parent company and trade/law press.

Press coverage of Harbor Island Dynamic v. Samsung — findings

Bottom line: this case has generated essentially no mainstream or trade-press coverage. I ran searches on the caption ("Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd."), on the plaintiff and defendant names, on the four asserted patent numbers ('886, '826, '673, '609), and on the PTAB proceedings, and I found no articles from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra, or EFF Deeplinks discussing this litigation. There is also no reported verdict, no reported damages figure, and no reported settlement in any outlet I located. Everything publicly available about the case comes from the court/PTAB dockets, litigation databases, the plaintiff's corporate-parent disclosures, and one contributed law-firm commentary piece. Consistent with that, Samsung's counsel told the Board in a September 25, 2025 related-matters update that the E.D. Tex. case had been stayed "and the court did not issue any substantive ruling before the stay," i.e., there was never a merits event for the press to cover (filing reproduced in IPR2024-01402 record, PTAB/PTACTS).

The single piece of identifiable published commentary is a contributed article carried on Mondaq titled "QPRC's Harbor Island Files First Suit." It reports that in February 2023 Quest Patent Research Corporation (QPRC) acquired seven patents relating to transistor and semiconductor fabrication from Newfort Fab, LLC (d/b/a Tower Semiconductor Newport Beach, Inc.), with the assignment recorded at the USPTO on March 24, 2023, and that Harbor Island Dynamic drew the four asserted patents ('886, '673, '609, '826) from that portfolio. It breaks down the accused products by patent: certain Samsung switching circuits including an "Antenna Switch and Coupler die" allegedly used in the Galaxy S22 Ultra ('886); Samsung CMOS image sensors and products incorporating them, including the S22 Ultra, Google Pixel 7 Pro and Motorola Moto G Stylus 5G ('673 and '826); and Samsung backside-illuminated sensors plus "Leopard Imaging camera modules" ('609). The article notes Fabricant LLP represents HID and that Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presides, and frames the suit as part of a broader QPRC campaign alongside its Multimodal Media, Taasera Licensing and Deepwell IP subsidiaries — including noting that the Multimodal campaign against Samsung was then in claim construction before Judge Gilstrap. That framing (serial NPE campaigns run through QPRC subsidiaries) is the only "significance" narrative I found in print; I found no analyst commentary, no executive statements from Samsung, and no industry-reaction coverage.

For the closest thing to a reported outcome, the best sources are not press but docket aggregators and the plaintiff's own securities disclosures. QPRC's Form 8-K portfolio summary (received October 31, 2024) describes the "HARBOR ISLAND DYNAMIC LLC PORTFOLIO 7" as semiconductor fabrication technology with "2 cases pending in EDTX vs Samsung and NXP" (OTC Markets filing) — confirming the parallel NXP track, which is why NXP Semiconductors N.V. appears as a co-petitioner in IPR2024-01402. RPX's PTAB tracker records the Samsung IPR on the '886 patent, IPR2024-01402, as filed 09/24/2024 and instituted 04/04/2025 (RPX Empower). Docket aggregators further show that on the '673 patent, IPR2024-01403 ended in a Final Written Decision on February 9, 2026 determining all challenged claims unpatentable (GreyB IPVerse), while IPR2024-01405 (the '826 patent) terminated March 13, 2026 and is listed as pending Director Review (Docket Alarm), with an appeal to the Federal Circuit docketed as No. 26-1886 (AI-LAB/Ex Parte PTAB+Court database).

Caveats worth flagging for anyone relying on this: I am citing database entries and the plaintiff's own filings, not journalism, and none of those sources reports a dollar amount claimed or awarded in the district court case; the complaint's damages theory (if any) has not been publicly reported in any outlet I could find. I also found no confirmation in a news outlet of a settlement between HID and Samsung, and no confirmation of the underlying JMOL/FWD outcomes beyond the aggregator records cited above. If a news account exists in a paywalled outlet whose contents are not indexed in the searches I ran (Law360 and Bloomberg Law dockets are the most likely candidates), I could not verify it, so I have not attributed anything to those outlets.

Sources

• Ex. 1004 | IPR2024-01404 | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Harbor Island Dynamic LLC | Ex Parte
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Petition analysis | IPR2024-01402 | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Harbor Island Dynamic LLC | Ex Parte
• Complaint analysis | 2:24-cv-00140 | Harbor Island Dynamic LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• From: Zang, Chen To: Trials CC: Samsung- HID- IPRs; jmercadante@fabricantllp
• BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
• IPR2024-01405, No. 41 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2026) - IPR2024-01405, No
• IPR2024-01405, No. 1036 Exhibit - DI 075 HID Joint CC and Prehearing Statement (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2025) - Exhibits:
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• In May 2022, Tyche brought patent infringement suits in the U
• In September 2023, Deepwell brought a patent infringement suit in the U

I'll research plaintiff's counsel of record, verifying and extending the previous section's Fabricant LLP identification.

Let me verify the ambiguous "Melissa Richards Smith" entry and check for local counsel and firm biographies.

Now let me pin down the remaining attorney bios and check whether plaintiff had local counsel or later appearances.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC

Summary: Plaintiff HID is represented exclusively by the IP-litigation boutique Fabricant LLP — renamed Fabricant Rubino Lambrianakos LLP ("FRL") in March 2026 — with a New York–based team. Five attorneys entered appearances for HID in the first two days after filing; no plaintiff-side local counsel appears to have been retained, and I found no in-house counsel of record (consistent with HID being a Quest Patent Research Corporation shell with no legal department of its own). Defense-side local counsel (Gillam & Smith, Marshall) is present in this docket and is noted below only to avoid confusion.

Plaintiff's counsel of record (Fabricant LLP / FRL)

Firm-level points

• Identity and name change: The appearances were filed as Fabricant LLP; the firm announced a rebrand to Fabricant Rubino Lambrianakos LLP (FRL) on March 10, 2026, retaining the same four offices — New York, Rye (NY), Short Hills (NJ), Washington, D.C., and Irvine (CA). The fabricantllp.com email domain was still in use as of October 2025. Attorneys' names and docket entries remain unchanged; only the firm style has changed. (Businesswire release)
• No local counsel for plaintiff identified. EDTX practice does not compel out-of-district plaintiffs to retain Marshall-area local counsel, and HID appears to be proceeding without one — all five appearances for HID are Fabricant attorneys.
• No in-house counsel of record. Consistent with the case-background section (HID is a Quest Patent Research Corp. subsidiary/NPE), no HID or Quest in-house attorney has entered an appearance.
• PTAB counsel: The same Fabricant team (notably Mercadante, per PTAB petition correspondence) has acted for HID as Patent Owner in the parallel IPRs (IPR2024-01402 through -01405) arising from this case.

Defense counsel — flagged to avoid a naming mix-up

The docket aggregator (Justia) lists Melissa Richards Smith in proximity to the party-counsel lists. She is a Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, TX) partner and is the most frequently appointed local counsel for Samsung Electronics in EDTX (59 Samsung appointments per a 2024 Korean-legal-press survey; e.g., she entered for Samsung in ASUS Technology Licensing v. Samsung, No. 2:23-cv-00409, Dkt. 16). She is defense-side local counsel, not plaintiff's counsel. I could not pull her appearance notice in this case directly (the retrieved docket was last updated March 21, 2024), so if she appears in this docket it should be read as Samsung's local counsel. (Gillam & Smith survey; ASUS v. Samsung, Dkt. 16)

Sourcing caveats

• Primary docket not directly pulled. The appearance dates and docket numbers above come from the Justia docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00140 (link), which was last retrieved March 21, 2024 — i.e., before the December 2024 stay briefing, the March–April 2025 IPR institutions, and the 2025–2026 stay. Later appearances, substitutions, withdrawals, or a formal "lead counsel" designation under Local Rule CV-11(a)(1) may exist but are not reflected in the sources I could verify. The Docket Control Order (Dkt. 38) expressly directs that lead counsel be designated early, but I could not confirm which named attorney was formally designated lead; on the record available, Alfred Fabricant is the practical lead (he signed the complaint and filed the first appearance).
• Attorney bios for Fabricant, Lambrianakos, and Mercadante derive from firm/IAM/Super Lawyers profiles (self-reported marketing content), so the "250+ IPRs" and Patexia ranking claims should be attributed to the firm rather than treated as independently verified.
• Richard Cowell's role and experience are unverified — his appearance (Dkt. 9) is documented, nothing more.
• No sealed-attorney or pro hac vice admission issues were identified; the Fabricant team appears to have entered generally.

I'll research Samsung's counsel of record in this case.

Let me dig into the district court docket for Samsung's appearances.

Counsel of record — Samsung defendants

Sourcing caveat up front: The Eastern District of Texas docket for this case is only partially accessible through the free aggregators I could reach, and the Justia docket snapshot is stale (it was last retrieved March 21, 2024 and contains only the plaintiff's five attorney-appearance notices — no appearance by any Samsung attorney is reflected there; see Justia docket 2:2024cv00140). I was therefore unable to verify Samsung's district-court appearances from the docket sheet itself, and I found no firm-press-release or Law360/Reuters item announcing Samsung's district-court trial team for this matter. What follows distinguishes (a) what is directly documented from (b) what is strongly evidenced but not confirmed from a district-court filing. I have not invented any names; several counsel who appear in the PTAB record for these same patents are listed as such, not mislabeled as district-court counsel of record.

1. What is directly documented: Samsung's counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings

Samsung's Power of Attorney and Designation of Lead and Back-Up Counsel, filed in the IPRs covering the same four patents-in-suit (e.g., IPR2024-01405, Paper 2, filed Sept. 20, 2024 — Docket Alarm exhibit copy), appoints practitioners of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Customer No. 22,852):

Source for the hearing appearances: IPR2024-01405, Paper 41, Hearing Transcript (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2026) (consolidated hearing for IPR2024-01403 and -01405 held Jan. 6, 2026 before APJs Peslak, Jung and Anderson). This is consistent with the attorney roster the prior "Case overview" section listed from the PTAB filings.

2. Evidence that Finnegan is also Samsung's retained counsel in this district-court case

A PTAB petition document containing a billing/active-matter report lists this matter specifically: "Active case work: 4Q24 – 2Q25; Harbor Island Dynamic LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America Inc., (defendant) 2-24-CV-00140-JRG-RSP … filed 27th February 2024, (retained by defendant Samsung Electronics) – retained by counsel Finnegan LLP" and describes the technology as "VLSI layouts, chambers, bevels, trenches, STI trenches, anchor vias, via design, TSVs silicon vias, cascaded transistors" (PTAB document excerpt). That entry carries an internal "M.D. Fl." court designation, which is inconsistent with the case caption in this District — a red flag that the report's metadata field is unreliable. I treat it as corroborating that Finnegan was retained by Samsung for this case, not as proof of Finnegan's district-court appearance of record.

3. What could not be verified

• Samsung's district-court appearances and lead-counsel designation. The DCO (Dkt. 38, Aug. 5, 2024) directs the parties to comply with Local Rule CV-11(a)(1) and designate "a lead attorney on the pleadings," warning that "the true lead counsel should be designated early and should not expect to parachute in as lead." No Samsung appearance notice, corporate disclosure, or CV-11 designation is visible in the docket snapshots I could retrieve, so I cannot state which attorney signed Samsung's Answer, invalidity contentions, or the joint claim-construction statement. Note that the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 75, filed Apr. 15, 2025) sets out Samsung's proposed constructions in detail but the signature blocks are not reproduced in the accessible text (compare PTAB exhibit copy and the PTACTS copy).
• Local counsel. I could not identify Samsung's EDTX local counsel in this matter. The prior "Case overview" section reached the same conclusion, and nothing in the searches here fills that gap. Given Marshall practice, a local-counsel firm is very likely on the pleadings, but I will not name one without a filing. (For context, in Samsung's other EDTX matters the company has used different local firms, so no inference should be drawn by analogy.)
• In-house counsel. No Samsung in-house attorney is identified in any document I could access. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Suwon, Korea), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Ridgefield Park, NJ), and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. maintain IP-legal departments, but no individual in-house lawyer is named in the record reviewed, and I will not guess.

4. Practical read

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is documented as Samsung's retained patent counsel in this dispute and is the firm leading the four-IPR sweep (IPR2024-01402/-01403/-01404/-01405), with Joshua L. Goldberg as lead and a Washington/Reston/Atlanta back-up team. Because Finnegan is not a Texas-based firm and the case was pending on the Marshall patent-local-rules track before the stay, Samsung's district-court roster almost certainly paired Finnegan with local counsel whose identity I could not confirm; that piece should be verified against the live PACER docket (Samsung's appearance notices under Dkt. Nos. ~10–25, and any Dkt. 75 signature blocks) before being relied on. If the case remains stayed and the Federal Circuit appeal (No. 26-1886) proceeds, the Finnegan roster above is the operative counsel to watch on the appellate side as well.