IPR2020-01419 (Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 9,696,868)

Case Overview — IPR2020-01419, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. (U.S. Patent No. 9,696,868)

Parties and background. This matter is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — not a district-court infringement suit — so the "parties" are petitioner and patent owner. The petitioner was [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (filing date Aug. 4, 2020), and the patent owner is SpaceTime3D, Inc., a small, inventor-founded company run by E. Eddie Bakhash, whose claim to fame is the "SpaceTime" 3D web browser released in 2007 (DocketAlarm, Samsung Elecs. Co. v. SpaceTime3D, IPR2020-01419; inventor declaration Ex. 2001). SpaceTime3D is effectively a licensing/assertion-focused operating company: it built the pioneering 3D GUI browser, then monetized its patent family against major device makers. Samsung, a global consumer-electronics manufacturer, was the accused infringer in the parallel case and the petitioner here. The IPR was one of three Samsung filed the same day (IPR2020-01417–01419) against SpaceTime3D's related GUI patents in response to SpaceTime3D's infringement suit, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), which asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048, 9,304,654, and 9,696,868 (IPR2020-01417 covers the '048 patent; IPR2020-01419 covers the '868 patent; the parties' Mandatory Notices confirm the E.D. Tex. case was filed 2019-11-14 and terminated in 2021).

Patent and accused technology. The challenged '868 patent is titled "System and Method for Providing Three-Dimensional Graphical User Interface"; it shares a specification with the '048 and '654 patents. Technically, the claims cover a GUI that renders first and second webpages (or applications), captures images of them, and "textures" those images onto objects arranged at different depths in a simulated 3D space (foreground/background); when the user selects an image, the 3D objects are replaced by a 2D window containing the rendered webpage, where the user can interact with links and content — i.e., seamless switching between a 2D active workspace and a 3D navigational "stack" of snapshots, aimed at reducing mouse clicks and screen real estate on ultra-mobile/small devices ('868 patent claim 1 as quoted in the E.D. Tex. claim-construction order, Casetext, Dec. 7, 2020). In the underlying litigation, SpaceTime3D accused Samsung's smartphones/tablets (their app-switching, multitasking, and browser-tab GUI features) of infringement; Samsung's technical expert, Dr. Benjamin Bederson, countered that the asserted claims were obvious over prior-art software such as SphereXP, Windows XP, and Project Looking Glass (Park Decl., Ex. 2015 in IPR2020-01419). The E.D. Tex. court (Magistrate Judge Payne's Dec. 7, 2020 Markman order, adopted in the Gilstrap case) construed key terms — "3D space" as "a virtual space defined by a three-dimensional coordinate system" and "2D space" as "a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional coordinate system," among others.

Procedural posture and significance. IPR2020-01419 was assigned to PTAB judges Brian McNamara, Jennifer Meyer Chagnon, and Terrence McMillin (Tech Center 2100, Art Unit 2173). The proceeding never reached an institution decision: SpaceTime3D's preliminary response and sur-reply pressed discretionary denial under Fintiv, arguing the parallel E.D. Tex. case was set for jury trial on May 10, 2021 before Judge Gilstrap — well before any final written decision — and that the district court had already denied Samsung's stay request (DocketAlarm IPR2020-01417 papers; Park Decl.). Before the Board ruled, the parties settled; on March 10, 2021 they filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss stating the parties "have settled all disputes" and the related lawsuit "is in the process of being dismissed," with the settlement agreement lodged confidentially under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74; the Board terminated the case as "Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial" on March 15, 2021 (DocketAlarm, Paper 22). The case is notable for several reasons: (1) it shows a coordinated "IPR-plus-Fintiv" defense campaign by a large defendant (Samsung filed three parallel IPRs on the same day and used discretionary-denial timing to its advantage before a fast-tracked EDTX trial); (2) it reflects SpaceTime3D's NPE-style assertion pattern against major tech companies across EDTX and WDTX (it later sued Apple in W.D. Tex. No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA before Judge Albright, and faced later LG/Google IPRs, IPR2023-00577/00578); and (3) the settlement did not end the validity fight for good — Apple and Google's later IPRs succeeded in invalidating all challenged claims of the '654 and '868 patents, a ruling the Federal Circuit affirmed in August 2026 (IPWatchdog, Aug. 31, 2026), meaning the '868 patent at issue here was ultimately held obvious in subsequent proceedings. One caveat: the settlement's terms (including any license or payment) are confidential and were kept separate from the PTAB file, and I found no public source disclosing their substance; likewise, the specific Samsung products accused are described only generally in public filings, as the infringement contentions were subject to protective orders.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Scope note. This litigation memo covers the underlying district-court infringement suit that gave rise to IPR2020-01419. Although the case metadata in this docket centers on the PTAB proceeding, the "patent infringement litigation" is the parallel EDTX action, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (Judge Rodney Gilstrap), which asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048, 9,304,654, and 9,696,868 (the "'868 patent" is the subject of IPR2020-01419). The case settled before trial and before any IPR institution decision; there was no verdict, no judgment on the merits, and no appeal.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2019–2020)

• 2019-11-14 — Complaint filed. SpaceTime3D sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. for patent infringement (Dkt. 1), asserting the '048, '654, and '868 patents and demanding a jury trial (Dkt. 3). Counsel of record for SpaceTime3D was Susman Godfrey (Max L. Tribble, Jr. as attorney in charge, with Sidney Calvin Capshaw III, Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Matthew R. Berry, and Y. Gloria Park). Samsung was represented by Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith). (UniCourt/Justia docket; Dkt. Nos. 1–13.)
• 2019-11-15 — Case assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Marshall Division.
• 2019-11-18 — Samsung Electronics America, Inc. served (summons returned executed; original answer due 2019-12-09). (Dkt. 10.)
• 2019-12-03/04 — Answer deadline extended. Samsung filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to answer/move, including a waiver of foreign service for the Korean parent (Dkt. 12), granted by Judge Gilstrap (Dkt. 13); the answer deadline was moved to 2020-03-09.
• Answer/counterclaims (~2020-03-09). The public docket excerpts I retrieved do not show Samsung's answer entry directly, but the extended deadline and the subsequent pace of the case (Patent Rule disclosures, claim-construction deadlines in a Docket Control Order at Dkt. 26) confirm Samsung answered by early March 2020, presumably pleading non-infringement and invalidity defenses (and likely declaratory-judgment counterclaims). Caveat: the specific answer/counterclaim docket entry and its contents are not verified in the sources reviewed and should be confirmed on PACER.

2. Claim construction (Markman) — 2020

• 2020 (mid-year) — P.R. 4-2 preliminary constructions exchanged. SpaceTime3D's preliminary claim constructions and extrinsic evidence were served under the court's Docket Control Order (Dkt. 26); the parties disputed terms including "3D space," "2D space," "foreground," "background," and "texturing." Samsung's preliminary constructions were also served (both documents later became exhibits in the Samsung IPRs).
• 2020-10-07 — Joint Claim Construction Chart (P.R. 4-5(d)) filed, reflecting the parties' sole stipulated term: "database" = "a collection of stored data" ('654 patent claim 4; '868 patent claim 4). (Dkt. 75-1, cited in the Markman order.)
• 2020-10-21 — Markman hearing held on the disputed terms of all three asserted patents.
• 2020-12-07 — Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 104). Following briefing at Dkt. 55, 64, 69, the court issued its construction order. Key outcomes bearing on the '868 patent:
  • Adopted the stipulated construction of "database."
  • Construed the 3D-space terms ("three-dimensional (3D) [immersive] space," "three-dimensional space," "3D [immersive] space") — per the case summary previously generated, the court's operative construction was "a virtual space defined by a three-dimensional coordinate system," rejecting SpaceTime3D's "plain meaning" position and Samsung's narrower "objects have x, y, and z positions" formulation.
  • Construed the 2D-space terms as "a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional coordinate system" (per the prior summary), rejecting SpaceTime3D's physical-screen formulation.
  • Also construed "texturing," "timeline," "application-specific data," and addressed whether the preamble of the '868 patent's independent claims is limiting. (The full text of Doc. 104 is available on CourtListener/Casetext; the order's summary table was not fully retrievable in my searches, so the preamble and subsidiary-term outcomes should be confirmed from Doc. 104 itself.)

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2020-08-04 — Samsung files three parallel IPR petitions challenging all three asserted patents: IPR2020-01417 ('048), IPR2020-01418 ('654), and IPR2020-01419 ('868) (filed the same day; the stay motion states the petitions challenged "all three Asserted Patents").
• 2020-09-23 — Motion to Stay Pending IPR denied. Samsung moved (Dkt. 50) to stay the entire case pending the PTAB's review, before any institution decision. Judge Gilstrap denied the motion as premature, applying EDTX's uniform practice of denying stays filed before the PTAB acts on institution (citing NFC Techs. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., 2015 WL 1069111 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015), and VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); the court noted the PTAB would likely issue institution decisions in February 2021 and denied without prejudice to refiling post-institution. (Order dated 2020-09-23; Ex. 2010 in IPR2020-01417; DocketAlarm copy of the order.) Strategic significance: this kept the case on a fast track to the May 10, 2021 trial, which in turn fueled SpaceTime3D's Fintiv discretionary-denial argument in the IPRs.
• Docket control orders tightening the schedule. After the stay denial, the court issued an Amended Docket Control Order (2020-12-04) and a Second Amended Docket Control Order signed 2020-12-18 and filed 2020-12-21 (Dkt. 115). It compressed fact/expert discovery into December 2020–January 2021, set a dispositive-motion deadline that would be fully briefed before the PTAB's anticipated institution decision (then ~2021-03-17), and required the joint pretrial order, proposed jury instructions, and related trial filings immediately after that date. The order also shows contested discovery management (a rescheduled 30(b)(6) deposition of Samsung's corporate representative on licensing topics, with a carve-out deadline for motions to compel tied to that deposition) and required the parties to file a joint notice on mediation referral within 14 days of the Markman order.
• No motion to dismiss or transfer found. I found no evidence of a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion or a § 1404/1400(b) venue-transfer motion; the case proceeded straight into Patent Rule discovery and Markman. No summary-judgment ruling occurred — the dispositive-motion deadline was set for a window in which the parties instead settled (see below). Whether any summary-judgment or Daubert motion was actually filed before settlement is not confirmed from the sources reviewed.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• Infringement contentions (P.R. 3-1). SpaceTime3D's claim charts accused Samsung smartphones and tablets running Android — e.g., the Galaxy S7 and "select Samsung smartphones and tablets" — of practicing the claimed 3D-GUI/webpage-texturing methods (via Chrome/Samsung Internet browsers, "Recents" app-switching, and multitasking features). These charts became exhibits in the IPRs.
• 2020-12-18 — Samsung's revised expert report on invalidity. Samsung produced Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson's Revised Expert Report on invalidity and non-infringing alternatives, arguing the asserted claims were obvious over prior-art software SphereXP, Windows XP, and Project Looking Glass (marked Attorneys' Eyes Only under the protective order; per the Declaration of Y. Gloria Park, Ex. 2015 in IPR2020-01419). SpaceTime3D's technical side included GUI expert Dr. John Levy (per his litigation-support CV). Strategic significance: the same obviousness theories Samsung pressed in litigation were mapped into its IPR petitions (Samsung's IPR technical expert was Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj), making the IPR and litigation validity battles substantively parallel.
• Licensing-related discovery and 30(b)(6) disputes. The Second Amended Docket Control Order reflects active disputes over Samsung's corporate-representative deposition on licensing topics and motions to compel — typical of damages/FRAND-adjacent discovery in an NPE-vs-device-maker case — but no ruling of record was reached before settlement.

5. Trial events

• None. Jury selection was set for 2021-05-10, 9:00 a.m., Courtroom 106 (Marshall) before Judge Gilstrap (notice of reset). The trial never occurred because the parties settled in March 2021. Consequently, there was no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion.

6. Settlement and final disposition (2021)

• Early March 2021 — Settlement reached. The parties settled "all disputes." The PTAB authorized the parties to file joint motions to dismiss on 2021-03-03 (via email authorization noted in the PTAB papers).
• 2021-03-10 — Joint motions to dismiss the IPRs. In each Samsung IPR (including IPR2020-01419), the parties jointly moved to dismiss the IPR under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(a) and 42.74, stating they "have settled all disputes," that the settlement agreement was being lodged confidentially as a business-confidential exhibit, and that "the lawsuit between Petitioners and Patent Owner … is in the process of being dismissed concurrently with this inter partes review." (Joint Motion to Dismiss, e.g., Paper 20 in IPR2020-01417; equivalent paper in IPR2020-01419.)
• 2021-03-15 — District-court dismissal (contemporaneous). Consistent with the parties' representations to the PTAB, the EDTX action was dismissed by agreement in mid-March 2021 (the case is now marked "Closed" in court-aggregator records). Caveat: the specific dismissal docket entry (stipulation/order, with or without prejudice, and document number) was not retrievable in my searches and should be confirmed on PACER; the settlement terms (any license, payment, or release) are confidential and were never made public.
• 2021-03-15 — PTAB termination. The Board terminated IPR2020-01419 (and its siblings IPR2020-01417/01418) as "Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial" under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 (Paper 22), before any institution decision. Fee refunds were requested (2021-03-16) and processed (2021-03-30).

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

• Samsung's trio of IPRs (2020–2021). IPR2020-01417/01418/01419 were filed 2020-08-04 — roughly nine months into the EDTX case — and were the predicate for Samsung's (denied) stay motion. SpaceTime3D's preliminary responses (filed 2020-12-17), Samsung's replies (2021-01-11), and SpaceTime3D's sur-replies (2021-01-14) all pressed discretionary denial under Apple v. Fintiv (IPR2020-00019): SpaceTime3D argued the May 10, 2021 EDTX jury trial (and the court's compressed Second Amended Docket Control Order of 2020-12-18) meant the district court would resolve validity before the Board's projected final written decision (~2022-03-17), with identical parties and overlapping issues. Effect on litigation: the IPRs never reached an institution decision because the parties' global settlement terminated them first; the Fintiv fight therefore became moot rather than outcome-determinative.
• Post-settlement proceedings on the same patents (context only). The Samsung settlement did not end the validity fight for the family. SpaceTime3D later sued Apple in the Western District of Texas (SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA, Judge Albright), and subsequent Apple/Google IPRs (following LG/Google petitions IPR2023-00577/00578) succeeded in invalidating all challenged claims of the '654 and '868 patents — including the '868 patent at issue in IPR2020-01419 — a result the Federal Circuit affirmed in August 2026 (per IPWatchdog, 2026-08-31). Those later rulings postdate and do not alter the Samsung litigation's settlement-based disposition, but they are the ultimate validity endpoint of the same patent.

---

Bottom line

SpaceTime3D v. Samsung (2:19-cv-00372-JRG) was a conventional EDTX patent case that reached claim construction (order issued 2020-12-07) and the brink of trial (set 2021-05-10), survived Samsung's bid to stay for IPR (denied 2020-09-23), and then settled globally in March 2021 — with the district court action dismissed and all three parallel Samsung IPRs (including IPR2020-01419 on the '868 patent) terminated as settled before institution. There was no liability finding, damages award, or merits appeal; the only lasting merits development from the litigation phase was Judge Gilstrap's Markman order, whose 3D/2D-space constructions tracked the claim language that later IPRs (by other petitioners) found obvious. Settlement terms remain confidential.

Source-confidence flags: (a) Samsung's answer/counterclaims entry and (b) the district court's dismissal order entry were not directly verified (confirm on PACER for Dkt. Nos. ~14 and ~120s); (c) whether any dispositive/Daubert motion was filed before settlement is unconfirmed; (d) the Patexia exhibit listing mislabels the stay-denial order date as 2020-12-04, but the PTAB exhibit list and the order itself confirm 2020-09-23.

Counsel for the Plaintiff — clarifying the record

A threshold point matters here: IPR2020-01419 is an inter partes review, which has no "plaintiff." The docketed caption is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. — Samsung is the petitioner and SpaceTime3D is the patent owner (the party the case metadata loosely labels "Defendant"). The actual "patent infringement case" in which a plaintiff appears is the parallel suit SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), filed Nov. 14, 2019, which the IPR petition itself identified as the related litigation. Below are counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc. (the plaintiff in that infringement case), followed by SpaceTime3D's separate counsel of record in the IPR itself, so both readings of the request are covered.

A. Plaintiff SpaceTime3D's counsel of record in the E.D. Tex. infringement suit (2:19-cv-00372-JRG)

Source: docket entries 1–11 in the E.D. Tex. record (Justia docket text; filings signed by the respective attorneys on Nov. 14–22, 2019); Y. Gloria Park Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. 2015 in IPR2020-01419 (identifying herself as "an associate with Susman Godfrey LLP, counsel for SpaceTime3D" in the litigation).

1. Max Lalon Tribble, Jr. — lead trial counsel / "Attorney in Charge"

   • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX (1000 Louisiana St., Ste. 5100).
   • Designated Attorney in Charge for SpaceTime3D (Dkt. 5, Nov. 14, 2019); signed the complaint, jury demand, and AO-120 (Dkts. 1–4).
   • Notable: veteran plaintiff's trial lawyer in high-stakes patent and commercial cases (e.g., Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc., Fed. Cir. 2015; later representation of Fractus, Pegasus Wireless, and other patentees in E.D. Tex.).

2. Matthew R. Berry — trial counsel (appearing attorney)

   • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA (401 Union St., Ste. 3000).
   • Filed notice of appearance for SpaceTime3D (Dkt. 9, Nov. 15, 2019).
   • Notable: Susman Godfrey IP partner and Law360 "IP Rising Star"; secured a $50.3M patent verdict in Green Mountain Glass v. Ardagh/Verallia and, per his 2018 Law360 profile, was "facing off against Samsung" in high-stakes patent cases at the time.

3. Yoonhee Gloria Park — trial counsel (associate at the time)

   • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP (Seattle office per firm/listing sources; she declared herself "an associate with Susman Godfrey LLP" in Jan. 2021).
   • Filed notice of appearance for SpaceTime3D (Dkt. 11, Nov. 22, 2019) and authored the IPR declaration describing Samsung's expert report and the protective order (Ex. 2015 in IPR2020-01419).

4. Elizabeth L. DeRieux — local EDTX counsel

   • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Marshall, TX (the EDTX-local firm she founded with Sidney Capshaw).
   • Filed notice of appearance (Dkt. 7, Nov. 14, 2019); handled summons/service returns (Dkt. 10).

5. Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III — local EDTX counsel

   • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Marshall, TX.
   • Filed notice of appearance (Dkt. 6, Nov. 14, 2019).
   • Notable: longtime Marshall-based patent litigator with deep E.D. Tex. local-practice experience.

Note: The docket does not reflect any in-house counsel appearing for SpaceTime3D; its public filings list the Susman Godfrey/Capshaw DeRieux team above. No appearance records are sealed — the Markman order and claim-construction briefs (Dkt. 55, 64, 69) confirm this team litigated through the Dec. 7, 2020 claim-construction order, and the case was dismissed after settlement (the IPR was terminated March 15, 2021).

B. SpaceTime3D's counsel of record in the PTAB proceeding (IPR2020-01419) — patent owner side

Since the user's underlying matter number is the IPR, here is the patent owner's PTAB counsel (source: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices filed Aug. 25, 2020 in the parallel IPR2020-01417, which identify the same counsel; SpaceTime3D's IPR2020-01419 papers — e.g., the Park Declaration, Ex. 2015 — were filed through this team):

• Todd E. Fitzsimmons — Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
  • Firm: Fitzsimmons IP Law, P.C., Gardena, CA (P.O. Box 199, Gardena, CA 90248).
  • USPTO Reg. No. 44,683; signed the mandatory notices and patent-owner filings.
• Gregory Cordrey — Backup Counsel for Patent Owner
  • Firm: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, Irvine, CA (3 Park Plaza, #1100).
  • USPTO Reg. No. 44,089.

C. For completeness — Samsung's counsel (petitioner in the IPR; defendant in the EDTX suit)

If the request was intended to capture the adverse side (Samsung), its PTAB petition was served on DLA Piper LLP counsel Robert Buergi, Brent Yamashita, and Jonathan Hicks (certificate of service in the patent owner's mandatory notices), and Samsung's EDTX local counsel was Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith, Marshall, TX) per the Justia docket.

Caveats

• Office assignments for Park are inferred (Susman Godfrey's Seattle listing; her declaration does not state an office). Her firm role as "associate" is per her own sworn declaration (Jan. 2021).
• The settlement terms and any post-settlement counsel arrangements remain confidential; there is no public indication of a substitution of counsel before dismissal.
• I did not independently verify every attorney's current firm status (e.g., later lateral moves after 2021); the affiliations above reflect their roles as of the 2019–2021 litigation and IPR.

Counsel of Record — Samsung (Defendant/Petitioner) in the SpaceTime3D Matter

Threshold caveat on framing. IPR2020-01419 is a PTAB inter partes review, not an infringement suit, so it has no "defendant" in the district-court sense. The parties are petitioner Samsung (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.) and patent owner SpaceTime3D, Inc. The actual "defendant" appears only in the parallel infringement case, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex.), where Samsung was sued. I address Samsung's counsel in both forums, plus SpaceTime3D's counsel for context, and flag clearly what I could and could not verify.

Samsung — District Court Defendant (2:19-cv-00372-JRG, E.D. Tex.)

Samsung — IPR Petitioner (IPR2020-01419)

• Samsung filed the petitions on Aug. 4, 2020, and its lead/backup counsel of record before the PTAB are set out in the Petition (Paper 1), Petitioner's Power of Attorney (Paper 2), and Petitioner's Mandatory Notices (Paper 3) in each of the three parallel IPRs (IPR2020-01417/-01418/-01419).
• I could not verify those names from the sources available to me (search snippets for the 01419 papers did not surface a signature block, and I was rate-limited before reaching the docket PDFs). I will not guess at attorney names or a firm. If you need the exact list, the authoritative source is PTAB Paper 1 signature page / Paper 3 Mandatory Notices for IPR2020-01419 (public on PTAB's portal and DocketAlarm/Patexia), which I recommend pulling before finalizing any filing.
• One confirmed substantive point: Samsung's invalidity expert in the underlying litigation was Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson, whose Revised Expert Report (Dec. 18, 2020) and Park Decl. (Ex. 2015) show the IPR team worked alongside the district-court team but was kept separate from Attorneys'-Eyes-Only material.

SpaceTime3D — Patent Owner / Plaintiff Counsel (for completeness)

PTAB IPR counsel (IPR2020-01419 and siblings): The patent owner's designations are confirmed in the docketed Mandatory Notices/Power of Attorney for the mirror proceeding IPR2020-01417 (same parties; the 01419 designations are presumed identical but should be checked against 01419 Papers 3–4):

District court litigation counsel (SpaceTime3D as plaintiff): Susman Godfrey LLP — per UniCourt's docket list for 2:19-cv-00372 and Y. Gloria Park's own declaration (Ex. 2015, IPR2020-01419, ¶ 1, confirming she is "an associate with Susman Godfrey LLP, counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc."):

Notes on access and confidentiality

• No lead-defense counsel list is publicly confirmed for Samsung in the E.D. Tex. action from the sources I reached; if Samsung's defense was led by an out-of-state firm (a common pattern in Gilstrap-court NPE cases), that counsel is not named in UniCourt's public party summary, and the substantive filings (infringement contentions, expert reports) were under protective order.
• The IPR itself terminated pre-institution (Settlement, Mar. 15, 2021, Paper 22), and the settlement agreement was filed confidentially under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 — no counsel entries beyond the designation papers would have accrued after termination.
• Bottom line: Verified on the record — SpaceTime3D's PTAB counsel (Fitzsimmons; Cordrey) and its Susman Godfrey litigation team (Tribble, Capshaw, DeRieux, Berry, Park); Samsung's only verified counsel is local counsel Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith). Samsung's lead PTAB counsel of record must be read off the IPR2020-01419 petition/mandatory notices themselves, which I could not fully retrieve; do not rely on my list for that item without checking PTAB Paper 1/Paper 3.