Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Coates Signco Pty Limited

Based on my research across USITC press releases and Federal Register notices, EDIS-derived docket materials (via PatSnap/Docket Alarm), PTAB records, and Federal Circuit orders, here is the case overview and background.

Parties and accused technology. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. ("MRI") of Alpharetta, Georgia—a privately held, operating manufacturer (not an NPE) of rugged outdoor and semi-outdoor LCD displays sold under the BoldVu® brand (products for digital out-of-home advertising, transit, and kiosks)—brought this Section 337 investigation to block importation of competing outdoor/semi-outdoor displays that it alleged copied its air-cooled thermal-management designs. MRI filed its complaint on August 19, 2022, and the ITC instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1331 ("Certain Outdoor and Semi-Outdoor Electronic Displays, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof") on September 19–23, 2022 (87 FR 58132). The notice of investigation named seven respondents: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDS Co. Ltd. (Korea), [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) and Samsung SDS America, Inc. (Ridgefield Park, NJ), Coates Signco Pty Limited (Sydney, Australia)—the respondent featured in this case's caption—Coates Visual LLC (Chicago), and Industrial Enclosure Corporation d/b/a Palmer Digital Group (Aurora, IL). Coates Visual was later replaced by Coates US Inc. (Order No. 6, Oct. 24, 2022; Comm'n notice Nov. 10, 2022). The accused products were Samsung's OH/OM-series outdoor LCDs (e.g., OH24B, OH46/55/75/85, OM46/55/75 models referenced in claim charts) and the other respondents' imported outdoor/semi-outdoor display products. MRI sought a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders, and alleged it satisfied the domestic-industry requirement through its U.S. design and manufacturing operations.

Patents and procedural posture. MRI asserted five patents from one extended family covering filter-less, air-based thermal management for high-brightness outdoor LCD enclosures: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,854,595 and 9,173,322 (systems using a "constricted convection plate" placed behind the display's posterior surface, with side panels forming a constricted convection channel through which a fan draws ambient air—claim 1 of the '595 patent is quoted in the Federal Circuit's later opinion in the related IPR appeal); 9,629,287 (a dual-loop system pairing a sealed, closed-loop isolated-gas cooling chamber with an open loop of ambient air that passes through the housing along the backlight, per the title "System for Using Constricted Convection with Closed Loop Cooling System as the Convection Plate" and Samsung's IPR papers); 10,506,740 ("Constricted convection cooling for electronic displays," a continuation); and 11,013,142 (a later continuation in the same cooling family). The investigation was assigned to the ITC's administrative law judges—secondary sources and EDIS-derived records identify ALJ Monica Bhattacharyya as the presiding judge, with MRI represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton (Aarti Shah, John Alemanni) and respondents by Goodwin Procter (Patrick McCarthy, Douglas Kline, Naomi Birbach); the Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate. Why the ITC venue mattered: Section 337 gives the Commission in rem jurisdiction over imported goods and a fast (~15–16 month) merits track with exclusionary—not monetary—relief, making it the preferred forum for a U.S. manufacturer facing import competition; appeals lie to the Federal Circuit. After a Markman hearing (Mar. 1, 2023) and claim-construction order (Order No. 13, May 15, 2023), the investigation was partially terminated as to Samsung SDS Co. Ltd. and Coates Signco Pty Limited (Order Nos. 10–11, May 4, 2023, unreviewed June 5, 2023; the Commission's initial notice inadvertently also named Samsung SDS America and Coates US, which it later corrected), leaving five respondents—including Coates US Inc. and Palmer Digital Group—for the merits. The public record does not disclose the reason for Coates Signco's early termination (typically settlement or covenant-type resolution, but I did not find a source stating it). On November 13, 2023, the ALJ issued a final initial determination finding no violation of Section 337 as to all remaining respondents, and the Commission declined review and terminated the investigation on February 28, 2024 (89 FR, Mar. 5, 2024 notice; MRI's petition for reconsideration was denied May 8, 2024). MRI appealed to the Federal Circuit (No. 24-1749), but the appeal was voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each side bearing its own costs on August 29, 2024, leaving the no-violation determination as the final result.

Why the case is notable. This was a wholesale merits loss for an operating-company complainant's five-patent "constricted convection" cooling portfolio, tested at full ITC trial against major importers in the digital out-of-home display market; it confirmed that respondents could continue importing those displays without exclusion orders and left MRI without any ITC remedy. Strategically, the ITC case was one prong of a multi-forum campaign: MRI filed a parallel district court suit in the Eastern District of Texas the same day (MRI v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00320), and Samsung and Samsung Electronics America simultaneously petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review of all five patents (IPR2023-00199 ('595), -00220 ('322), -00221 ('142), -00254 ('740), and -00255 ('287), all filed December 15, 2022, with institution in mid-2023). The IPR track continued after the ITC loss and produced a March 31, 2026 Federal Circuit decision (No. 24-2228) addressing the "constricted convection plate" claim construction on appeal from the Board's decisions on the '595 and '322 patents—an indication that the validity fight over MRI's cooling-patent family outlived the ITC investigation itself. For competitors and importers of outdoor/semi-outdoor displays, the case signaled that the asserted claim scope of MRI's thermal-management portfolio was substantially narrower than its decade of filings suggested, though the specific claim-by-claim reasoning in the final ID remains confidential in part.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — Inv. No. 337-TA-1331

A threshold framing note: this matter is an ITC Section 337 investigation, not a district court patent suit, so the procedural map differs from the categories in the prompt. There was no complaint/answer/counterclaim exchange in the FRCP sense (respondents filed responses to the NOI and the complaint's allegations), no jury, no JMOL/new-trial practice, and no money damages. The "trial" was an ALJ evidentiary hearing followed by an Initial Determination. Also note a mismatch with the caption: Coates Signco Pty Limited (Australia) was terminated from the investigation in June 2023 and never reached the merits — the "no violation" outcome was entered against the remaining respondents (Samsung entities, Coates US Inc., and Palmer Digital Group). The sections below adapt the requested categories to the ITC track.

1. Filing and institution

• 2022-08-19 — MRI (Alpharetta, GA) filed its Section 337 complaint (EDIS Doc. ID 778357), alleging importation/sale of certain outdoor and semi-outdoor electronic displays infringed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,854,595; 9,173,322; 9,629,287; 10,506,740; and 11,013,142, and seeking a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders. It also alleged the domestic-industry requirement was met. (USITC news release 22-100; 87 FR 58132–33; FID public version excerpt at DocketAlarm, IPR2023-00221, Ex. 1030.)
• 2022-09-19 — Commission voted to institute Inv. No. 337-TA-1331 ("Certain Outdoor and Semi-Outdoor Electronic Displays, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof"). NOI named seven respondents: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDS Co. Ltd.; Samsung SDS America, Inc.; Coates Signco Pty Limited; Coates Visual LLC; and Industrial Enclosure Corp. d/b/a Palmer Digital Group. (USITC news release 22-100, Sept. 19, 2022; NOI, EDIS Doc. ID 780596; 87 FR 58132, Sept. 23, 2022.) Initial asserted claims per the NOI: claims 1, 4, 7, 8 of '595; 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 of '322; 1, 4, 8–12, 15, 21–23 of '287; 1, 5, 6 of '740; and 1–15 of '142. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate.
• 2022-10/11 — Respondent substitution: Order No. 6 (2022-10-24) terminated Coates Visual and substituted Coates US Inc. (Chicago); the Commission declined review on 2022-11-10 (FR notice published 2022-11-17, 87 FR at doc. 2022-24986).
• Target date/procedural schedule set within ~45 days per 19 C.F.R. § 210.51; the case proceeded on a roughly 15–16 month track. The investigation was assigned to ALJ Monica Bhattacharyya; MRI was represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton (Aarti Shah et al.) and respondents by Goodwin Procter (Patrick McCarthy, Douglas Kline, Naomi Birbach, et al.).

2. Early/pretrial motions of substance (ITC equivalents)

• Invalidity contentions phase: Respondents served joint initial invalidity contentions on 2022-12-14 and a Notice of Prior Art on 2023-01-04, reserving right to attack priority dates claim-by-claim (Ex. 2027 in IPR2023-00255; Goodwin Procter filing). This set up validity defenses pursued in the investigation and later in the parallel IPRs.
• Partial terminations (respondent exits) — Order Nos. 10–11 (2023-05-04), unreviewed by Commission notice of 2023-06-05, terminated the investigation as to Samsung SDS Co. Ltd. and Coates Signco Pty Limited (the caption respondent). Notably, the Commission's June 5, 2023 notice inadvertently also terminated Samsung SDS America and Coates US; the Commission corrected that error, leaving five respondents (Samsung Electronics, Samsung Electronics America, Samsung SDS America, Coates US, Palmer Digital). Per the Commission's later May 8, 2024 notice, the terminated respondents "did not participate in the evidentiary hearing." (87 FR/FR-2024-04567 supplementary info; USITC notice 337_1331_notice05082024sgl.pdf.) No public source states the reason (settlement is the usual inference, but unverified).
• Respondents' motion for summary determination of non-infringement — filed 2023-04-27 (Mot. Dkt. No. 1331-008, EDIS Doc. ID 795633), seeking no-infringement findings as to (a) the OH24B product, (b) OM-series products (OM46B/N, OM55B/N, OM75A), and (c) unaccused claims for accused OH products — arguing MRI had supplied no infringement evidence on those products/claims. MRI opposed (brief on file via Fish & Richardson-hosted public version, FR.com upload 3318). The ALJ granted the motion in part; the Commission twice extended the review deadline (notices of 2023-07-14 and 2023-08-15) and on 2023-09-11 affirmed the ID as to non-terminated claims then still asserted, effectively trimming MRI's case before hearing. (FR.com filing 3317; Commission notices index at usitc.gov/commission_notices.)
• Domestic industry — economic prong: Order No. 19 (2023-06-15) granted summary determination that MRI satisfied the economic prong of the domestic-industry requirement for the asserted patents; the Commission declined review on 2023-07-17. (Commission notice; FR-2024-04567.)

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2023-03-01 — Markman hearing held before ALJ Bhattacharyya.
• 2023-05-15 — Markman order (Order No. 13) construing disputed claim terms, including the "constricted convection plate/channel" terms central to the family. The constructions proved pivotal: after the investigation, the Federal Circuit's 2026 IPR appeal decision (No. 24-2228) grappled with the same "constricted convection plate" construction, indicating the ITC construction narrowed MRI's asserted scope. (FR-2024-04567; existing case summary cross-ref.)

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• 2022-12 through 2023-06 — Parallel-track discovery: contention interrogatories (initial invalidity contentions served 2022-12-14; rebuttal contentions due 2023-01-18), document production including Samsung CAD files for OH/OM products (relied on heavily by MRI's experts and disputed by respondents), expert reports (MRI experts including Thomas Credelle and Dr. Himanshu Pokharna; respondents' expert Dr. Neikirk), and depositions.
• The summary-determination record (April–June 2023) highlighted a key strategic gap: respondents showed MRI never developed infringement contentions for the OH24B and current OM products — a theme that carried into the final ID.
• Respondents' January 2023 Notice of Prior Art placed MRI's claimed priority dates and alleged prior public use/on-sale of the cooling designs at issue, foreshadowing both the invalidity case at the ITC and the PTAB petitions.
• Domestic-industry economic-prong proof was resolved early (Order No. 19, June 15, 2023), removing that element from the hearing.

5. "Trial" (evidentiary hearing) and post-hearing determinations

• 2023-06-26 onward — Evidentiary hearing before ALJ Bhattacharyya, conducted remotely (Transcript Vol. I, June 26, 2023, Heritage Reporting Corp.; excerpted as Ex. 2019 in IPR2023-00220). Coates Signco and Samsung SDS were already out; Samsung, Coates US, and Palmer Digital defended on the merits.
• 2023-11-13 — Final Initial Determination (FID): no violation of Section 337. By that point the surviving asserted claims were: claim 12 of '287; claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 of '595; claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13 of '322; claims 1 and 5 of '740; and claims 6 and 10 of '142. The FID found no violation as to importation, sale for importation, or post-importation sale — i.e., MRI failed to prove infringement (and/or respondents proved invalidity) on the surviving claims. (FR-2024-04567; FID public version excerpt, IPR2023-00221 Ex. 1030.)
• 2023-11-27 — Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding, issued conditionally in the event the Commission found a violation (it did not).
• 2023-11-29/12-05 — Commission requested public-interest submissions on the recommended relief (FR notice 2023-26603, Dec. 5, 2023).

6. Commission review, termination, and reconsideration

• 2024-02-28 — Commission determined not to review the FID and terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation; no exclusion order or cease-and-desist order issued (FR notice 2024-04567, 89 FR 15896, published 2024-03-05).
• 2024-05-08 — Commission denied MRI's petition for reconsideration, making the no-violation outcome final (USITC notice, 337_1331_notice05082024sgl.pdf).
• No monetary relief, fee award, or sanctions phase exists in the ITC remedial framework; the outcome was a clean merits loss for the complainant.

7. Appeal and present posture

• 2024 — MRI appealed the no-violation determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (No. 24-1749). The appeal was voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each side bearing its own costs on 2024-08-29 (per the earlier case summary; not independently re-verified in this search pass). The no-violation determination therefore stands as the final result, and the case is closed/terminated as of 2024-02-28 (reconsideration denied 2024-05-08; appeal dismissed 2024-08-29).

8. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings and effect

• 2022-12-15 — Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. petitioned for IPR of all five asserted patents: IPR2023-00199 ('595), IPR2023-00220 ('322), IPR2023-00221 ('142), IPR2023-00254 ('740), and IPR2023-00255 ('287), with institution in mid-2023. The IPR petitions ran alongside the ITC case; the ITC record (Markman order, FID excerpts, expert reports, prior-art notices) was imported into the PTAB record as exhibits.
• Effect on the ITC case: the IPRs did not trigger a stay (ITC investigations are not stayed for parallel PTAB review as a matter of course), and the ITC reached its no-violation decision first. The validity fight outlived the ITC investigation: on 2026-03-31, the Federal Circuit decided No. 24-2228, an appeal from the PTAB's decisions on the '595 and '322 patents, addressing the "constricted convection plate" claim construction — the same term litigated in this investigation's Markman order. (Existing case summary; DocketAlarm PTAB exhibits corroborating the IPR numbers and ITC transcript/prior-art crossover.)

Bottom line

MRI pursued a coordinated ITC-plus-IPR strategy but lost the investigation on the merits at every stage that mattered: the surviving claims were whittled down by partial summary determination (Sept. 2023), the FID found no violation (Nov. 13, 2023), the Commission declined review and terminated the investigation (Feb. 28, 2024), reconsideration was denied (May 8, 2024), and the Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed (Aug. 29, 2024). No exclusion or cease-and-desist relief ever issued, and the caption respondent (Coates Signco) had exited the case in June 2023 before the merits hearing.

Source-base caveats: Order numbers and certain dates (Order No. 6; Order Nos. 10–11; Order No. 13; Order No. 19) are drawn from the Commission's Federal Register/notice statements and the prior case summary; the FR notice text truncates the Order No. for the Markman order, so that citation relies on secondary docket sources. The Federal Circuit dismissal date (2024-08-29) and the March 31, 2026 IPR appeal decision were carried over from the previously generated case summary rather than independently re-verified in this search pass.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Inv. No. 337-TA-1331

Representation structure. Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. ("MRI") was represented throughout the ITC investigation exclusively by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP (confirmed by the USITC notice of investigation, the Federal Register termination notice, MRI's filings in the parallel Samsung IPRs, and PatSnap/RPX docket-derived data). The ITC does not use a "local counsel" designation in the district-court sense, and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate (per 89 FR 15896, Mar. 5, 2024). No MRI in-house attorney appeared of record in the transcripts I reviewed.

Lead counsel

Aarti Shah — Lead counsel, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Washington, DC office (607 14th Street NW, Suite 900; tel. 202-508-5800).

• Identified as lead for MRI by docket-derived sources (PatSnap/Eureka, EDIS data) and is first-listed in the complainant's appearances at the evidentiary hearing (June 26 and June 29, 2023 hearing transcripts, filed as Exs. 2013/2014 in the parallel IPRs).
• She signed MRI's Updated Joint Claim Construction Statement dated March 8, 2023 in Inv. No. 337-TA-1331 (submitted as Ex. 2018 in IPR2023-00220) as counsel for complainant, using the case email MRI-Samsung@kilpatricktownsend.com — placing her at the center of the Markman phase.
• KT Section 337/patent litigator; handled this matter together with the parallel district court case and the five IPR proceedings Samsung filed against MRI's cooling-patent family.

Trial/associate counsel of record (from the June 26–29, 2023 hearing appearances)

• Dario A. Machleidt — Kilpatrick Townsend, Seattle, WA (1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3700). Appeared for complainant at the merits hearing; patent litigation attorney in KT's IP practice.
• Kathleen R. Geyer — Kilpatrick Townsend, Seattle, WA (same office). Appeared at the merits hearing; IP litigator.
• Russell A. Korn — Kilpatrick Townsend, Atlanta, GA (1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800). Appeared at the merits hearing; senior patent trial partner in KT's Atlanta office.
• David A. Reed — Kilpatrick Townsend, Atlanta, GA (same office). Appeared at the merits hearing; also served as MRI's counsel on the Federal Circuit side (listed for MRI in the related IPR appeal MRI v. Squires, No. 24-2224, CourtListener docket), so he bridged the ITC and appellate work.
• Mitchell G. Stockwell — Kilpatrick Townsend, Atlanta, GA (same office). Appeared at the merits hearing; patent litigator.
• Craig D. Cannon — Kilpatrick Townsend, Winston-Salem, NC (1001 West Fourth Street). Appeared at the merits hearing.
• Alton L. Absher, III — Kilpatrick Townsend, Winston-Salem, NC (same office). Appeared at the merits hearing.
• Andrea A. Anderson — Kilpatrick Townsend, Winston-Salem, NC (same office). Appeared at the merits hearing.
• Jonathan E. Harris — Kilpatrick Townsend, Winston-Salem, NC (same office). Appeared at the merits hearing.
• Matthew J. Meyer — Kilpatrick Townsend, Menlo Park, CA (1080 Marsh Road). Appeared at the merits hearing.

Caveats

• I could not retrieve the original complaint's signature block directly (EDIS full-text access was not available in my searches), so the list above reflects the of-record appearances at the evidentiary hearing and the March 2023 claim-construction filing, which is the most reliable public snapshot of the trial team. The complaint may have named additional signatories; if so, they are not captured here.
• John C. Alemanni, whom the earlier case summary associated with MRI's representation, appears for MRI in the related Federal Circuit and IPR matters (e.g., MRI v. Squires, No. 24-2224, CourtListener party listing, Raleigh, NC) but does not appear in the 337-TA-1331 hearing appearance lists I reviewed; his role in the ITC case itself is therefore not confirmed.
• One transcript anomaly worth flagging: the court reporter's appearances block lists Aarti Shah's address as "1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3700, Washington, D.C." — that street address is actually KT's Seattle office; Shah's signature on the joint claim construction statement confirms her office as 607 14th Street NW, Washington, DC. Her phone number (202-508-5800) matches the DC office.
• No respondents' counsel are included here because the question is limited to plaintiff's counsel; for completeness, the counterpart lead for the Coates respondents was Patrick McCarthy (Goodwin Procter), per the same docket-derived sources.

Counsel of record for the respondents (defendants) — Inv. No. 337-TA-1331

Key structural point up front. Although the case metadata caption highlights Coates Signco Pty Limited, the ITC investigation (337-TA-1331) named seven respondents — the Samsung entities, Coates Signco, Coates Visual (later replaced by Coates US Inc.), and Industrial Enclosure Corporation d/b/a Palmer Digital Group. The docket shows that all respondents were jointly represented by one firm: Goodwin Procter LLP, appearing through a coordinated multi-office team. No separate or independent counsel of record for Coates Signco (or any other respondent) appears in the public filings I found. ITC practice has no "local counsel" designation as in district court; Goodwin's Washington, DC office (the ITC bar hub) anchored the representation. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations did not participate. Coates Signco was terminated from the investigation on June 5, 2023 (Order Nos. 10–11, May 4, 2023, based on a joint stipulation that Coates had not imported or sold scope products since at least January 2017), so Goodwin's representation of Coates Signco ran from institution through that early termination; the remaining respondents (Samsung, Coates US, Palmer) were carried by the same team through the final ID and Commission termination.

The signature blocks on the respondents' merits filings (e.g., Respondents' Pre-Hearing Brief, dated June 5, 2023, EDIS-filed and reproduced at Docket Alarm; Respondents' Motion for Summary Determination of Noninfringement) identify the following counsel of record, all described collectively as "Counsel for Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung SDS Co. Ltd., Samsung SDS America, Inc., Industrial Enclosures Corporation d/b/a Palmer Digital Group, Coates Signco Pty Limited and Coates US Inc.":

Lead counsel

• Patrick J. McCarthy (PJ McCarthy) — Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC (1900 N Street, N.W.). Goodwin's own bio identifies him as lead attorney in 337-TA-1331 (and the related 337-TA-1349 and E.D. Tex. litigation) for the respondents. He is a first-chair ITC specialist with roughly 40 Section 337 investigations, an electrical-engineering background, and prior complete-defense wins (e.g., lead counsel in Ultravision v. Shenzhen Absen / Inv. No. 337-TA-1114, a full not-infringed/not-invalid jury and ITC victory that drew national "Litigator of the Week" recognition).

Core team (Goodwin Procter LLP)

• Darryl M. Woo — Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP, San Francisco, CA (Three Embarcadero Center). Senior ITC/IP litigator; signed the respondents' pre-hearing brief and summary-determination motion in this investigation.
• Naomi L. Birbach — Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY (The New York Times Building, 620 Eighth Ave.). IP litigation partner on the respondents' team (previously identified in the case summary as among the lead respondents' attorneys).
• Douglas J. Kline — Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA (100 Northern Ave.). IP litigation partner on the team.
• Srikanth K. Reddy — Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA. Member of the respondents' trial team (previously named in the case summary; signs the merits briefs).
• Annaka Nava — Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC. Signed the respondents' pre-hearing brief.
• Jacqueline Genovese Bova — Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC. Signed the respondents' pre-hearing brief.
• Jeremy Jones — Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC. Signed the respondents' pre-hearing brief.
• Christie L. Larochelle — Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA. Signed the respondents' pre-hearing brief and summary-determination motion.
• Harrison Gunn — Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA. Signed the respondents' pre-hearing brief and summary-determination motion.
• Yoona Lee — Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, Redwood City, CA (601 Marshall St.). Signed the respondents' pre-hearing brief.
• Elizabeth J. Low — Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, Redwood City, CA. Signed the respondents' pre-hearing brief and summary-determination motion (earlier filings also list Jesse Cheng of the same Redwood City office).
• Christine Potkay — Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY. Signed the respondents' pre-hearing brief and summary-determination motion.
• Christina Denise Go — Attorney, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY. Signed the respondents' pre-hearing brief and summary-determination motion (listed as "Cristina Denise Go" in the summary-determination motion).

Caveats

• No in-house or Australian counsel of record identified. Because Coates Signco is an Australian company, it may have coordinated with Australian or Chicago-based advisers, but no such counsel appears of record in the public ITC filings I located — the Goodwin team is the only counsel of record for Coates Signco in the EDIS-derived record.
• Attorney-by-attorney roles (partner vs. associate) for the mid-level and junior signatories were not verified against Goodwin's website within the scope of this search; I have not invented bios for them. Only McCarthy's, Woo's, Kline's, and Birbach's roles are affirmatively corroborated by firm materials and the earlier case summary.
• No per-respondent separate counsel. Unlike some ITC investigations where respondents splinter, here the record shows a unified Goodwin defense across Samsung, Coates, and Palmer — which is also consistent with the joint responses to the complaint noted in the final ID (e.g., "Coates's Response," EDIS Doc. ID 783053, filed for Coates Signco Pty Limited and Coates US Inc.).

Bottom line: For purposes of this caption (MRI v. Coates Signco), the defendant Coates Signco Pty Limited was represented by Goodwin Procter LLP, with Patrick J. McCarthy as lead counsel, supported by the multi-office Goodwin team above, from institution (Sept. 2022) until Coates Signco's termination by stipulation (finalized June 5, 2023). The same team continued for the remaining respondents through the no-violation final ID (Nov. 13, 2023) and Commission termination (Feb. 28, 2024).