Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Plaintiff Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. ("MRI") is a private, U.S.-based operating company — not a patent assertion entity — headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia, that designs and manufactures rugged outdoor and semi-outdoor digital LCD displays (its BoldVu® line) for digital out-of-home advertising, transit, and kiosk applications, with its own 220,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility and 200+ U.S. patents (DigitaSignageToday; boldvu.com history page; craft.co; RPX labels the plaintiff as an operating company). MRI's founder/inventor, William Dunn, is the sole named inventor of the patents-in-suit. Defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea), [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), and Samsung's IT-services affiliates Samsung SDS Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDS America, Inc. (collectively "Samsung") — a multinational consumer-electronics and display manufacturer. This is therefore a competitor-vs.-competitor dispute (a display maker suing a much larger rival over display-cooling technology), not an NPE assertion campaign. That competitor dynamic also surfaced in a parallel ITC proceeding, In re Certain Outdoor and Semi-Outdoor Electronic Displays, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1331, which MRI pursued against Samsung and other importers using the same patent family (IPR2023-00199, FWD at 2; MRI mandatory notices in IPR2023-00220/-00254).

Accused products and asserted patents. The accused products are Samsung's outdoor and semi-outdoor electronic displays (per RPX, four accused product categories) — the type of large, sun-exposed LCD/signage products in which MRI directly competes — whose housings use forced-air convection cooling channels immediately behind the display surface. MRI's August 19, 2022 complaint (Dkt. 1) originally asserted five MRI display-thermal-management patents per the complaint's exhibits: U.S. Patents 8,854,595 (the '595 patent), 9,173,322 ('322), 10,506,740 ('740), 9,629,287 ('287), and 11,013,142 ('142) (Unified Patents docket; PTAB mandatory notices). For the purposes of this matter, the operative patent at issue is the '595 patent, "Constricted Convection Cooling System for an Electronic Display" (priority 2008, granted 2014). Technically, the '595 claims cover a system for cooling an electronic display in which a "constricted convection plate" is mounted behind the display's posterior surface, defining a narrow "constricted convection channel" (with side panels, entrance, and exit) through which a fan draws air to cool large, sun-loaded LCDs — an approach meant to overcome inadequate prior-art fan-and-fin cooling of large displays (IPR2023-00199 FWD at 2, 8–11; Google Patents abstract). Its family siblings assert related refinements: the '322 patent shares the '595 specification's constricted-convection subject matter, while the '740 and '142 patents claim two-loop systems (an open-loop ambient air path and a closed-loop gas path exchanging heat through a "heat exchanger") (Fed. Cir. Nos. 24-2224 and 24-2228 opinions; Vitallaw summaries). I could not verify the individual title/claims of the '287 patent from the sources retrieved; it is identified only as part of the same MRI display-cooling family.

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. The case is 2:22-cv-00320, filed August 19, 2022, in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division — on Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap's docket (per RPX), with pretrial matters referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (UniCourt; case metadata). EDTX/Tyler matters here for the usual reasons: it has long been the most patent-dense venue in the country, with a reputation for plaintiff-friendly case management and fast Markman/trial schedules, and it is a convenient forum for reaching foreign manufacturers through their U.S. subsidiaries. MRI sought injunctive and monetary relief, including enhanced damages (UniCourt complaint summary). The case's significance is driven by its IPR linkage and multi-forum strategy: MRI sued Samsung in EDTX and at the ITC simultaneously, and Samsung answered with five IPR petitions (IPR2023-00199, -00220, -00221, -00254, -00255). In IPR2023-00199 (directed to the '595 patent, claims 1, 4, 7, 8), the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on June 18, 2024 holding all challenged '595 claims unpatentable as obvious over the Kim and Na prior-art references (Paper 54). MRI appealed, but the Federal Circuit affirmed in MRI v. Squires — No. 24-2228 (decided Mar. 31, 2026, covering the '595 and '322 patents) and No. 24-2224 (decided Apr. 7, 2026, covering the '740 and '142 patents) — with Samsung withdrawing from the appeals and the USPTO Director intervening to defend the Board (Cafc.uscourts.gov opinion postings; Vitallaw, Apr. 1 & Apr. 9, 2026). Because the only '595 claims MRI asserted have been finally invalidated, the district case has little if any remaining viability. One caveat on status: my case metadata lists the matter as open/pending, while RPX shows the district docket going quiet after March 12, 2024 and the Ex Parte aggregator flags the case as closed — I could not verify a specific final judgment or stipulation of dismissal docket entry in the sources I retrieved, so the exact termination mechanism in the district court remains unconfirmed.

Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00320 (E.D. Tex.)

Scope and sourcing caveat

The case metadata identifies the '595 patent (US 8,854,595) as the patent at issue, but the original complaint actually asserted five MRI patents: 8,854,595; 9,173,322 ('322, a continuation of the '595); 10,506,740; 9,629,287; and 11,013,142. I have relied on PACER-derived docket summaries (UniCourt, RPX Insight, Patexia), PTAB records (DocketAlarm/Unified Patents), and the Federal Circuit opinion. Several intermediate docket events (answers, specific motions, and the final district-court termination order) could not be independently retrieved and are flagged below as unverified.

---

Chronological developments

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-08-19 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). MRI sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDS Co., Ltd.; and Samsung SDS America, Inc. in the Tyler Division, asserting infringement of the five display-cooling patents and demanding a jury trial. Lead filer: Steven R. Borgman; Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton entered appearances (Korn, Reed, Geyer, Cannon, Anderson, Absher, Machleidt). The complaint sought injunctive relief, damages, enhanced damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. (UniCourt docket; Unified Patents portal listing of Dkt. 1 and attachments.)
• 2022-08-22 to 08-25 — Appearances and service returns. Summonses returned executed for Samsung Electronics America and Samsung SDS America (served 2022-08-23). (UniCourt dkt. 12, 14.)
• 2022-09-07 — Extension order (Dkts. 15–16). Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne granted the unopposed motion extending the answer deadline (to 2022-12-01) and waiving foreign-service requirements for the Korean parent entities. (UniCourt dkt. 16.)
• Answers/counterclaims: Not retrievable in the available sources. Defense counsel of record was Melissa Richards Smith. Whether the Samsung entities filed answers with invalidity/non-infringement counterclaims is unverified, though they almost certainly answered given they simultaneously began IPR preparation.

2. Parallel non-district-court proceedings (strategic backdrop)

• ITC Investigation 337-TA-1331. Concurrently (complaint reported 2022-08-24), MRI filed an ITC complaint against Samsung entities, Coates Signco, and Industrial Enclosure d/b/a Palmer Digital Group, In re Certain Outdoor and Semi-Outdoor Electronic Displays — overlapping the same five patents. (RPX, "Outdoor and 'Semi-Outdoor' Displays at Issue in ITC and East Texas Complaints," 2022-08-24.) The IPR hearing transcript confirms that the ITC ALJ found '595 claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 invalid over Takeuchi, Kim, Hong, and Takahashi — foreshadowing the PTAB result.
• Prior Delaware litigation. The '595 patent had previously been construed in MRI v. Civiq Smartscapes, 17-269-RGA (D. Del.); the 2018 claim-construction order (D.I. 153, 2018-10-03) was cited by Samsung in the IPR. (IPR2023-00199 exhibit list.)

3. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings (decisive for the litigation)

Samsung (SEC and SEA as petitioners) filed a coordinated set of five IPRs in late December 2022/January 2023 covering the asserted patents. MRI's mandatory notices (2023-02-03) identified IPR2023-00199, -00220, -00221, -00254, and -00255 as related to this E.D. Tex. case and to ITC Inv. 337-TA-1331. (DocketAlarm, PO Mandatory Notices.)

For the '595 patent specifically — IPR2023-00199 (Samsung v. MRI):

• Challenged claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 on obviousness grounds over Takeuchi, Kim, Hong, Takahashi, and Na (Kim = US 7,800,706; Na = Korean Pub. 10-2006-0016469).
• 2023-06-20 — Institution on all challenged claims and all grounds (Paper 9).
• Expert battle: Samsung's Robert Smith-Gillespie (also its ITC expert) vs. MRI's Michael N. Gershowitz; MRI filed its Patent Owner Response 2023-09-26.
• 2024-03-21 — Consolidated oral hearing with IPR2023-00220 (the parallel '322 patent IPR) before APJs Jameson Lee, Jo-Anne M. Kokoski, and John A. Hudalla (Goodwin Procter for Samsung; Kilpatrick Townsend for MRI).
• 2024-06-18 — Final Written Decision: all challenged claims (1, 4, 7, 8) of the '595 patent unpatentable as obvious; Samsung's motion to strike MRI's sur-reply exhibits dismissed as moot. (DocketAlarm, IPR2023-00199 FWD; joint proposed redactions filed 2024-07-03.)

Parallel IPRs on the sibling patents included IPR2023-00220 ('322), IPR2023-00254 ('740), and others; they followed the same institutional pattern in June 2023.

Effect on the district court case: The IPRs are the reason this case never went to trial. The '595 claims at issue here were invalidated by the PTAB effective 2024, which extinguished MRI's infringement case on the '595 patent. Public docket aggregators conflict on exact timing — RPX Insight shows a last docket entry of 2024-03-12, while ExParte lists the case status as "Closed." A stay pending IPR and/or a stipulated dismissal following the June 2024 FWD is the likely mechanism, but the specific stay order and final judgment/termination order could not be verified from the available sources and should be confirmed on PACER.

4. Pre-trial motions of substance

• The only motion practice confirmed on the docket is the 2022-09-07 unopposed extension (Dkts. 15–16).
• No motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay, and no summary-judgment motions were visible in the retrieved docket excerpts. Given the early-filed IPRs (petitions in late 2022) and ITC overlap, Samsung almost certainly sought a stay pending IPR — but that motion and its disposition are unverified in the available record.

5. Claim construction (Markman)

• No Markman order in the E.D. Tex. case was found. The case appears to have been overtaken by the IPRs before reaching claim construction.
• The substantive claim construction that mattered occurred at the PTAB, where the Board rejected MRI's narrow constructions of "constricted convection plate," "constricted convection channel" (declining to require a single entrance), and "access apertures" (declining to require hardware access or mandatory plugging) — constructions the Federal Circuit later sustained.

6. Discovery milestones

No discrete discovery orders or depositions in the district court were retrievable. Strategically significant "discovery-adjacent" milestones occurred in the IPRs:

• MRI's expert (Gershowitz) deposition (2023–2024), whose testimony the Board credited only in part.
• MRI's objective-indicia (commercial success/copying) evidence — including an alleged Samsung product teardown — was rejected by the Board for lack of nexus; the Board found Samsung's accused products were designed before the teardown. These findings (later affirmed on appeal) would have been fatal to MRI's damages case had the district-court action resumed.

7. Trial / verdict / post-trial motions

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion occurred in the district court; the IPR invalidation preempted merits litigation.

8. Appeal — the case's true endgame

• 2024 — MRI appealed the PTAB final written decisions for the '595 and '322 patents to the Federal Circuit (MRI v. Squires, Nos. 24-2224 and/or 24-2228). Samsung withdrew from the appeal (terminated as appellee 2024-09-24), and the USPTO Director intervened to defend the Board. (CourtListener party docket for 24-2224; Vitallaw summary.)
• 2026-03-31 — Federal Circuit affirmed (nonprecedential), per Judge Taranto. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that both Kim and Na disclose the "constricted convection plate"; found no error in the Board's construction of "access apertures"; and rejected MRI's internal-inconsistency and objective-indicia arguments. (MRI v. Squires, No. 24-2228, slip op. 2026-03-31; Vitallaw IP Law Daily summary.)

9. Final disposition / present posture

• The asserted '595 claims are dead: claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 were cancelled by the PTAB (June 2024 FWD), a result affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-03-31.
• The district court case is effectively over — aggregators list it as closed/terminated with the last docket activity around March 2024 — although the exact closing instrument (stay + stipulated dismissal, or judgment on the pleadings following the FWD) is not confirmed in the sources retrieved. Given the estoppel-free IPR path and full claim cancellation, MRI retained no viable infringement claim on the '595 patent.

---

Bottom line

This litigation is a textbook example of a parallel-IPR knockout: filed 2022-08-19 in E.D. Tex. against four Samsung entities on five display-cooling patents; Samsung answered by petitioning for IPRs in late 2022 and the PTAB instituted in June 2023; the Board cancelled all challenged '595 claims (1, 4, 7, 8) on 2024-06-18; and the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-03-31 after Samsung withdrew and the USPTO Director intervened. The district court case never reached Markman, trial, or verdict and is closed — its fate dictated entirely by the IPR outcome. The only items I could not verify from public sources are the district court's answer/counterclaim filings, any stay/transfer motion, and the precise final termination order (dismissal vs. judgment), which would require a PACER look-up of Dkts. 17 onward.

Press coverage of MRI v. Samsung (2:22-cv-00320)

Coverage of the district court case itself is thin — no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Patently-O, or IPWatchdog articles surfaced in searches — and most reporting centers on the parallel ITC Section 337 investigation and PTAB/Federal Circuit validity fights that shadowed it. The earliest coverage is in the digital-signage trade press: invidis (Sixteen-Nine) reported on 2022-08-26 that Atlanta-based MRI sued Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas and simultaneously filed an ITC complaint naming the Samsung entities plus Coates Group and Palmer Digital Group, asserting five patents covering display-cooling technology against Samsung's OH-series (OH46F/OH55F/OH75F/OH85F) outdoor LCDs and seeking a permanent injunction and "reasonable royalty" damages. The piece added industry color beyond the pleadings — noting the suit was brought by MRI rather than its LG-MRI joint venture (which "owns no intellectual property and just has a license"), and that East Texas is "ground zero" for patent litigation. A syndicated Law.com Radar brief (via Darik News) garbled the subject matter as "digital displays on mobile devices," a mischaracterization not repeated elsewhere. The U.S. ITC's own press release of 2022-09-19 confirmed institution of Inv. No. 337-TA-1331, and Yonhap and The Korea Times (both 2022-09-23) reported that MRI sought a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders, that Samsung declined to comment, and that Samsung had been expanding its outdoor digital-signage business.

The most consequential reported development came from the ITC, not the district court. Yonhap and The Korea Herald reported on 2023-12-07, citing industry sources, that the ITC concluded in November 2023 that Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDS "did not violate any patents," describing it as a preliminary administrative decision. Korean financial press went further: eDaily dated the preliminary decision to November 13 and explained the ITC found either no infringement or that the challenged technology was not patent-eligible, while Seoul Economic Daily quoted Samsung welcoming the ruling and expressing confidence it would survive final review — and characterized the fight as Samsung's aggressive new "won't back down" patent strategy. Separately, PatSnap Eureka reports that MRI's Federal Circuit appeal of the ITC determination (No. 24-1749) was voluntarily dismissed on 2024-08-29 under Rule 42(b) with each side bearing its own costs.

The validity front explains why the district case lost its engine. Samsung petitioned for IPRs in late 2022; the PTAB instituted in June 2023 and issued final written decisions in mid-2024 holding all challenged claims of the '595 patent (IPR2023-00199) and its sibling '322 patent unpatentable as obvious, as reflected in the DocketAlarm record and Federal Circuit opinion. IP Law Daily (Vitallaw) reported on 2026-04-01 that the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-03-31 in MRI v. Squires (No. 24-2228) — noting Samsung had withdrawn from the appeal and the USPTO Director intervened to defend the Board, and that the court rejected MRI's "constricted convection plate" and "access apertures" arguments and its copying/commercial-success nexus evidence.

Reported numbers are market-context, not damages: no outlet reported a specific damages figure sought or awarded, and none reported a district court verdict or settlement. The Guru cited KOTRA projecting the U.S. digital-signage market growing from $6.72 billion to about $10.6 billion by 2027, and Seoul Economic Daily cited Omdia putting Samsung's global signage share at 31.1% with 14 straight years at No. 1, framing the exclusion-order threat as a risk to that business. Coverage therefore diverges from the court record mainly in its strategic gloss — Samsung's "hardline" litigation posture, the LG-MRI joint-venture nuance in the trade press, and analyst projections of the signage market — rather than in contradicting it. A separate Legal News Feed headline about the ITC agreeing to "reassess a ruling favoring MRI" in a Samsung-initiated LCD patent dispute appears to concern a different, parallel proceeding and should not be conflated with this case.

Sources

• Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al - This case was last updated from U
• 2:22-cv-00320 | Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al | RPX Insight
• 2:22-cv-00320 | Mfg Resources Intl Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• 2:22-cv-00320 - Manufacturing Resources International Inc v. Samsung SDS Co Ltd et al.
• لجنة التجارة الأمريكية تحقق في التورط المزعوم لشركة «سامسونغ» في انتهاك براءات الاختراع | وكالة يونهاب للانباء
• IPR2023-00255 | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Mfg Resources Intl Inc | Ex Parte
• La comisión de comercio de EE. UU. abre una investigación sobre presuntas violaciones de patentes por parte de Samsung | AGENCIA DE NOTICIAS YONHAP
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• MANUFACTURING RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. JOHN A. SQUIRES, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor
• IPR2023-00254, No. 5 Notice Mandatory Notice - Notice Mandatory Notice (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2023) - Exhibits:
• Search court records on patent:(11013142)
• PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Obviousness of convection cooling system for electronic displays affirmed

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — MRI v. Samsung Electronics, No. 2:22-cv-00320 (E.D. Tex.)

The plaintiff, Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. ("MRI"), is represented exclusively by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. The docket (via UniCourt/PACER-derived entries; Unified Patents portal) shows eight plaintiff-side attorneys of record, all from that firm. Sources: UniCourt docket summaries of Dkts. 1, 3, 5, 7–14 (UniCourt case page); Kilpatrick Townsend's own firm profile for Borgman (ktslaw.com); CourtListener/Vitallaw Federal Circuit records; and the PTAB/ITC signature blocks (DocketAlarm Ex. 2018 and Ex. 2057 declarations).

Attorneys of record for plaintiff

* Office-location caveat: Seattle/DC/Atlanta assignments for Korn, Machleidt, Geyer, Cannon, and Absher are inferred from the coordinated ITC/E.D. Tex. signature block in IPR2023-00220 Exhibit 2018 (DocketAlarm) and are consistent with UniCourt's roster, but I could not independently confirm each attorney's current office on KT's website within the search budget. Reed's Atlanta office and Anderson's Winston-Salem office are directly confirmed (Vitallaw; Anderson's own PHV declaration).

Notes and caveats

• No separate local Texas counsel from another firm appears for MRI. Four KT attorneys (Borgman, Korn, Reed/Machleidt, Absher) entered regular, non-PHV appearances — consistent with E.D. Tex. bar admission — while Geyer, Anderson, and Cannon were admitted pro hac vice (Dkts. 9–11, each with $100 fee).
• Distinct from the IPR team: The PTAB lead/backup counsel (John C. Alemanni and Carl Sanders, Raleigh; Michael T. Morlock and Courtney Dabbiere, Atlanta) handled the parallel IPR2023-00199 etc., and Alemanni/Morlock/Reed argued the Federal Circuit appeals, but Alemanni, Sanders, Morlock, and Dabbiere do not appear on the district-court docket as counsel of record for this case.
• Borgman's exact "lead counsel" designation on the docket is not labeled as such (E.D. Tex. does not require a lead/backup designation in ordinary civil filings), but he was the filing attorney on the complaint and substantive initial filings, making him the de facto lead. Defense counsel of record is Melissa Richards Smith (per UniCourt), which also corroborates that no plaintiff-side Texas firm other than KT appeared.
• The UniCourt roster reflects appearances through the case's active period (2022). If additional attorneys appeared in later filings (e.g., after 2023), those would require a PACER check of Dkts. 17 onward — the same gap flagged in the prior case summary; none were visible in the public aggregators consulted.

Counsel of record for defendants (Samsung entities)

Based on the available docket-derived sources, only one defense attorney appears of record in MRI v. Samsung Electronics, No. 2:22-cv-00320 (E.D. Tex.). That is consistent with the earlier-prepared case sections, which identified Melissa Richards Smith as defense counsel of record. I could not retrieve a complete PACER docket (entries past Dkt. 16 are only partially indexed in free aggregators), so the analysis below flags what is verified versus what remains unconfirmed.

1. Melissa Richards Smith — attorney of record / local counsel

• Role: Attorney of record for the Samsung defendants in the district court; in practice functions as Samsung's EDTX local counsel (Gillam & Smith's entire practice is built around serving as Texas local counsel for out-of-state/Korean corporate defendants in Marshall and Tyler).
• Firm & office: Partner, Gillam & Smith, LLP, 303 South Washington Avenue, Marshall, TX 75670 (TX Bar No. 24001351; tel. 903-934-8450; melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com).
• Source: UniCourt's party listing for this case is the key direct source — it lists "Defendant Attorney: Melissa Richards Smith" and no other defense attorney for 2:22-cv-00320 (UniCourt case page, pc-db5-…-1272678). Her firm/bar details and EDTX-centric practice are confirmed via Martindale-Hubbell and signed pleadings in other EDTX cases.
• Experience: One of the most frequently appointed patent-litigation local counsel in EDTX. A June 2024 Asia Economy (asiae.co.kr) study of Samsung/LG appointments found Smith was named in Samsung's legal team 59 times — the single most-appointed attorney by Samsung Electronics — with Gillam & Smith second only to Fish & Richardson as Samsung's most-used firm; she has practiced in EDTX since 1997 and has been a Gillam & Smith partner since 2004, with deep familiarity with Chief Judge Gilstrap's docket. Peer reviews describe her as "first choice as local counsel for patent cases in Marshall and Tyler."
• Procedural note: A contemporaneous Law.com Radar story (republished by darik.news) reported at filing that "counsel for the defendants has not yet appeared." Smith's appearance evidently came later, but the specific appearance docket entry number was not retrievable from the free sources available.

2. Other counsel — NOT verified on the district docket (important caveats)

• No lead out-of-district firm appearance is verifiable. Unlike many Samsung EDTX cases (where Fish & Richardson typically leads with Gillam & Smith as local counsel), no Fish & Richardson attorney appears in the UniCourt/Patexia/RPX party summaries for this case. It is possible that (a) the case was stayed/dismissed so early that only local-counsel appearances were ever entered, or (b) lead-counsel appearances exist on the docket but are not captured by the aggregators I accessed. Do not assume Fish & Richardson appeared — that would be speculation.
• Goodwin Procter LLP represented Samsung in the parallel IPRs, not (so far as verified) in the district case. In the related PTAB matters (e.g., IPR2023-00199 and sibling IPRs), Samsung's lead was Linnea Cipriano (Goodwin Procter, New York, NY) with backup counsel including Doug Kline, Srikanth Reddy, Naomi L. Birbach, and Patrick J. McCarthy (Goodwin Procter, Boston/New York/Washington, DC) — confirmed by Samsung's PTAB powers of attorney. But PTAB representation is a separate retention; I found no evidence those Goodwin attorneys entered appearances in 2:22-cv-00320.
• In-house counsel: In the related PTAB proceedings, Samsung's in-house signatory on powers of attorney was Seung Woo Hur, Senior Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (see Samsung POA in IPR2023-01202, DocketAlarm). This confirms in-house Samsung involvement in the broader dispute, but I found no evidence of a district-court pro hac vice or notice of appearance by Samsung in-house counsel in this case.

Bottom line

The only confirmed counsel of record for the four Samsung defendants in 2:22-cv-00320 is Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, TX) — the classic EDTX local-counsel role Samsung uses in nearly every Texas patent case. Whether a lead firm (e.g., Fish & Richardson or Goodwin Procter) also appeared before the docket went quiet (last activity ~March 12, 2024, per RPX) cannot be confirmed from public sources; a PACER review of the docket entries after Dkt. 16 (the September 2022 extension order) would be required to identify any additional appearances, answers, or the stay/dismissal filings that ended the case.