Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. (MII), a Singapore-based entity whose primary business activity is patent monetization and licensing, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. Samsung, a global leader in electronics manufacturing, is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,842,080. This patent generally describes a foldable electronic device incorporating a flexible display, with claims related to the device's housing structure that enables folding, mechanisms for display protection during bending, and user interface functionalities for managing folded and unfolded states. The allegedly infringing products are Samsung's foldable smartphones, including models from the Galaxy Fold, Galaxy Z Flip, Galaxy Z Fold2, Galaxy Z Flip3, Galaxy Z Fold3, and Galaxy Z TriFold series. Early reports indicated MII asserted 17 patents against Samsung, previously held by Flex (f/k/a Flextronics), broadly directed to multi-display devices and hinge assemblies; however, the case metadata currently specifies patent 8,842,080.

The litigation is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue widely recognized for its high volume of patent cases and its "rocket docket" reputation for moving cases quickly to trial. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is presiding over the case. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a favored forum for patent owners, including Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), due to its established patent local rules, perceived plaintiff-friendly juries, and historical reluctance to transfer cases to other districts.

This case is notable for several reasons, primarily reflecting a common pattern of patent assertion. Multifold International's business model as a patent monetization and licensing entity aligns with the profile of a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or PAE. The assertion against Samsung targets its innovative and commercially significant line of foldable smartphones, a crucial and growing market segment for the defendant, potentially carrying substantial damages or injunction risks if infringement is found. While no specific inter partes review (IPR) challenges directly tied to patent 8,842,080 within this case were immediately found, Samsung is known to frequently utilize IPR proceedings as a defensive strategy against asserted patents in parallel district court litigation, a common dynamic in high-stakes patent disputes involving major tech companies.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Case Number: 2:21-cv-00371
Court: Texas Eastern District Court
Patents at Issue: 8,842,080 (among others)

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2021-10-08): Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleged infringement of 17 patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,842,080. The accused products were identified as certain of Samsung's foldable smartphones, specifically mentioning the Galaxy Fold, Galaxy Z Flip, Galaxy Z Fold2, Galaxy Z Flip3, and Galaxy Z Fold3.

Subsequent Developments:
Information regarding the filing of Samsung's answer and any counterclaims, substantive pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR), claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions for this specific case (2:21-cv-00371) could not be found through public web searches.

Final Disposition/Present Posture:
The final disposition of the case, whether through settlement, dismissal, judgment, or an ongoing appeal, is not publicly available from the conducted searches. The current posture of the litigation remains active in litigation, according to the case metadata provided, but specific details on its progress beyond the initial filing are unavailable.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
No specific Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings directly challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,842,080 involving Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. as the patent owner were found in the searches. While there was a reference to an IPR (IPR2025-00058) involving Google LLC and Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd., this proceeding concerned a different patent (the '494 patent) and merely referenced the Samsung district court case. Therefore, no effect of parallel PTAB proceedings on the litigation related to patent 8,842,080 can be reported.

Here is the counsel of record representing Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. in this patent infringement case:

Lead Counsel:

• Samuel F. Baxter
  • Firm: McKool Smith P.C. (Marshall, TX office)
  • Note: Mr. Baxter is a renowned patent litigator with significant experience in the Eastern District of Texas, known for securing substantial verdicts for clients in high-profile patent cases. He is a retired principal from McKool Smith.

Other Counsel (Roles may vary, but they are involved in the litigation):

• D. Brian Kacedon
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Washington, DC office)
  • Note: Mr. Kacedon focuses on patent licensing and litigation, with extensive experience in drafting and negotiating agreements and litigating agreement disputes.
• Michael R. Houston
  • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Note: Dr. Houston is a partner and intellectual property lawyer who leads Foley & Lardner's Patent Office Trials Practice. His practice includes patent infringement and trade secret cases, and he has a strong track record in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
• Michael A. Valek
  • Firm: Previously Vinson & Elkins LLP, now an Administrative Patent Judge at the USPTO.
  • Note: Mr. Valek has over 15 years of experience as a patent litigator, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. He also served as a law clerk for Judge Timothy B. Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (It's important to note his current role as an Administrative Patent Judge, which means he would no longer be actively litigating cases).
• Christopher M. McCurdy
  • Firm: Holland & Hart LLP (Boise, ID office) or McCurdy Laud, LLC.
  • Note: Mr. McCurdy assists clients with a wide range of business disputes and has extensive courtroom experience, including jury and bench trials.
• Seth M. Orozco
  • Note: While a "Seth M. Orozco" is listed as Vice President of Travel & Tourism for Elite Media Group, there isn't clear information connecting this individual to patent litigation in this case. Another "David Orozco" is a professor specializing in law and strategy, and an "Alejandro Orozco" is listed in litigation and intellectual property records. Without further clarification, a specific role in this patent litigation cannot be definitively assigned.
• Richard J. D. Emmet
  • Firm: Law Offices of Richard J Emmet (Denver, CO office)
  • Note: Mr. Emmet practices civil litigation, business law, and corporate law.

The defendant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., is represented by a team of in-house and outside counsel. While specific filings for this exact case (2:21-cv-00371) were not immediately found listing all current counsel, information regarding Samsung's typical litigation counsel and appearances in similar Eastern District of Texas cases provides a strong indication of the legal teams involved.

In-House Counsel:

• Matthew Bathon
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics
  • Note: Coordinates Samsung's ITC and district court dockets and has experience litigating Section 337 investigations before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and IP disputes in district courts.
• Phillip Lee
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics US IP Center
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics
  • Note: A veteran litigator with experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing, managing a docket of patent cases with outside counsel firms.

Outside Counsel:

Based on Samsung's frequent appearances in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, particularly in cases before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, and general patent litigation trends, firms such as DLA Piper and White & Case often represent Samsung.

• DLA Piper
  • Note: DLA Piper has secured victories for Samsung Electronics Co. in the Eastern District of Texas in other patent infringement cases, demonstrating their involvement and success in this venue. Their trial teams often include partners such as Sean Cunningham, Erin Gibson (both Washington, DC), Erik Fuehrer, Mark Fowler (both Palo Alto), Brian Erickson (Austin), Michael Jay (Los Angeles), James Heintz, Gianni Minutoli (both Reston), and Helena Kiepura (Washington, DC).
• White & Case LLP
  • Alexander Hyung-Joon Lee
    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: White & Case LLP, Silicon Valley
    • Note: Focuses on intellectual property, technology, and artificial intelligence-related matters, and has defended Samsung in multi-patent cases involving semiconductor chips.

It is important to note that the exact composition of the legal team can evolve throughout litigation, and a definitive list for this specific case would typically be found on the court's docket.