RFCyber Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

I'll research this case before drafting the overview.

Let me verify the docket chronology and the LG-specific allegations.

Let me check the actual docket on CourtListener to resolve the dismissal date discrepancy.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Plaintiff RFCyber Corp. is a patent-holding company (RPX describes it as "inventor-backed") with a stated principal place of business in Plano, Texas; it describes itself as owner or exclusive licensee with standing to sue on the asserted patents. It is not a manufacturing operating company in any conventional sense — its revenue model is licensing/enforcement of a portfolio it traces to engineers Liang Seng Koh, Futong Cho, Hsin Pan and Fuliang Cho, who are named inventors on the '787 patent. Ownership is layered: a Fremont, California parent ("RFCyber Holding") assigned the '218 and '855 patents to Shenzhen RFCyber Asset Management LLP in January 2014, then executed a July 30, 2020 assignment and exclusive license to plaintiff RFCyber Corp., followed by a July 30, 2021 "confirmatory assignment" after Samsung challenged standing (RFCyber's opposition to Samsung's motion to dismiss, Dkt. 92 in 2:20-cv-00274). Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. is the Korean consumer-electronics affiliate of LG Corp. — a large operating company and, at the relevant time, a smartphone maker. (I could not verify which firm(s) represented LG in this docket; treat that as unsourced.)

The accused technology. The complaint targets LG's mobile payment stack — LG Pay, LG PayQuick and/or LG Pay Perks — as implemented on LG smartphones. Per RPX's campaign coverage, the October 16, 2020 suit was filed the same day as the companion Samsung case (2:20-cv-00335) and followed the August 2020 Google/Google Payment case (2:20-cv-00274). Korean trade press reported that RFCyber pointed to roughly eight-plus LG handset models, from the LG G8 onward through the LG Velvet (2020), and noted LG launched LG Pay in Korea in 2017 (with Dynamics) and in the U.S. in July 2019 (FE금융경제신문, fetimes.co.kr). The theory is that NFC/secure-element based mobile wallets on those devices practice RFCyber's e-purse architecture.

Patents asserted. The case metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 9,189,787 as the patent at issue. The '787 patent, "Method and Apparatus for Conducting E-Commerce and M-Commerce," issued November 17, 2015 from an application filed May 28, 2013, and claims a portable device (e.g., an NFC-enabled phone) having a smart-card module pre-loaded with an emulator and an e-purse applet, a "midlet" that brokers communications with a payment server, dual interfaces (contactless and wireless network), and a two-tier secure-channel scheme for personalizing the applet/emulator and for subsequent transactions — i.e., an over-the-air funding/reload architecture for an electronic purse. One technical sketch: '787 = securely personalizing and funding an on-device e-purse through a midlet-mediated smart-card emulator. For accuracy, note that the original complaint in this case actually asserted five patents — the '218 ("Providing Electronic Purse"), '855 ("Funding an Electronic Purse"), '787, '009 and '046 (see the complaint as reproduced in GOOG-1038, IPR2021-00957) — but the case metadata, which I treat as authoritative, records only the '787 as the patent at issue, consistent with later narrowing. I could not source the specific pleading that narrowed the LG case to the '787.

Procedural Posture and Venue

Filed October 16, 2020 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne referred (case no. 2:20-cv-00336-JRG-RSP) (UniCourt docket summary). Plaintiff's appearances were Vincent J. Rubino III, Alfred Ross Fabricant and Peter Lambrianakos (Fabricant LLP) plus Samuel Franklin Baxter and Jennifer Leigh Truelove (McKool Smith). Venue was pleaded on LG's Texas sales channel — the complaint specifically lists Marshall-area retail locations (Best Buy in Longview; AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon/Victra/Russell Cellular and Cricket stores in Marshall) as the hook for a "regular and established place of business" under §1400(b), and separately notes LG is a Korean corporation. Marshall mattered for the usual reasons: Judge Gilstrap's docket was then among the most active and fastest patent venues in the country, and the case was deliberately filed as part of a three-front campaign (Google, Samsung, LG) in the same division, with the Google case designated lead and Samsung a member case before Judge Gilstrap. Unlike those two, the LG case was not consolidated and did not generate a public claim construction or transfer ruling before it ended. The case terminated by dismissal with prejudice; the AO-120 report reflects final judgment in September 2021, and RPX's September 10, 2021 report states the LG case "was just dismissed with prejudice, this past week." One caution: a joint motion to stay/notice of settlement (Dkt. 33) and a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice in 2:20-cv-00336 were later filed as exhibits in an Apple PGR (Dkt. 2006–2007 in PGR2022-00003, dated Feb. 8, 2022 on Patexia's exhibit list); that date appears to be the exhibit-filing date rather than the LG docket date, but the docket itself was not publicly retrievable to confirm the precise order date, so I flag residual uncertainty.

Why the Case Is Notable

Three things make this short-lived case worth studying. First, portfolio durability: the '787 emerged essentially unscathed from PTAB attack. Samsung's IPR2021-00980 challenged claims 1–19 of the '787 and was terminated in April 2022 after the parties settled, and Apple's follow-on IPR2022-00412 ended in a July 18, 2023 final written decision holding that Apple had not shown claims 1–19 unpatentable over Dua in view of GlobalPlatform and Philips. That surviving validity finding is the asset that powered the rest of the campaign. Second, NPE assertion-pattern value: RFCyber is a textbook small-holder serial campaign — Google (Aug. 2020), Samsung and LG (Oct. 2020), then Apple in W.D. Tex. (6:21-cv-00916), Visa (W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-00697), and Volkswagen/Electrify America back in E.D. Tex. (2:24-cv-00576); the LG case is a data point on how quickly a mid-tier handset defendant settles out of a multi-defendant campaign where the lead case is absorbing the validity fight. Third, market context: LG publicly exited the mobile phone business in 2021, winding down its handset unit — a highly plausible driver of a fast, quiet, with-prejudice exit here, though the settlement terms were not disclosed and I cannot source the business rationale. LG Pay nonetheless remained a target of later NPE suits (e.g., Proxense's 2024 W.D. Tex. action against LG over LG Pay), which underscores that the payment-wallet patent thicket outlived LG's handset business.

Sourcing note: the party names, case number, court, judge assignment and single-patent scope above follow the case metadata; the complaint contents, counsel, PTAB outcomes and campaign chronology are sourced to the filings and RPX/press items linked above. LG's litigation counsel, the exact dismissal order date and docket entry number, and any settlement terms are not verified and should not be treated as established.

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

Let me pull the actual LG docket and check for the PTAB proceedings.

Now let me get the LG docket itself and the PTAB outcomes for the '787.

Bottom line

RFCyber's suit against LG Electronics over the mobile‑wallet patent family (principally the '787 patent) never reached claim construction, summary judgment, or trial. It was a short, low‑activity case that ended in a negotiated settlement and a dismissal with prejudice, while the real fight over the '787 patent moved to the PTAB in petitions filed by LG's co‑defendants (Samsung and Google) and later Apple. Net result for RFCyber: the '787 patent emerged from the campaign with all challenged claims intact.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2020‑10‑16 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). RFCyber Corp. filed in E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, against LG Electronics, Inc., assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap with referral to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (2:20‑cv‑00336‑JRG‑RSP). The complaint pleaded five patents, not one: U.S. 8,118,218 (electronic purse), 8,448,855 (funding an electronic purse), 9,189,787 (conducting e‑commerce and m‑commerce), 9,240,009 (mobile devices for commerce over unsecured networks), and 10,600,046 (mobile payments). Accused functionality: LG Pay, LG PayQuick, and LG Pay Perks, on LG smartphones from the G8 forward through the Velvet. Theories: direct, contributory, and induced infringement, plus willfulness. Venue was pleaded on the theory that LG products flow through Marshall‑area retailers (Best Buy, AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon/Victra, Cricket) and on LG's status as a Korean corporation.

Note on the patent list: the case metadata lists only the '787 patent as "at issue." That is accurate for the outcome‑relevant dispute (the '787 was the claim that survived PTAB challenge and was later re‑asserted by RFCyber against Apple, Samsung, Visa, and Volkswagen), but the complaint as filed encompassed the five‑patent family. The narrowing likely occurred through RFCyber's own election/limitation rather than any court ruling; the available LG‑specific docket sources do not show a claim‑reduction order.

2020‑10‑19 — Summons issued (Dkt. 7). 2020‑12‑14 — additional plaintiff appearances (Dkts. 8–9).

Counsel. Plaintiff: Fabricant LLP (Alfred R. Fabricant, Vincent J. Rubino III, Peter Lambrianakos, Jennifer Leigh Truelove) plus Samuel Franklin Baxter, i.e., the Fabricant/McKool Smith pairing RFCyber used across the campaign. LG's counsel of record could not be confirmed from the sources available to me — I will not guess at firm names.

Answer / counterclaims. I found no reported answer or invalidity counterclaim by LG in the available docket reporting. Given the timing of the settlement (below), it is plausible LG answered and counterclaimed in the ordinary course, but this is unverified and should be confirmed on PACER before being stated as fact. LG apparently did not file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a § 1406 venue motion, or a transfer motion — notable, since its co‑defendants Google and Samsung did file such motions in the lead case (2:20‑cv‑00274, Dkts. 20, 61, 65).

Caption nuance: the caption names LG Electronics, Inc. (the Korean parent). Contemporary Korean press reported that RFCyber sued only LG's U.S. entity; per your instruction I treat the metadata caption as authoritative.

---

2. Pre‑trial motions of substance

Essentially none in the LG case itself. Three categories of motion practice that mattered are all attributable to the companion cases and to the PTAB:

• Motion to dismiss for lack of constitutional standing (Samsung, lead case Dkt. 81, filed 2021‑07‑16). Samsung moved to dismiss as to the '787, '009, and '046 patents on the ground that RFCyber held no exclusionary rights — the patents had been caught up in a 2014 assignment to Shenzhen RFCyber Asset Management LLP that the parties had treated as covering only the '218 and '855 patents. RFCyber responded (Dkt. 90, 2021‑07‑30; sur‑reply Dkt. 99, 2021‑08‑17) that a July 30, 2020 exclusive license plus a confirmatory assignment from RFCyber Shenzhen cured any defect, and sought leave to file a supplemental complaint or joinder under Rule 19. This was a live, case‑threatening defense that LG could have borrowed; the LG case settled before it was resolved in the lead case.
• Motion to stay pending IPR/PGR (lead case Dkt. 65, filed 2021‑06‑22) by Google and Samsung, covering the '855, '218, '787, '009, and '046 patents, plus a separate opposed stay motion pending the Google venue motion (Dkt. 61). Neither was LG's motion, and no LG stay motion appears in the reporting.
• No summary judgment practice in the LG case.

Claim construction (Markman). The LG case did not reach Markman. There is no claim construction order, Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, or Markman hearing in 2:20‑cv‑00336 that I can source. The family‑wide constructions that would have governed LG came out of the consolidated Google/Samsung case: Markman hearing 2021‑10‑27 before Judge Gilstrap, with the opinion reported as RFCyber Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 2:20‑cv‑00274‑JRG, 2021 WL 5357465 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2021) — construing "e‑purse"/"electronic purse," "e‑purse applet," "payment server," "security authentication module/SAM," and "application," and rejecting Samsung's prosecution‑disclaimer argument that would have limited "e‑purse" to locally stored electronic money. That ruling was later relied on by Judge Albright in the Apple case; it did not bind or decide anything in LG's case because LG was not a party to it.

Discovery milestones. Nothing of strategic significance is documented in the LG docket between the December 2020 appearances and the settlement. LG did not appear in the PR 3‑3/3‑4, 4‑1, or 4‑2 disclosure notices filed in the lead case in July 2021, consistent with the case having settled before its own discovery obligations matured. By contrast, in the lead case the defendants served third‑party subpoenas on GlobalPlatform, Inc. (June/July 2021), Secure Technology Alliance, and Nokia — the GlobalPlatform standard became the central obviousness battleground in the PTAB. That discovery collateralized the '787 defense even though LG was not driving it.

---

3. Parallel PTAB

I'll search for press coverage of this case from several angles.

Press coverage summary

Reporting on the filing (October 2020). The most substantive contemporaneous coverage came from litigation-data providers and trade press rather than mainstream outlets. RPX News reported on 2020-10-16 that inventor-backed RFCyber Corp. had added E.D. Tex. cases against LG Electronics (2:20-cv-00336) and Samsung (2:20-cv-00335) to a campaign begun that August against Alphabet/Google (2:20-cv-00274), asserting five patents "generally related to making contactless financial transactions with a mobile device over a network," with infringement allegations targeting devices equipped with LG Pay, LG PayQuick and/or LG Pay Perks. That five-patent figure is broader than the single '787 patent designated in this case's metadata — the '787 was one of several asserted patents, not the sole one. IPWatchdog listed the new case in its 2020-10-21 "Patent Filings Roundup," though it recorded the defendant as "LG Corp." (the parent) rather than LG Electronics, Inc. Korean trade press covered it in more product-specific detail: FE금융경제신문 (FE Times) reported on 2020-10-20 — sourcing its account to the U.S. legal site "Law.com" — that RFCyber accused LG of infringing five patents through LG Pay on at least eight smartphone models from the 2017-era LG G8 through that year's LG Velvet, that the suit named only the U.S. subsidiary, and that LG Pay had launched in the U.S. in July 2019 with an estimated market share below 3%. That outlet also reported that both Samsung and LG declined to comment pending review of the complaints, and framed the case as part of RFCyber's broader "indiscriminate" (무차별) wave of suits following the Google action.

Reporting on the exit (September 2021). RPX News reported in its 2021-09-10 piece "RFCyber Hits Apple Pay New Patent Litigation" that Apple (6:21-cv-00916) was the newest target in RFCyber's contactless-payment campaign, "from which a case against LG Electronics was just dismissed with prejudice, this past week," while the Google and Samsung cases remained active and consolidated before Judge Rodney Gilstrap amid transfer, dismissal and stay motions plus PTAB activity. That is consistent with the September 2021 judgment date in this case's AO-120 record. No outlet I found reported the terms of the LG exit, any payment, or any licensing deal; the docket artifacts surfaced in later PTAB filings — a joint motion to stay deadlines and notice of settlement, followed by a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice, filed by RFCyber as exhibits in Apple's PGR2022-00003 — indicate a negotiated stay-then-dismiss sequence rather than a litigated ruling, but I could not locate a press account confirming the underlying settlement mechanics or dates, and the exhibit-filing dates (2022-02-08) are not the dates of the underlying LG-case filings. Later, RPX News referenced the LG dismissal again in a 2024-07-26 report on RFCyber's new wave of suits against Costco, Kroger, Shell, Starbucks, Volkswagen and Walmart.

Where coverage is thin, divergent, or goes beyond the record. There is essentially no mainstream or national legal-press coverage of this case: I found nothing in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks or JD Supra specifically addressing RFCyber v. LG. The only analytical/opinion content I located concerns the campaign rather than this docket — for example, The Guru (더구루) reported that the PTAB had instituted Google's IPR against the '046 patent over RFCyber's Fintiv-type objections and observed that the outcome "would be expected to affect" the parallel Samsung and LG suits, an interpretive prediction rather than a court finding. Note also that the sources disagree on basic framing: RPX treats the suit as one node in a multi-defendant campaign, FE Times frames it as NPE-style mass assertion against Korean conglomerates, and IPWatchdog's roundup misidentifies the defendant entity. No press account I found reports a damages demand figure or any settlement amount; the complaints themselves sought only "damages in an amount to be proved at trial," not less than a reasonable royalty, so the absence of reported numbers reflects the record, not a gap in reporting.

Sources

• IPR2021-00957, No. 1038 Exhibit - GOOG 1038 Complaint, RFCyber v LG, 2 20 cv 00336 JRG RSP 1 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2021) - Exhibits:
• RFCyber Corp. v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. - This case was last updated from U
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Patent Filings Roundup: Video Codec Wars, Gaming Industry Stung by Section 325 Discretionary Denial, Remote Surgical Robotics Suit Filed - 1:20-cv-01377 | Filed | Teladoc Health, Inc
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp. > Documents
• AO 120 (Rev
• WellcomeMat, LLC v
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Appendix C - Claim Chart for US Patent No. 9,189,787 Against Accused Ar
• Case 6:21-cv-00916-ADA-DTG Document 54 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 24
• Apple v. RFCyber | Patent Lawsuit 23-2396 - Apple, Inc. v. RFCyber, Corp.

I'll research the counsel of record for RFCyber Corp. in this case.

Let me verify against the actual docket and firm sources.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — RFCyber Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00336-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

RFCyber was represented by a two-firm team: its regular IP boutique, Fabricant LLP (Rye, NY), for substantive/prosecution-side work, plus McKool Smith, P.C.'s Marshall, Texas office as local counsel. No in-house counsel for RFCyber appears on the docket (RFCyber is an inventor-backed patent owner with no in-house litigation presence in the case).
All five attorneys below entered appearances on the docket; the appearance entries are reflected in the docket snapshot captured through 12/15/2020 (UniCourt mirror of the E.D. Tex. docket; PACER/CM-ECF docket sheet for 2:20-cv-00336).

Sourcing / caveats

• The five-name plaintiff roster matches the docket-derived attorney list for 2:20-cv-00336 (UniCourt docket mirror, last synced 12/15/2020) and the specific entries quoted there: Dkt. 8 (Truelove, 12/14/2020) and Dkt. 9 (Baxter, 12/14/2020), Dkt. 5 (Fabricant, 10/16/2020). The Rubino and Lambrianakos appearances were docketed but I could not independently confirm which of Dkts. 6–7 each signed — treat the doc-number assignment for those two as unconfirmed.
• Fabricant LLP's address, registration numbers, and the Rubino-lead/Lambrianakos-backup designations come from RFCyber's own PTAB Mandatory Notices in IPR2021-00980 (June 28, 2021) and IPR2021-00957 (Sept. 15, 2021), which also identify this LG case as a related matter (Case No. 2:20-cv-00336-JRG).
• Not confirmed for this case: Fabricant LLP's Jacob D. Ostling, Enrique W. Iturralde, and Richard Cowell appeared for RFCyber in the companion Samsung case No. 2:20-cv-00335 (see Dkt. 13, Notice of Attorney Appearance, Feb. 10, 2021) and/or in later RFCyber suits, but I found no record of them entering an appearance in the LG case before it settled. Because the publicly mirrored docket for this case ends in December 2020, later pro hac vice admissions (if any) would not appear in that snapshot; nothing indicates any filing in this case was sealed, so the absence is likely genuine rather than a sealing artifact.
• Counsel's participation here ended with settlement: a joint motion to stay deadlines and notice of settlement (Dkt. 33) and a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice followed in 2021, consistent with the AO-120 final judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice — both documents were later filed as exhibits in Apple Inc. v. RFCyber Corp., PGR2022-00003 (Paper 2006, 2007).
• Professional-history notes on Fabricant, Rubino, and Lambrianakos (e.g., prior firms) are drawn from firm/PTAB materials and general campaign history rather than a court opinion in this case; I did not verify their pre-Fabricant employment histories.

I'll search for the docket and counsel appearances in this case.

Now let me find the defense-side appearances — the joint motion to stay (Dkt. 33) and joint motion to dismiss should show LG's counsel signature blocks.

Let me pull the full docket from Docket Alarm and CourtListener.

Counsel of Record for LG Electronics, Inc. — Sourcing Status: Not Verified on the Public Record I Could Reach

I need to lead with a candid limitation, because inventing defense counsel here would be the easiest and worst failure mode.

What I could establish: No attorney appearance, answer, motion, or corporate disclosure statement filed on behalf of LG Electronics, Inc. appears in any publicly indexed version of this docket that I was able to retrieve. The UniCourt docket snapshot for 2:20-cv-00336 — the most complete docket text I found — is stale as of 2020-12-15 and lists only plaintiff-side counsel (Fabricant LLP: Vincent J. Rubino, III; Peter Lambrianakos; Alfred R. Fabricant; and McKool Smith: Samuel F. Baxter; Jennifer L. Truelove). Its entries run only through Dkt. 9. There is no LG-side entry at all in that snapshot, and I found no separate source identifying LG's district-court counsel by name.

That absence is real, not an artifact of thin searching in one direction: the case resolved without a litigated ruling (joint motion to stay all deadlines + notice of settlement, then joint dismissal with prejudice), so LG never needed to brief anything substantive, and the aggregate databases that mirror E.D. Tex. dockets never picked up the defense-side entries for this short-lived member case.

Where LG's counsel's names do exist — and why I couldn't read them

The signature blocks are in exactly two documents:

Both are listed on Patexia's document index for Apple v. RFCyber as "Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement in RFCyber Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00336-JRG (E.D. Tex.)" and "Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice in RFCyber Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00336-JRG." Because these were joint motions, they were necessarily signed by LG's counsel of record, and under E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-11 the signature block would carry name, bar number, firm, address, phone, fax and e-mail. I could not retrieve the body text of either exhibit (the Patexia page is an index only; the PTAB exhibit PDFs did not surface in searchable form). So the names are documentarily there and simply not machine-readable in what I reached. Note also, consistent with the prior section, that 2022-02-08 is the PTAB exhibit-filing date, not the date of the underlying LG-case filings.

What I can say about LG's likely counsel without asserting it as this case's record

I want to separate documented fact from inference very sharply here, because these are the names a reader will most want and they are the ones most dangerous to get wrong.

• Mayer Brown LLP (Washington, DC) — Jamie B. Beaber is the attorney who has appeared for LG entities in E.D. Tex. patent litigation in this period, and appears in the Federal Circuit docket as LG Electronics' counsel of record in a separate appeal (C.A.F.C. appearance listing showing Beaber, Andrew J. Pincus, Paul W. Hughes and Kfir Levy of Mayer Brown for LG Electronics, plus James Suh of LG Electronics' Seoul IP Center as in-house). The same listing shows a Quinn Emanuel-affiliated LG appearance history in Jenam Tech v. LG (4:19-cv-00249), with Robert A. Van Nest, Brian L. Ferrall, Michelle S. Ybarra, Kristin E. Hucek, Rylee Olm and Matthew Werdegar, plus local counsel Derek Dahlgreen and Timothy Devlin (Unified Patents portal).
• Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, TX) — Melissa Richards Smith is the recurring Marshall local counsel for LG Electronics, Inc./LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in Gilstrap/Payne patent cases of this era, e.g., Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. LG Electronics (E.D. Tex., filed 2022-12-23) and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics (2:23-cv-00316), where she appears alongside Richard A. Edlin, Rose Cordero Prey, Allan A. Kassenoff, Jonathan P. Presvelis, Stephen M. Ullmer, Vimal M. Kapadia and Jenna Kuh (Greenberg Traurig) (Patexia document list).

None of those attorneys is confirmed as counsel of record in 2:20-cv-00336. The 2020 LG Pay case predates the Greenberg Traurig appearances by roughly two years, and the Quinn Emanuel appearances above are from a different LG matter. Treat the three firm clusters (Mayer Brown / Quinn Emanuel / Gillam & Smith, plus Greenberg Traurig for later LG matters) as leads to check, not findings. The only LG-side individual I can place with confidence anywhere in the RFCyber ecosystem is James Suh of LG Electronics' Seoul IP Center, and I have no evidence he entered an appearance in this docket.

Contradiction / gap to flag

The prior section states the dismissal judgment date as September 2021 per the AO-120, and RPX's 2021-09-10 piece said LG had been dismissed "this past week." But the two joint motions that implement that exit surface only as February 2022 PTAB exhibits. That is not a true contradiction — filing dates of exhibits ≠ filing dates of exhibits' underlying documents — but it means the Dkt. 33 stay motion was likely filed around August 2021 and the dismissal in early September 2021, and I do not have the docket entries to confirm the exact dates or numbers. I also cannot confirm whether any pro hac vice motions were ever granted (which would have generated additional, separately indexed names) or whether the settlement papers were filed under seal.

Recommended verification path (cheap, and it will settle this definitively)

1. PACER, E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00336-JRG-RSP, Docket Report — pull entries Dkt. 10–Dkt. 36. Any "Notice of Attorney Appearance" or "Notice of Appearance — Pro Hac Vice" for LG will sit there, and Dkt. 33 is the signature-block document.
2. Pull Ex. 2006 and Ex. 2007 from PGR2022-00003 on PTAB's PTABE2E / PATS (not Patexia) and read the signature blocks directly — this avoids PACER fees and gives you both the trial and local counsel names in one place.
3. Cross-check against Dkt. 16 in the consolidated lead case RFCyber v. Google/Samsung, 2:20-cv-00274 (the Joint Motion for Extension of Deadlines, Ex. GOOG-1016 in IPR2021-00957) — that caption also carried a member-case line and shows how the campaign's defense teams were captioned, though LG is not a signatory there.

Bottom line: I will not name LG's counsel of record for this case because the accessible record does not support a name. The names exist in Dkt. 33 and in the PGR2022-00003 exhibits 2006/2007, and the two most probable firm candidates are Mayer Brown (Beaber) with a Marshall local-counsel firm — but that is an inference from LG's litigation pattern in adjacent matters, not a documented fact of this docket, and should be labeled as such in any filed work product.