Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.

Case Overview: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. (IPR2020-01418)

Parties and nature of the dispute. This matter is a now-terminated inter partes review (IPR2020-01418) before the PTAB, brought by petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (the world's largest smartphone/consumer-electronics manufacturers) against patent owner SpaceTime3D, Inc., a New York-based company founded by Ezra Eddie Bakhash. SpaceTime3D was once an operating company—it released a celebrated "SpaceTime" 3D web browser in 2007 (declaration of Eddie Bakhash, IPR2020-01419 Ex. 2001, describing press coverage in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Economic), but by 2019 it was behaving as a classic patent-assertion entity, suing major device makers over its early-2000s GUI patent portfolio. The IPR stems from the underlying infringement suit SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), in which SpaceTime3D accused Samsung's mobile devices of infringing three related patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048, 9,304,654 (the "'654 patent"), and 9,696,868 (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 12–14, cited in Samsung's stay motion, E.D. Tex. Dkt. No. 50; Markman Order, Dkt. No. 104 at 2–3). The accused technology, per the parties' claim-construction papers, centers on Samsung's graphical user interfaces for viewing and switching among multiple applications/windows—functionality the patent owner characterized as switching between active applications in 2D space and "images of those applications in a stack displayed in three-dimensional space" (Dkt. No. 104 at 3). The precise accused Samsung product models are identified in the complaint and expert declaration (Bajaj Decl., IPR2020-01418 Ex. 1026 § III.D), though the model-level detail was not retrievable from my sources.

The patent and procedural posture. The sole patent at issue in IPR2020-01418 is U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654, titled "System and Method for Displaying a Timeline Associated With a Plurality of Applications," which issued April 5, 2016, from a continuation (App. 14/503,142) of the application that became the '048 patent, and claims priority to a September 13, 2005 provisional (IPR2023-00343 Final Written Decision, available via Banner Witcoff, at § D). Technically, the '654 patent claims methods and systems for 3D graphical user interfaces in which computing output is presented as objects in a three-dimensional virtual space, a timeline of icons is generated in linear chronological order, and images (e.g., of webpages or applications) are textured onto foreground/background objects with which users interact before returning to 2D windows (abstract and claim 1 of the family, quoted in the E.D. Tex. Markman Order, Dkt. No. 104; IPR2023-00343 FWD). Samsung filed its petition on August 4, 2020—one of three parallel petitions covering all three asserted patents (IPR2020-01417/'048, IPR2020-01418/'654, IPR2020-01419/'868)—challenging all claims 1–19 of the '654 patent as obvious over Holecek (U.S. 8,341,541) combined with Mastering Windows XP Home Edition, and claim 5 further over Hellyar (U.S. 7,346,855), supported by a declaration from UT-Austin professor Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj (Ex. 1026). In the district court, the case was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas—historically the nation's most patent-plaintiff-friendly venue, which is why SpaceTime3D filed there—and progressed to a Markman hearing (Oct. 21, 2020) and Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 104, Dec. 7, 2020); Samsung's motion to stay pending the IPRs was denied without prejudice as premature on September 22, 2020 (Dkt. No. 69 order, quoted in PGR2020-00049 Ex. 1030). Before the PTAB could rule on institution (decisions expected ~February 2021), the parties settled: IPR2020-01418 was dismissed prior to institution, and the parallel E.D. Tex. Samsung case was terminated. (The dismissal is confirmed by the later IPR2023-00343 Final Written Decision noting "the '654 patent was involved in IPR2020-01418, in which the petition was dismissed prior to institution," and that the Samsung district case "has been terminated"; Google Patents likewise labels the IPR status "Settlement.") I could not retrieve the specific PTAB dismissal order or the district court's stipulated-dismissal docket entry in my searches, so the precise dismissal date and settlement terms are not confirmed here.

Why the case is notable. The IPR is a window into a broader NPE campaign: SpaceTime3D leveraged a single 2005-vintage GUI specification into a family of patents asserted sequentially against Samsung, LG (2:22-cv-00049, E.D. Tex.), Apple, and Google (6:22-cv-00149, W.D. Tex.). Samsung's coordinated three-petition IPR salvo and the pre-institution settlement illustrate the now-standard dynamic in which large operating companies use IPRs as leverage to force early resolution of GUI/software assertions in E.D. Tex. The case's significance deepened with hindsight: although Samsung walked away at settlement, later petitioners succeeded where Samsung's dismissed IPR left off—the PTAB's IPR2023-00343 Final Written Decision found all claims 1–19 of the '654 patent unpatentable, and on August 31, 2026, the Federal Circuit (per Judge Stark) affirmed the Board's obviousness findings for the '654 (and '868) patents in SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Google LLC (IPWatchdog, Aug. 31, 2026). Samsung's early, abandoned challenge thus foreshadowed the eventual wholesale invalidation of the very claims it had once elected to settle.

Scope note on the caption

The docket you cite — IPR2020-01418, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. & Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. — is itself the PTAB inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654, not a district-court infringement action. The underlying infringement litigation has the reverse caption:

SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) — Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne handled claim construction (Markman Order at Dkt. 104). SpaceTime3D asserted three related GUI patents there: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048 ("'048"), 9,304,654 ("'654"), and 9,696,868 ("'868"). Samsung filed three parallel IPRs — IPR2020-01417 ('048), IPR2020-01418 ('654), and IPR2020-01419 ('868) — all petitioned 2020-08-04.

Chronology below covers the district-court litigation plus the IPRs, with sourcing confidence flagged where docket-level detail is not publicly confirmed.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• Complaint — filed 2019 (case number 2:19-cv-00372 places filing in the 2019 calendar year). Per the complaint (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 12–14, as quoted in later orders), SpaceTime3D asserted the '048, '654, and '868 patents against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., with a jury demand. Accused products were Samsung Android smartphones/tablets (e.g., Galaxy S7 generation and later devices running Android/Samsung Internet/Chrome). Sources: Samsung's stay motion recitation, Dkt. 50, quoted in the Court's 2020-09-22 Stay Order (Ex. 1030, PGR2020-00049); SpaceTime3D P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions (Ex. 1015, IPR2020-01417).
• Docket Control Order — Dkt. 26 (referenced in SpaceTime3D's preliminary claim-construction disclosures, which were served under P.R. 4-2 and the DCO). A DCO later set jury selection for 2021-05-10 and trial for 2021-05-17 (order signed 2020-11-20; notice resetting jury selection; docket-sheet excerpt). Source: PTACTS docket-sheet download; IPR2020-01417 Ex. 2011.
• Samsung's answer and any counterclaims: Not confirmed in the materials I retrieved. I cannot verify the date or content of Samsung's answer, invalidity counterclaims, or any non-infringement pleading; do not treat those as established without a PACER check.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Samsung's Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Dkt. 50) — denied without prejudice, 2020-09-22. Samsung moved to stay the entire case pending PTAB review of all three asserted patents, noting it filed the three IPR petitions on 2020-08-04 and that institution decisions were expected around February 2021. Applying the standard three-factor stay test (undue prejudice; stage of proceedings; simplification), Judge Gilstrap held the motion premature because the PTAB had not yet acted, citing the court's uniform practice of denying pre-institution stays. The denial was without prejudice, with leave to refile within 14 days after the PTAB's last institution decision on the patents-in-suit. Source: Order signed 2020-09-22 (styled "SpaceTime3D v. Samsung … 23 Sep 2020," Ex. 1030 in PGR2020-00049; also Ex. 2010 in IPR2020-01417).
• Case-management acceleration (Second Amended DCO — 2020-12-18). The Court compressed the schedule: all substantive motions (including summary judgment) had to be filed and briefed before the PTAB's institution decision date of 2021-03-17, with the joint pretrial order due the day after. This was strategically significant because it sharpened the Fintiv timing argument for discretionary IPR denial. Sources: Ex. 2012, Second Amended DCO, cited in SpaceTime3D's 2021-01-14 Sur-Reply (IPR2020-01417); Ex. 2011 (Amended DCO, 2020-12-04).
• Motions to dismiss / transfer / SJ: No summary-judgment, dismissal, or transfer rulings are confirmed in my sources. The compressed DCO indicates SJ motions were due to be briefed by ~March 2021, but no SJ opinion was located; the case settled before trial (see §5). I cannot confirm the filing or outcome of any SJ motion.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• Preliminary constructions exchanged under P.R. 4-2 (SpaceTime3D's preliminary proposed constructions, Dkt. 26 DCO deadline; Samsung's counterpart disclosures also filed as IPR exhibits). Terms at issue included "background"/"foreground," "three-dimensional (3D) space," "two-dimensional (2D) space," and preamble limiting-ness of the '868 independent claims. Source: SpaceTime3D P.R. 4-2 disclosure (Ex. 1017, IPR2020-01417).
• Markman Order — Dkt. 104, filed/signed 2020-12-07 (Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne). The Court applied Phillips intrinsic-evidence principles, addressed stipulated terms, and resolved disputed terms for all three patents. Notable outcome: the Court held the preambles of claims 1, 10, and 19 of the '868 patent are limiting (contrary to SpaceTime3D's position), because the preambles supplied antecedent bases for body limitations; the Court also adopted constructions for the 2D/3D space terms across the patents-in-suit. The order barred the parties from referencing each other's construction positions or the Court's reasoning before the jury. Source: Dkt. 104 (CourtListener RECAP PDF); cited as "Markman Order … (12/07/2020)," Ex. 2009 in IPR2020-01417.
• The '654 patent's disputed terms (e.g., "3D space," "application-specific data," "foreground"/"background" in claims 1, 10, 19) were among those charted in Samsung's IPR expert declaration (Ex. 1026, IPR2020-01418).

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• Infringement contentions (P.R. 3-1) — SpaceTime3D served claim charts mapping, e.g., Galaxy S7 multi-touch, Chrome/Samsung Internet browsing, and app-switching behavior to the asserted claims. Source: Ex. 1015 ('048 chart), IPR2020-01417.
• Expert discovery — Samsung's Revised Expert Report of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson on invalidity and non-infringing alternatives for all three patents, produced 2020-12-18 under the protective order (Attorneys' Eyes Only). Dr. Bederson's theories relied on SphereXP, Windows XP, and Project Looking Glass prior-art software. SpaceTime3D's IPR counsel stated the report was unavailable to it due to the protective order — itself a recurring friction point between the litigation and IPR tracks. Source: Declaration of Y. Gloria Park (Ex. 2015, IPR2020-01419, dated 2021-01-14).
• Secondary-considerations/objective-indicia discovery: SpaceTime3D marshaled evidence of Samsung's pre-suit engagement with SpaceTime3D's 3D-browser technology (2008–2010 sourcing-conference meetings, technical discussions, emails) to support commercial-success/praise-by-others arguments in the IPRs and presumably in the litigation. Source: Declaration of E. Eddie Bakhash (Ex. 2001, IPR2020-01419/01417, dated 2020-12-17).

5. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions

• No trial occurred. Jury selection was set for 2021-05-10 and trial for 2021-05-17 before Judge Gilstrap (docket-sheet notice; order of 2020-11-20). The parties resolved the dispute before that date. No verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion exists — the matter never reached the jury.
• Mediation/settlement infrastructure: The docket reflects mediator David Folsom and technical advisor Scott Woloson, and counsel Susan Acquista appearing for Samsung Electronics America — consistent with an active settlement process in early 2021. Source: PTACTS/PACER docket-sheet excerpt. (Terms of any settlement are confidential and not public.)

6. Final disposition / present posture

• District court: The case was resolved by settlement and dismissal in 2021 (the exact stipulated-dismissal entry, its docket number, and date are not confirmed in the materials I retrieved; the dismissal almost certainly occurred between the March 2021 IPR-institution window and the May 2021 trial date). A PACER query of 2:19-cv-00372-JRG would be needed to pin the precise dismissal order.
• PTAB IPRs (including IPR2020-01418 on the '654 patent): All three Samsung IPRs — IPR2020-01417 ('048), IPR2020-01418 ('654), IPR2020-01419 ('868) — were dismissed/terminated before institution following the parties' settlement. Google Patents labels IPR2020-01418's status "Settlement." Because termination came pre-institution, there was no final written decision, no estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), and the PTAB never ruled on Samsung's grounds (e.g., obviousness over Holecek + Mastering Windows XP for claims 1–4, 7–13, 15–19 of the '654 patent; claim 5 over Holecek + Mastering XP + Hellyar) or on SpaceTime3D's Fintiv-based request for discretionary denial (argued in its 2021-01-14 sur-reply, which stressed the district court's denial of the stay, the same parties, and the March 17, 2021 institution-vs.-trial timing). Sources: IPR2020-01418 petition/Ex. 1026; Patent Owner's Sur-Reply (IPR2020-01417); case metadata.
• Practical effect of the IPRs on the litigation: The petitions drove Samsung's stay motion (denied 2020-09-22) and the Court's accelerated, pre-institution trial schedule — which in turn gave SpaceTime3D a strong Fintiv story. The settlement then mooted both tracks simultaneously, terminating the IPRs pre-institution and ending the litigation before the May 2021 trial.

7. Later parallel proceedings on the same patents (post-settlement context)

The settlement with Samsung did not end SpaceTime3D's enforcement of the same family. For completeness and context:

• LG Electronics filed IPR2023-00577 ('048), IPR2023-00579 ('654), and IPR2023-00578 ('868) — the latter two later joined with Apple's IPR2023-00343 ('654) and IPR2023-00344 ('868); Apple's IPR2023-00242 corresponds to '048 (IPR2023-00242, -00343, -00344).
• The USPTO also opened ex parte reexaminations 90/019,353 ('048), 90/019,351 ('654), and 90/019,352 ('868) — a March 2024 Board email chain shows the parties disputing whether those reexams should be stayed pending the corresponding IPR final written decisions. Source: Joint reply to Board email, Ex. 3003, IPR2023-00242 et al. (2024-04-10).

---

Sourcing-confidence summary

If you want, I can next pull the PACER docket for 2:19-cv-00372-JRG to pin down Samsung's answer, any summary-judgment motion, and the exact stipulated-dismissal entry, or trace the later Apple/LG IPRs and reexaminations on the '654 patent.

Counsel of Record — Samsung Electronics v. SpaceTime3D (IPR2020-01418)

Threshold clarification on roles

Before listing names, one structural point matters: this is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action, so the caption has a petitioner and a patent owner — not a "plaintiff" and "defendant." The case metadata lists Samsung (the petitioner) as "Plaintiff(s)" and SpaceTime3D (the patent owner) as "Defendant(s)." In the underlying infringement suit from which this IPR sprang — SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex.) — the roles were reversed: SpaceTime3D was the plaintiff and Samsung the defendant. I address Samsung's counsel first (matching the metadata's "plaintiff" label), then SpaceTime3D's counsel, and flag where the underlying district-court record could not be confirmed.

Samsung (petitioner; listed as "Plaintiff" in the case metadata)

Outside counsel — DLA Piper. The only attorney-level identification of Samsung's counsel I could retrieve comes from the Certificate of Service on SpaceTime3D's Patent Owner Power of Attorney (IPR2020-01417, filed Aug. 25, 2020), which certifies service of the patent owner's papers on Samsung's counsel at DLA Piper email addresses: robert.buergi@dlapiper.com, brent.yamashita@dlapiper.com, jonathan.hicks@dlapiper.com, naming "Robert Buergi, Brent Yamashita, Jonathan Hicks" as the persons served (see Docket Alarm copy of Patent Owner's Power of Attorney, IPR2020-01417).

• Robert Buergi — presumed lead/backup IPR counsel for Samsung, DLA Piper. (Office location not confirmed from my sources; do not treat as verified.)
• Brent Yamashita — presumed IPR counsel for Samsung, DLA Piper. (Office location not confirmed.)
• Jonathan Hicks — presumed IPR counsel for Samsung, DLA Piper. (Office location not confirmed.)

I was unable to retrieve the petition's Mandatory Notices page (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) for IPR2020-01418 itself, which would designate lead and backup counsel formally — the IPR was dismissed pre-institution, and the specific petition/designation documents for the '654 patent proceeding did not surface in my searches. The DLA Piper attribution rests on the service certificate in the sister proceeding, which is strong but indirect evidence; the same trio was evidently counsel of record across Samsung's coordinated three-petition campaign (IPR2020-01417/'048, -01418/'654, -01419/'868).

In-house counsel signatories (Samsung Electronics' Petitioners' Power of Attorney, IPR2020-01419, dated Aug. 4, 2020):

• Justin Choi Keunwoo — Principal Legal Counsel, IP Litigation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (in-house; signed the POA authorizing outside counsel to prosecute the IPRs). Note the signature block reads "/Justin Choi Keunwoo/," which appears to be a romanization rendering of the Korean name order.
• Brittany L. McElmury — Senior Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (in-house; signed July 9, 2020).

Experience note: DLA Piper has long been one of the firms Samsung retains for high-volume IPR and district-court patent defense, particularly against non-practicing-entity assertions; these three IPRs fit that pattern.

SpaceTime3D (patent owner; the actual infringement plaintiff below; "Defendant" in metadata)

SpaceTime3D's counsel of record in the parallel IPR2020-01417 (the '048 patent) is expressly identified in its Power of Attorney, filed Aug. 25, 2020, and the same engagement structure almost certainly applied to IPR2020-01418 (the '654 patent), since the three IPRs were coordinated:

• Todd E. Fitzsimmons — Lead Counsel for Patent Owner, Fitzsimmons IP Law, P.C., P.O. Box 199, Gardena, CA 90248 (USPTO Reg. No. 44,683). Fitzsimmons IP Law is a boutique known for representing patent owners/NPEs before the PTAB and in E.D. Tex. litigation.
• Gregory Cordrey — Backup Counsel, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, 3 Park Plaza, #1100, Irvine, CA 92614 (USPTO Reg. No. 44,089).
• POA executed by E. Eddie Bakhash, President of SpaceTime3D, Inc.

(The Fitzsimmons/Cordrey designations come from the IPR2020-01417 docket; the analogous POA for IPR2020-01418 was not directly retrieved.)

What I could not confirm

• The lead/backup counsel designations on the face of the IPR2020-01418 petition (Mandatory Notices) and the PTAB dismissal order terminating the case pre-institution.
• The full district-court appearance list for plaintiff SpaceTime3D in 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex.) — e.g., whether Fitzsimmons also served as trial counsel or whether local Texas counsel appeared — because I hit my search limit before reaching the PACER/docket entries. If the request is specifically about the E.D. Tex. plaintiff's trial counsel, that list remains unverified and should be pulled from the case docket before citation.

Bottom line: For Samsung — the metadata's "plaintiff" — the retrievable record shows DLA Piper attorneys Robert Buergi, Brent Yamashita, and Jonathan Hicks as counsel of record (role designations not individually confirmed), supported by in-house signatories Justin Choi Keunwoo (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) and Brittany L. McElmury (Samsung Electronics America). For SpaceTime3D, the actual infringement plaintiff below, PTAB counsel of record was Todd E. Fitzsimmons (lead) and Gregory Cordrey (backup). No attorneys have been invented here; anything not directly evidenced is flagged as unconfirmed.

Counsel of Record Analysis

Scope and framing

A threshold clarification matters here. The metadata for IPR2020-01418 identifies Samsung as Petitioner and SpaceTime3D as Patent Owner—there is no "defendant" in an IPR as such. The "defendant(s) in this patent infringement case" can only refer to the parallel district-court infringement suit that generated the IPR: SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), in which the defendants were Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. That is how I read the question below. (For completeness, if the intended referent is the PTAB respondent/patent owner SpaceTime3D, its counsel is identified as well.)

What is verified from retrieved sources

My search budget expired before I could pull Samsung's attorney-appearance entries from PACER or the PTAB petitioner mandatory notices in IPR2020-01418, so I cannot verify the names of Samsung's defense counsel of record from the documents retrieved, and I will not guess. No Samsung attorney names appear in any of the filings I was able to open (which are all patent-owner exhibits and notices). That is an explicit gap, not an inference that Samsung lacked counsel.

What the retrieved record does confirm is the counsel for the patent owner/plaintiff, SpaceTime3D:

1. Todd E. Fitzsimmons — Lead Counsel for SpaceTime3D before the PTAB

• Fitzsimmons IP Law, P.C., P.O. Box 199, Gardena, CA 90248 (USPTO Reg. No. 44,683).
• Designated Lead Counsel in SpaceTime3D's Patent Owner Mandatory Notices in the parallel Samsung IPRs (IPR2020-01417, filed Aug. 25, 2020; the identical designation appears again in IPR2023-00242). Source: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, IPR2020-01417, Paper 4 (docketalarm.com, USPTO filing, Aug. 25, 2020).
• Note: The mandatory notice I retrieved is docketed in the companion IPR2020-01417 ('048 patent); Samsung filed all three IPRs (01417/01418/01419) on the same date and SpaceTime3D's notices in the siblings follow the same form, but I did not directly retrieve the 01418 notice. The designation for 01418 is almost certainly identical but should be confirmed against the PTAB docket.

2. Gregory Cordrey — Backup Counsel for SpaceTime3D before the PTAB

• Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, 3 Park Plaza, #1100, Irvine, CA 92614 (USPTO Reg. No. 44,089).
• Same source as above (Patent Owner Mandatory Notices, IPR2020-01417, Paper 4).
• Experience note: patent litigator/PTAB practitioner; repeat backup counsel for SpaceTime3D across its IPR defenses (also designated in IPR2023-00242, per the mandatory notice filed Dec. 7, 2022).

3. Susman Godfrey LLP — District-court litigation counsel for SpaceTime3D (the plaintiff) in the underlying E.D. Tex. case

• Confirmed by the Declaration of Y. Gloria Park (associate at Susman Godfrey), filed Jan. 14, 2021 as Patent Owner Exhibit 2015 in IPR2020-01419 and Exhibit 2013 in IPR2020-01417: "I am an associate with Susman Godfrey LLP, counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc., in litigation captioned SpaceTime3D Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex.)."
• A USPTO PTACTS-linked litigation-support document also associates Susman Godfrey (offices in Houston, New York, and Seattle) with the SpaceTime3D v. Samsung 2:19-cv-00372 EDTX matter and lists a Seattle Susman Godfrey attorney, Matthew Berry (206-373-7394), in connection with that case; the snippet's formatting does not let me confirm whether Berry appeared as lead trial counsel or in another capacity, so I flag that as likely-but-unverified.
• Experience note: Susman Godfrey is a nationally recognized plaintiffs' trial boutique (frequent lead counsel in high-stakes commercial and patent trials); Y. Gloria Park is an associate in its New York/Houston patent practice.

Samsung's side (the defendants)

Samsung was represented in the IPRs and the district court by counsel I could not identify from the materials retrieved in this session. Available confirmatory routes:

• PTAB: Petitioner Samsung's Mandatory Notices (Paper 2/3) in IPR2020-01418—filed Aug. 4, 2020, the same day as the petition (Ex. 1026, Bajaj Declaration, docketed Aug. 4, 2020)—designate Samsung's lead and backup counsel; the petition signature block names the drafting firm. This is the fastest authoritative source and is publicly available on the PTAB's docket (PTAB portal/Google Patents listing IPR2020-01418).
• District court: Attorney appearance entries on the PACER docket for 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex.) list Samsung's local and lead counsel; the case is terminated, so the docket is closed but public.

I did not retrieve either document, and no Samsung attorney name appears in the filings captured above. Per the operating rules, I will not supply names from memory or inference.

Bottom line

• SpaceTime3D (patent owner/IPR respondent): PTAB counsel — Todd E. Fitzsimmons (lead, Fitzsimmons IP Law, Gardena, CA) and Gregory Cordrey (backup, Jeffer Mangels, Irvine, CA); district-court litigation counsel — Susman Godfrey LLP (including Y. Gloria Park; Matthew Berry of the Seattle office appears in connection with the case).
• Samsung (defendant in the underlying infringement case): counsel of record not confirmed from sources retrieved within the search budget; verify via Petitioner Samsung's Mandatory Notices in IPR2020-01418 (filed Aug. 4, 2020) and the appearance entries on the 2:19-cv-00372-JRG docket.