SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al.

Case Overview & Background

Parties and technology. SpaceTime3D, Inc. is a small, New York-founded software company (reportedly launched in 1999) tied to inventor Ezra "Eddie" Bakhash, who publicly demoed a novel "3D web browser" called SpaceTime in 2007–2008 to press coverage in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, TechCrunch, and the San Jose Mercury News (see Bakhash decl., Ex. 2001, IPR2020-01419). Classification sources differ: Stanford's NPE Litigation Database and Ex Parte's docket analytics label SpaceTime3D a "practicing entity"/"operating company" (it shipped its own browser), while Unified Patents codes the patent owner as an "NPE (Small Company)" — reflecting that by the time of this suit its browser was defunct and its monetization ran through litigation. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) (Korea) and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. are the defendants; LG had announced its exit from the mobile-phone business in April 2021 (winding down by July 2021), yet SpaceTime3D pursued damages for LG smartphones sold earlier, principally budget models such as the LG K10 and Optimus Zone 3 shown in the complaint (Nexsis/Jeonpa news reports; Ex Parte complaint analysis of 2:22-cv-00049). The accused functionality is core Android mobile UX: the "recent apps"/overview timeline that shows open applications (e.g., Chrome, Clock, Calendar) as overlapping, stacked 3D card images in a timeline, and the Chrome browser's tab switcher, where webpage thumbnails stack in a simulated 3D view and tapping one replaces the 3D stack with a full-screen 2D window (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 58–72, 83–89).

Patents and procedure. SpaceTime3D asserted three related Bakhash GUI patents sharing a common specification lineage back to a September 13, 2005 provisional application: U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 ("System and Method for Providing Three-Dimensional Graphical User Interface," issued 2014) — webpages are rendered, captured as images, and "textured" onto objects at different depths in a simulated 3D space, with user selection replacing the 3D objects with a 2D window containing the previously rendered webpage; U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654 ("System and Method for Displaying a Timeline Associated With a Plurality of Applications," issued 2016) — a timeline of application images arranged in 3D for switching among multiple open apps; and U.S. Patent No. 9,696,868 (same title as '048, issued 2017) — claims directed to toggling between an active app in 2D space and stacked images of multiple apps/webpages in 3D space. The case was filed February 10, 2022, in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas (2:22-cv-00049-RWS) before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III — historically one of the most patentee-friendly venues, and the same court (Judge Gilstrap) where SpaceTime3D had earlier sued Samsung (2:19-cv-00372-JRG, settled ~2020 with related IPRs dismissed pre-institution). LG moved to dismiss in mid-2022 (SpaceTime3D's opposition, Dkt. 40, July 19, 2022, addressed LG's mobile-business exit, marking, pre-suit damages, and post-suit willfulness); the case proceeded through claim construction in late 2022 (technical tutorials and opening Markman briefs, Dkts. 88–93) before settling and closing in 2023 (defense counsel DLA Piper confirms a favorable 2023 settlement). In parallel, on the one-year anniversary of the complaint (February 10, 2023), LG — joined by Google LLC, which develops the accused Android/Chrome software — filed three IPRs (IPR2023-00577 on the '048, IPR2023-00578 on the '686, IPR2023-00579 on the '654), each seeking joinder to Apple's pending IPRs arising from SpaceTime3D's parallel Waco suit against Apple (6:22-cv-00149-W.D. Tex.); after settlement, LG entities were terminated from the IPRs, leaving Google to prosecute the joined proceedings.

Why it matters. The case is a textbook example of coordinated, high-stakes GUI-patent assertion and defense in the smartphone ecosystem: SpaceTime3D's patents read on the now-universal "card stack" design language (Android Recents, the iOS app switcher, and Safari/Chrome tab views), which SpaceTime3D contends it pioneered and publicly demonstrated years before those products. Its sequential campaigns against Samsung, then Apple (W.D. Tex., Judge Albright), and then LG put the same three-patent family before three separate courts, with Google and Apple coordinating IPR counter-attacks and joinder. The PTAB outcomes were largely dispositive: institution was granted August 7, 2023, and Final Written Decisions in June–July 2024 found claims of the '654 and '686 patents unpatentable and claims 14–18 of the '048 patent obvious (while leaving '048 claims 1–13 intact). In a final chapter relevant as of this week, the Federal Circuit on August 31, 2026 (Judges Stark, Prost, and Reyna) affirmed the PTAB in both appeals — upholding claims 1–13 of the '048 patent but confirming the invalidation of '048 claims 14–18 and all challenged claims of the '654 and '686 patents (IPWatchdog, Aug. 31, 2026; Law360). The district-court settlement's terms are not public, and I found no docket entry fixing the exact dismissal date beyond the 2023 close reflected in case databases.

I'll research this case through multiple angles: the district court docket, PTAB proceedings, and news coverage.

I'm getting good leads. Let me dig into the PTAB IPRs filed by LG/Google, the motion-to-dismiss ruling, and the final settlement/dismissal.

Excellent — I've confirmed the settlement date and IPR termination. Let me now map the district court docket in more detail and check the IPR filings on the other two patents.

I've reached the search limit for this session, but I have enough well-sourced material to construct a detailed chronology. Below is the development timeline, with explicit flags where a fact could not be independently confirmed from the sources retrieved.

SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00049-RWS (E.D. Tex.)

Case status: Settled and closed (2023). Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Robert W. Schroeder). Filed 2022-02-10. Patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048 ('048), 9,304,654 ('654), and 9,696,868 ('686).

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-02-10 — Complaint filed. SpaceTime3D sued LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., asserting infringement of the '048, '654, and '686 patents (jury demanded). The accused functionality centered on Android "recent apps"/timeline features on LG smartphones (e.g., LG Optimus Zone 3, LG K10) and stacked-tab views in the preloaded Chrome browser, with screenshots from LG user manuals cited in the complaint (per the Ex Parte complaint analysis, which maps claim elements to accused features for the '048 and '654 patents). Sources: Ex Parte case page & Doc. 1 analysis (ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:22-cv-00049); Stanford NPE Litigation Database.
• LG's answer / counterclaims: Not confirmed in the sources retrieved. The docket record shows LG moved to dismiss (below) rather than answering initially; I could not verify the date or content of any LG answer or counterclaims. LG's defense team was DLA Piper (Matthew Satchwell, Melissa Smith, Chris Duerden, among others). Source: DLA Piper attorney profile; Patexia docket listing.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• ~June 2022 — LG's motion to dismiss. SpaceTime3D filed its opposition on 2022-07-19 (Dkt. 40), which confirms LG moved to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6)-type pleading/challenge). The opposition brief reveals LG's arguments: (i) claims based on LG's announced exit from the mobile-phone business (SpaceTime responded by alleging continued mobile business and post-sale support/instructions); (ii) failure to plead marking compliance and lack of actual notice; and (iii) insufficiency of willful and induced-infringement allegations (SpaceTime had offered to drop its pre-suit willful/indirect claims, and argued post-suit willfulness and inducement were adequately pleaded). Source: Dkt. 40, filed 2022-07-19 (OCR copy via DocketAlarm); Susman Godfrey attorney profile (Gloria Park "briefed and argued against a motion to dismiss by LG").
• Ruling on the motion to dismiss: Not confirmed from the sources retrieved — no order granting or denying Dkt. 40's subject motion surfaced. Given that the case proceeded into claim-construction briefing in late 2022 and PTAB petitions in early 2023, the case evidently survived in substantial part.
• No transfer or stay-pending-IPR order confirmed. LG/Google's IPR petitions were filed 2023-02-10 (see §6), but the parties settled 2023-05-04 — before any IPR institution decision and before any stay motion would have been resolved. No summary-judgment motion was confirmed in the retrieved record.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The case reached the Markman phase but was settled before a final construction order was confirmed:

• 2022-11-22 (Dkt. 88): Order granting extension of time for preliminary election of asserted claims and asserted prior art.
• 2022-11-29/30 (Dkts. 89–93): Joint notice regarding a technical advisor; both sides' notices of compliance regarding a technical tutorial; SpaceTime3D's opening claim-construction brief (Dkt. 93, 2022-11-30).
• 2022-12-01 (Dkt. 94): SpaceTime3D moved for leave to supplement its infringement contentions.
• 2022-12-14 (Dkt. 95): LG filed its claim-construction response brief (with 12 exhibits).

Sources: Patexia docket listing (docs. 88–95). No Markman order or hearing ruling was confirmed before the 2023-05-04 settlement; the case's own briefing notes (via the IPR petition analysis) indicate no Markman order had issued as of early 2023.

4. Discovery milestones

• SpaceTime3D's counsel (Susman Godfrey, led by Y. Gloria Park) conducted "important discovery in both English and Korean," reflecting Korean-language discovery from LG's parent company. Source: Susman Godfrey/Lawdragon attorney profiles.
• 2022-12-01 (Dkt. 94): SpaceTime3D's motion for leave to supplement infringement contentions — a strategically significant contention dispute late in the discovery period; disposition not confirmed.
• Case-management activity in late November 2022 (technical tutorial compliance, technical-advisor selection, extension of election deadlines) indicates the case was tracking a standard ED Tex. patent schedule with a likely Markman hearing and trial in 2023. Source: Patexia docket listing.

5. Settlement, dismissal, final disposition

• 2023-05-04 — Settlement and License Agreement executed between LG (LGE) and SpaceTime3D, "completely resolv[ing] all pending controversies between LGE and SpaceTime concerning" the asserted patents.
• 2023-05-04 — Voluntary dismissal of the district court litigation with prejudice. Per the parties' joint representations to the PTAB, "SpaceTime voluntarily dismissed all claims in the LGE Litigation" on that date. The district court docket was thereafter closed. Sources: PTAB "Decision — Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial" (IPR2023-00577/578/579, Paper 12, dated 2023-05-31); Ex Parte case status "Closed"; DLA Piper profile ("settled favourably in 2023").
• No trial, verdict, JMOL, or fee motion. The case settled before trial; no such events occurred.
• No district court appeal — the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice as part of the settlement.

6. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings and their effect

• 2023-02-10 — LG + Google file three IPR petitions (exactly one year after the complaint): IPR2023-00577 (claims 1–18 of the '048 patent), IPR2023-00578 ('686 patent), and IPR2023-00579 ('654 patent). Petitioners: LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Google LLC. Sources: Patexia/Ex Parte/DocketAlarm case pages.
• 2023-05-09 — Joint motion to terminate as to LG filed, accompanied by the confidential Settlement and License Agreement and a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). Source: IPR2023-00577 Paper 9.
• 2023-05-31 — Board terminates the IPRs as to LG in all three proceedings (IPR2023-00577/578/579), citing the 2023-05-04 settlement and the strong public policy favoring settlement; Google LLC remained as petitioner and did not object. Source: IPR2023-00577/578/579, "Decision — Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial," Paper 12 (2023-05-31).
• Apple's parallel IPR on the '048 patent (IPR2023-00242) — instituted 2023-06-16 for claims 1–18 on two obviousness grounds: Robertson–Gralla–Gettman and Sauve–Tsuda (supporting declaration of Dr. Henry Fuchs). This institution decision expressly noted the '048 patent was asserted in the LG case (and in SpaceTime3D v. Apple, No. 6:22-cv-00149, W.D. Tex.). Source: IPR2023-00242 Institution Decision (2023-06-16).
• 2023-08-07 — Institution + joinder in IPR2023-00577 and IPR2023-00578. The Board instituted review of all challenged claims on the same grounds as the Apple IPR and joined Google to the Apple proceeding. By then LG had already settled and exited. Source: IPR2023-00577 Institution Decision (2023-08-07).
• Post-settlement final written decisions (no longer affecting LG):
  • IPR2023-00577 ('048): Final Written Decision 2024-06-13 — claims 1–18 found unpatentable; appealed by SpaceTime3D to the Federal Circuit as Appeal No. 2025-1082 (status: "Final Written Decision – Appealed"). Sources: Patexia, Unified Patents portal, DocketAlarm.
  • IPR2023-00578 ('686): Final Written Decision 2024-07-02. Source: DocketAlarm.
  • IPR2023-00579 ('654): Filed and terminated as to LG on 2023-05-31; the post-joinder final outcome for Google was not confirmed in the retrieved sources.
• Effect on the litigation: The IPR threat was real but never had time to influence the merits — LG filed the petitions, the parties settled ~3 months later, and the PTAB terminated LG from all three IPRs pre-institution. The later unpatentability findings (2024) benefited Google/Apple, not LG, and post-dated the district court dismissal.
• Related history: The '048 patent had previously been asserted against Samsung in SpaceTime3D v. Samsung, No. 2:19-cv-00372 (E.D. Tex.), which settled (IPR2020-01417/01419 dismissed pre-institution in March 2021). Sources: IPR2023-00577 Institution Decision; Patexia Samsung IPR docket.

---

Verification caveats

Facts not independently confirmed in the retrieved sources (and therefore not stated as certain above): the date/content of LG's answer and any counterclaims; the district court's ruling on LG's motion to dismiss; the disposition of Dkt. 94 (leave to supplement contentions); whether any Markman order issued before settlement; and the final PTAB outcome for Google in IPR2023-00579. The settlement date (2023-05-04), the with-prejudice voluntary dismissal, the termination of LG from the IPRs (2023-05-31), and the later '048 FWD/appeal are all well corroborated by PTAB filings and case-tracking services.

I'll search for press coverage of this case across multiple angles.

Let me pull the two specified IPWatchdog roundups and search for additional case-specific coverage.

Below is the press-coverage section. A note up front on scope: the reporting divides into (a) a small slice of LG-specific coverage at the time of filing, and (b) a much larger body of coverage of the Apple/Google IPR track — which is where the same three patents, and the same plaintiff, drew sustained attention. Genuine, on-the-record press about this LG case is thin, because it settled quietly within about 15 months of filing.

Korean trade press on the filing — the only contemporaneous coverage found. Newsis reported (Feb. 15/16, 2022) that SpaceTime3D had sued LG Electronics and its North American unit in the Eastern District of Texas on February 10, 2022, accusing three UI patents of infringement; the article identified the accused products as budget smartphones such as the LG K10 (a North America-oriented model, not a Korean-market flagship), noted that SpaceTime3D had filed a parallel suit against Apple over Safari's tab view, and placed the suit against the backdrop of LG's exit from the mobile business in July 2021. It quoted an LG official saying the company would "carefully review the lawsuit and respond," and framed the assert as part of the broader NPE (특허수익화 전문기업) phenomenon in patent litigation. Jeonpa Shinmun carried a substantially identical report reaching the same facts. Neither article reports a damages figure, and neither followed the case through to its 2023 settlement — so no settlement terms appear in any press account located. Note these are Korean-language outlets; the case drew no comparable English-language trade-press filing write-up that I could find.

The Federal Circuit outcome — where the case actually got reported. IPWatchdog covered, on Aug. 31, 2026, the Federal Circuit's two nonprecedential decisions (authored by Judge Stark, joined by Judges Prost and Reyna): in Apple Inc., Google LLC v. SpaceTime3D, Inc., the court affirmed the PTAB's upholding of claims 1–13 of the '048 patent but its invalidation of claims 14–18; in SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Google LLC, it affirmed the Board's finding that all challenged claims of the '654 and '686 patents were obvious. IPWatchdog explained the outcome turned on the construction of "the rendered first webpage" (meaning the version from which the captured image was made, not a freshly "live" render), and that the court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider Apple's reply-stage browser-caching theory — quoting the court that "'a petitioner may not in reply rely on new prior art to teach a claim limitation.'" Law360 — accessible via the Lawyers Weekly syndication — reported the same day (Elliot Weld, Aug. 31, 2026) that the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB rulings wiping out two patents and some claims of a third. The underlying opinions are public at govinfo (Appeal No. 25-1082) and govinfo (Appeal No. 25-1084), the latter reflecting that Apple's IPRs on the '654/'686 rested on the Anthony–Hanggie combination, with Google filing "substantially identical petitions" that were consolidated.

Specialist legal-analyst coverage. VitalLaw's IP Law Daily reported (Sep. 1, 2026, by Steven Melendez) that the Federal Circuit affirmed a ruling finding "some, but not all, claims of a 3D computing interface patent unpatentable." A second IP Law Daily entry (Sep. 3, 2026, by Mandavi Singh) framed the companion decision as holding that substantial evidence supported the prior-art findings while "the patent owner's narrower claim constructions lacked support," and listed counsel firms Gibson Dunn and Stradling Yocca. These are analyst summaries rather than original reporting, and — like the IPWatchdog/Law360 pieces — they are framed around Apple and Google, not LG; the LG case is described only as a related matter (e.g., the IPR institution decisions that recite the '048 patent "being asserted in SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00049").

Adjacent coverage and gaps. The Apple-side litigation generated its own law-firm commentary — e.g., Winston & Strawn published a client alert (Feb. 10, 2023) on Judge Albright's denial of Apple's motion to stay pending intra-district transfer in SpaceTime3D v. Apple (6:22-cv-00149, W.D. Tex.), which confirms the Feb. 10, 2022 Apple filing date and the three-patent family but does not discuss LG. Beyond this, I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, EFF, or Patently-O coverage specific to the LG action, and no reporting memorializing the May 2023 settlement — consistent with a confidential, no-press-release resolution. Two caveats for the record: I was unable to retrieve the content of the two IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" installments listed in the index (2022-02-17, one week after this complaint, and 2024-07-10, dated just after the June–July 2024 PTAB final written decisions), so although their dates bracket the two moments this case would most plausibly have appeared in a roundup, I cannot confirm from what I retrieved that either roundup discusses SpaceTime3D, and I have not attributed any specific statement to them. No press account I located reports a damages demand, a settlement figure, or a market-impact assessment for the LG case.

Sources

• Complaint analysis | 2:22-cv-00049 | SpaceTime3D Inc v. LG Electronics Inc | Ex Parte
• LG Electronics, Inc. - LG Electronics, Inc.
• Trials@uspto
• Case 2:22-cv-00049-RWS Document 40 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 32 PagelD #: 495
• 9696868 | NPE Litigation Database
• SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al
• 2:22-cv-00049 | SpaceTime3D Inc v. LG Electronics Inc | Ex Parte
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• PTAB Case List for Panel Judge MINN CHUNG - Applied Filters: PANEL JUDGE: Minn ChungClear All
• Docket Alarm | Litigation Outcomes, Delivered
• Search court records on patent:(8881048)
• SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. – CourtListener.com - Trial Court Document

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff SpaceTime3D, Inc.

A note on sources: I could not pull the PACER complaint/attorney-appearance sheets directly. The identifications below are reconstructed from public docket-aggregator records (Patexia, Ex Parte, DocketAlarm/Docket Alarm OCR exhibits), the PTAB record for the parallel IPRs, and firm/press materials (Susman Godfrey, NYLJ/Law.com, Lawdragon). All of these point consistently to Susman Godfrey LLP as SpaceTime3D's principal outside counsel in SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00049-RWS (E.D. Tex.), before Judge Robert W. Schroeder.

Lead / primary counsel — Susman Godfrey LLP

Additional docket-appearing attorney (affiliation needs verification)

Related but not "counsel of record" in the district case

• PTAB (IPR2023-00577, IPR2023-00578, IPR2023-00579): In the LG/Google IPRs against the '048 and '654 patents that ran parallel to this suit, patent-owner SpaceTime3D was represented before the Board by Todd Fitzsimmons (USPTO Reg. No. 44,683), who signed the joint motion to terminate after settlement. His firm was not identified in the snippets retrieved. These appearances are before the PTAB, not the district court, so they are not counsel of record in 2:22-cv-00049. (Source: DocketAlarm OCR, IPR2023-00577 filings dated 02/24/2023 and 05/09/2023.)
• In-house counsel: No in-house counsel of record for SpaceTime3D was identified in any public filing reviewed. SpaceTime3D is a small patent-holder entity (inventor E. Eddie Bakhash), and public records do not show in-house litigation counsel appearing.
• EDTX local counsel: I found no separate Tyler/Marshall-based local-counsel entry in the public excerpts reviewed. Susman Godfrey's Houston office (Tribble) may have satisfied local-counsel needs, but if a dedicated local counsel firm (common in EDTX) appeared, it is not visible in the docket snippets I retrieved.

Docket context confirming the Susman Godfrey / SpaceTime3D side

• Doc. 40 (filed 07/19/2022): Plaintiff SpaceTime3D, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss — addresses LG's arguments re: LG's exit from the mobile business, marking, and willfulness/induced infringement. Gloria Park's profiles specifically say she argued LG's motion to dismiss. (Source: DocketAlarm OCR of Doc. 40, filed as Ex. 1059-2 in Apple v. SpaceTime3D, IPR2023-00242.)
• Docs. 89, 92, 93 (Nov.–Dec. 2022): Plaintiff claim-construction briefing, technical-tutorial compliance notices, and joint notices filed by SpaceTime3D through Park and Tribble. (Source: Patexia document listing.)
• The case settled and was dismissed in 2023; the parallel LG/Google IPRs were terminated on joint motion (e.g., IPR2023-00577, termination papers May 2023), and DLA Piper's Christopher Duerden (defense counsel for LG) lists the matter as "settled favourably in 2023" before Judge Schroeder.

Bottom line: The identifiable plaintiff's counsel of record are Susman Godfrey LLP — Stephen Shackelford (lead), Y. Gloria Park (a/k/a Yoonhee Park), and Max Tribble — with Jesse Hindman likely (but not verified) also on the plaintiff's side. No filings appear to be sealed as to counsel identity, and no counsel-of-record gaps exist; the case simply closed after settlement. For a fully verified list, the definitive source would be the PACER attorney appearance records (Docs. 1, 5–10 range) for 2:22-cv-00049-RWS, which I could not directly access in this analysis.

I'll research the defense counsel for LG Electronics in this case.

The PTAB filings confirm DLA Piper as LG's IPR counsel. Now let me find the district court counsel of record — the attorneys who signed LG's motion to dismiss and other district court filings.

Let me search case-docket aggregators to identify the specific LG counsel of record in the district court case.

I've reached my search limit for this session, but I have enough well-sourced material — combined with the earlier-generated case sections — to answer. Here is the defense counsel picture, with explicit source-grading where the record is thinner.

Counsel of Record — Defendants LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.

Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)

All identifiable defense counsel are at DLA Piper LLP (US), which handled LG's defense in both the district-court action (2:22-cv-00049-RWS) and the parallel PTAB IPRs (IPR2023-00577/-00578/-00579). DLA Piper's own attorney profiles and the earlier-generated case analysis tie the firm to the favorable 2023 settlement before Judge Schroeder.

---

District-court / overall litigation counsel (DLA Piper LLP (US))

Confirmed sources for the Satchwell/Yamashita/Duerden trio: Joint Request re Settlement and License Agreement confidentiality, IPR2023-00577 (Paper 9, filed 05/09/2023) — signatures "Attorneys for Petitioners LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc."; Director Review denial, IPR2023-00242 (08/06/2024) listing the same DLA Piper trio. The earlier-generated sections additionally tie Satchwell and Duerden to the district-court matter via DLA Piper attorney profiles and Patexia docket listings.

---

Local counsel (ED Tex.)

Not identified / not confirmed. No Marshall/Tyler-based local counsel for LG surfaced in the retrieved materials. ED Tex. typically requires local counsel for out-of-district firms, and DLA Piper commonly pairs with Texas firms (e.g., in other LG matters), but I found no named local counsel in the docket snippets or firm pages retrieved. This is a gap, not a finding of absence — the definitive source would be the PACER appearance/attorney records on the LG answer or motion-to-dismiss filings.

In-house counsel

Not identified in public filings. No LG Electronics in-house attorney (e.g., from LG's IP litigation group) appeared by name in the retrieved PTAB or district-court documents. Korean parent LG Electronics Inc. was represented through outside counsel (DLA Piper) in all filings reviewed.

---

Source-grading and caveats

• Well-confirmed: DLA Piper LLP (US) as LG's counsel; Matthew D. Satchwell (Chicago), Christopher Duerden (Boston), and Brent Yamashita (East Palo Alto) as the attorneys signing on behalf of LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in the parallel IPR proceedings (IPR2023-00577/578/579) — which were filed one year to the day after this suit and are the same representation network as the district case.
• Corroborated but not re-verified this session: Satchwell's and Duerden's roles as district-court counsel of record in 2:22-cv-00049 rest on the earlier-generated sections (DLA Piper profiles; Patexia docket listing; DLA Piper's "settled favourably in 2023" description). That is consistent with — but not independently re-confirmed by — this session's hits.
• Not confirmed: the identity of LG's ED Tex. local counsel; any LG in-house counsel appearance; and the full caption-block attorney list on LG's actual district-court filings (the motion to dismiss, answer, and claim-construction response briefs). The retrieved DocketAlarm OCR of Doc. 40 (plaintiff's opposition to LG's motion to dismiss) did not include LG's signature block.
• No sealed-counsel issue: Nothing suggests defense counsel identities are sealed; the case simply closed after settlement (2023-05-04 dismissal), so there is no ongoing docket activity listing counsel. For a fully verified list, the definitive source is the PACER docket for 2:22-cv-00049-RWS (Docs. 1, 5–12, and LG's MTD/answer appearances), which I could not access directly.

Bottom line: LG's defense was handled by DLA Piper LLP (US) — with Matthew D. Satchwell (Chicago) and Christopher Duerden (Boston) as the most reliably identified district-court/litigation counsel, joined by Brent Yamashita (East Palo Alto) on the PTAB side, and Melissa Smith (also DLA Piper) named in the earlier analysis but not independently verified this session.