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

Based on the docket record, the PTAB files, and the Markman opinion, here is the case overview:

Parties and what each side does. SpaceTime3D, Inc. is a small Texas plaintiff and the patent owner; it is a former operating company turned monetization/assertion entity. Founded by E. Eddie Bakhash, SpaceTime3D launched a well-reviewed "SpaceTime" 3D web browser in 2007 that displayed webpages as images floating in a 3D "stack," with double-click switching to a 2D interactive view (Bakhash Decl., Ex. 2001, IPR2020-01419). By the time of this suit it appears to have been primarily enforcing its GUI patent portfolio (RPX/Unified Patents-type databases classify it as an NPE/small company in later IPRs), represented by Susman Godfrey (Max Tribble, Elizabeth DeRieux, Sidney Capshaw, Matthew Berry, Gloria Park) (Dkt. 1, 5–7, 11). Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korean parent) and [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) are large operating companies in the smartphone/tablet market, represented by Melissa Richards Smith. SpaceTime3D's own declarations stress that Samsung USA contacted it as early as 2008 about its 3D-browser technology for UMPC/mobile products — later cited as secondary-indicia evidence of commercial success and notice (Bakhash Decl., IPR2020-01419, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 16–24).

Patents and accused technology. The suit asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048 ('048), 9,304,654 ('654), and 9,696,868 ('868) — related patents sharing effectively one specification (Markman Order, Dkt. 104 at 2–3) rooted in a September 2005 provisional application (60/717,019). Technically: the '048 patent ("System and Method for Providing Three-Dimensional Graphical User Interface") claims methods of receiving webpage inputs, rendering/capturing the pages as images, "texturing" those images onto objects in a 3D space (foreground/background), and replacing the 3D objects with a 2D window for link interaction; the '654 patent ("System and Method for Displaying a Timeline Associated with a Plurality of Applications") claims a 3D GUI that organizes application images into an ordered timeline in virtual space so a user can switch among applications; and the '868 patent claims methods of opening multiple applications in 2D space, generating images of their outputs displayed in 3D space, and toggling between the 2D output and the 3D image stack upon selection. The accused products were Samsung smartphones and tablets running Android — infringement charts used the Galaxy S7 and "select Samsung smartphones and tablets," pointing to the touchscreen UI, the "Recents"/multitasking view, and Google Chrome/Samsung Internet browsers (SpaceTime3D P.R. 3-1 claim charts, Ex. 1015 in IPR2020-01417).

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. Filed November 14, 2019 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, the case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap (2:19-cv-00372-JRG). E.D. Tex. (Marshall) is the historically dominant patent venue, and Gilstrap's rocket docket pushed the case hard: a Markman hearing was held October 21, 2020, with the claim-construction Memorandum and Order issuing December 7, 2020 (Dkt. 104, construing terms including "3D space," "2D space," "texturing," "timeline," "foreground/background," and holding certain preambles limiting), and jury selection was set for May 10, 2021 in Marshall. In parallel, Samsung filed three IPR petitions on August 4, 2020 (IPR2020-01417 against '048, IPR2020-01418 against '654, IPR2020-01419 against '868) and moved to stay the district case; Judge Gilstrap denied the stay as premature because the PTAB had not yet instituted (see the stay-denial order circulated in the PTAB record, dated September 23, 2020 on the copy in PGR2020-00049 Ex. 1030, though the case summary in this file dates the denial December 4, 2020 — the PACER entry should be checked for the precise date). The case is notable as a pattern NPE-style campaign over pre-iPhone-era 3D-GUI/multitasking patents against major device makers: SpaceTime3D later filed the same family against LG and Apple (e.g., the Apple case filed in W.D. Tex. Waco in February 2022 and transferred to Austin as 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH). Crucially, the litigation ended not by merits ruling but by global settlement: in March 2021 Samsung and SpaceTime3D filed a joint motion to dismiss IPR2020-01417 stating they had settled and that the district case "is in the process of being dismissed concurrently" (IPR2020-01417, Paper 20, filed 3/10/2021; Board termination for settlement entered 3/15/2021), and Samsung later confirmed it took a confidential "Settlement and License Agreement" covering the '868 patent and other SpaceTime3D patents (Bakhash Decl., Ex. 2001 ¶ 24, IPR2023-00578). The district case was thereby resolved and closed in 2021 — the exact dismissal docket entry is not confirmed in my sources. Notably, the IPRs were dismissed before PTAB institution, so no merits invalidity decision ever issued in the Samsung IPRs; by contrast, later LG- and Apple-instituted IPRs on the same patents (IPR2023-00577/578/579 and IPR2023-00242/00343/00344) ran to final written decisions in mid-2024, evidencing continued validity battles over this portfolio.

Based on my research across court dockets, PTAB records, and secondary sources, here is the chronological account of SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex.). I note where specific facts are confirmed by docket entries/opinions versus where sources are thinner, and I flag inferences.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2019–2020)

• 2019-11-14 — SpaceTime3D filed its Complaint (Dkt. 1) in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271. SpaceTime3D asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048 ("the '048 patent"), 9,304,654 ("the '654 patent"), and 9,696,868 ("the '868 patent") — related 3D-GUI patents sharing effectively the same specification. (Dkt. 1; Markman Order, Dkt. 104 at 2–3.)
• 2019-11-14/15 — Jury demand (Dkt. 3), corporate disclosure (Dkt. 2), AO-120 notice (Dkt. 4), and appearances by Susman Godfrey counsel (Max L. Tribble Jr. as attorney-in-charge, Elizabeth DeRieux, Sidney Capshaw, Matthew Berry, Gloria Park). (Dkts. 5–7, 9, 11.)
• 2019-11-18 — Samsung Electronics America served; answer due 2019-12-09. (Dkt. 10.)
• 2019-12-03/04 — Samsung moved, unopposed, for an extension of time to answer and waived foreign service requirements; the Court extended the answer deadline to 2020-03-09. (Dkts. 12–13.)
• 2020-03-09 — Samsung's answer/response became due (per Dkt. 13). I could not retrieve the actual answer docket entry from the sources available, so whether Samsung asserted counterclaims is unconfirmed — treat that as an open item rather than verified.

2. Discovery & Claim-Construction Track (2020)

• Spring–Summer 2020 — SpaceTime3D served P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions with claim charts accusing Samsung Android smartphones and tablets (e.g., Galaxy S7 and later models) of infringing the asserted patents. Samsung's and SpaceTime3D's preliminary constructions (P.R. 4-2) were exchanged and later filed as exhibits in the PTAB IPRs. (Exhibits 1015–1017 in IPR2020-01417, filed 2020-08-04.)
• 2020-08-04 — Samsung filed three IPR petitions challenging all three asserted patents: IPR2020-01417 ('048), IPR2020-01418 ('654), and a third petition (the '868 patent; numbered IPR2020-01419 by sequence). (Dkt. 50 at 2, quoted in the 2020-09-23 stay order.)
• 2020-09-23 — Judge Gilstrap denied Samsung's Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Dkt. 50) as premature, following the court's uniform practice of denying stays before PTAB institution; the denial was without prejudice to refiling after institution decisions (expected Feb. 2021). (Order, 2020-09-23, filed as Ex. 2010 in IPR2020-01417; PGR2020-00049 Ex. 1030.)
• 2020-10-21 — Markman/claim-construction hearing held. (Dkt. 104 at 1.)
• 2020-12-04 — A renewed stay request was denied (per case metadata; the same date an amended Docket Control Order issued, Dkt. ~110). The parties continued toward trial.
• 2020-12-07 — Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 104) issued (33 pages), construing disputed terms in all three patents after briefing at Dkts. 55, 64, and 69.

Markman outcomes (Dkt. 104)

Key constructions reported in the order and secondary summaries:

• "3D space" / "three-dimensional space" terms construed in the context of a virtual, coordinate-defined graphical space; the Court treated the 3D- and 2D-space terms together.
• "2D space" — construed as a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional coordinate system (distinct from the 3D virtual space).
• "texturing" — "drawing or mapping an image onto a 3D object."
• "timeline" — a time-based sequence of images.
• "application-specific data" — "data specific to an application" (the Court rejected Samsung's broader reading that would arguably read "specific" out of the claims). (Casetext summary of Dkt. 104.)
• Preamble of the '868 patent's independent claims — found limiting based on antecedent basis supplied by preamble phrases (Samsung's position). (Dkt. 104; Casetext.)
• The order also adopted the parties' stipulated constructions and resolved several other disputed terms with detailed intrinsic-evidence analysis. I have not verified every term-by-term construction from the full order; Dkt. 104 (available via CourtListener/RECAP) contains the complete table.

3. Discovery Milestones of Strategic Significance

• Infringement contentions & claim charts (P.R. 3-1, spring 2020) defined the accused products (Samsung Android smartphones/tablets), which in turn framed Samsung's IPR petitions (Samsung's expert, Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj, relied on the EDTX infringement charts and proposed constructions in his IPR declarations). (IPR2020-01417 Exs. 1015–1017, 1024.)
• P.R. 4-2 preliminary constructions (mid-2020) previewed the key disputes: "background"/"foreground," "3D space"/"2D space," "rendered first webpage," and preamble issues. (Exs. 1016–1017.)
• Samsung 30(b)(6) deposition on licensing topics was rescheduled and, per the Court's Second Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 115, signed 2020-12-18), a special deadline (2021-01-19) was set for motions to compel arising from allegedly deficient 30(b)(6) testimony — an indication the parties were litigating damages/licensing discovery actively.
• Case schedule compressed through early 2021: per SpaceTime3D's IPR sur-reply (2021-01-14), the Second Amended Docket Control Order required all summary-judgment, Daubert, motion-to-strike, and motion-in-limine briefing to be completed before the PTAB's expected 2021-03-17 institution decision, with the joint pretrial order due immediately after — a schedule SpaceTime3D invoked under Fintiv to urge the Board to decline institution. (IPR2020-01417, Paper 19.)

4. PTAB IPR Proceedings and Their Effect on the Litigation

• IPR2020-01417 ('048), IPR2020-01418 ('654), and the '868 IPR — filed 2020-08-04 by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., challenging all claims with prior-art combinations (e.g., Miller/Miramar/Hennings/Holecek for '048; Holecek/Mastering XP for '654). (Petitions and Bajaj declarations, 2020-08-04.)
• SpaceTime3D opposed institution on 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)/Fintiv discretionary-denial grounds, stressing the imminence of trial, the court's denial of a stay, and that a final written decision would land ~10 months after trial. It filed a preliminary response, and the Board permitted sur-reply/reply briefing on the Fintiv issue in January 2021. (IPR2020-01417 Papers; PO sur-reply filed 2021-01-14.)
• 2021-03-15 — IPR2020-01417 was terminated — "Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial" (37 C.F.R. § 42.74); Samsung requested a fee refund (2021-03-16), approved 2021-03-30. The companion Samsung IPRs were likewise dismissed following settlement (a later mandatory notice in Apple's IPR2023-00242 confirms the 2020 Samsung IPR on the '048 patent "was subsequently dismissed"). (DocketAlarm IPR2020-01417 docket; IPR2023-00242 Patent Owner mandatory notices.)
• Effect on the litigation: The IPRs never reached institution or a merits decision. Their practical effect was (a) a failed stay bid (denied 2020-09-23 as premature and again 2020-12-04), and (b) settlement leverage that coincided with global resolution of the district court case in March 2021.

5. Trial, Verdict, and Final Disposition

• No trial occurred and no verdict was reached. The case was on a spring-2021 trial track — a court notice reflects jury selection reset to 2021-05-10 in Marshall before Judge Gilstrap — but the matter was resolved beforehand.
• March 2021 (approx.) — The parties reached a settlement; the Samsung IPRs were terminated as settled on 2021-03-15, and the district court case was thereafter terminated/closed on the docket. Plaintiff's counsel (Gloria Park, Susman Godfrey) publicly describes the outcome as "multiple favorable settlements for SpaceTime3D in its patent litigation against Samsung and LG in the Eastern District of Texas," which she shepherded "from initial filing of the complaints through settlement." (Lawdragon attorney profile.)
• Final disposition: settled and dismissed (case status: Terminated/Closed). The precise dismissal entry — e.g., a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a), and its exact date (likely March–April 2021) — was not retrievable from the free docket sources I consulted; the case is confirmed terminated in the E.D. Tex. docket and in later PTAB mandatory notices, which list the case as "Terminated."

6. Post-Settlement Developments on the Same Patents (Context, Not Part of the Samsung Case)

The Samsung litigation's settlement did not end SpaceTime3D's enforcement of these patents against other defendants:

• 2022-02-10 — SpaceTime3D sued LG Electronics (2:22-cv-00049, E.D. Tex.), which later settled (per the same counsel profile); LG and Apple subsequently filed new IPRs on the '048/'654/'868 patents (e.g., IPR2023-00242 and related Apple/Google proceedings; IPR2023-00577/-00578/-00579), which did reach final written decisions in 2024.
• 2026-08-31 — The Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential decisions in the Apple/Google IPR appeals: affirming the PTAB's split outcome on the '048 patent (claims 1–13 upheld, claims 14–18 obvious) and affirming the PTAB's obviousness findings on all challenged claims of the '654 and '868 patents. (IPWatchdog, 2026-08-31.) These rulings came years after and are independent of the Samsung case.

---

Key Takeaways / Bottom Line

• The case reached claim construction (Dkt. 104, 2020-12-07) and a fully-developed pre-trial posture (Markman done; SJ/Daubert deadlines set; trial set for spring 2021) but settled before trial.
• Samsung's stay pending IPR was denied twice (2020-09-23 as premature; 2020-12-04), and its three IPRs were dismissed pre-institution upon settlement in March 2021.
• Final outcome: confidential settlement and dismissal — case closed, with no jury verdict, no judgment on the merits, no appeal, and no post-trial motions.
• Unverified items (flagged, not fabricated): Samsung's answer/counterclaim filing (due 2020-03-09) and the exact date/terms of the Rule 41 dismissal. Full term-by-term Markman table is in Dkt. 104 (available on CourtListener/RECAP).

The initial searches surfaced mostly docket/PTAB records rather than press coverage. Let me run additional targeted searches for news articles.

Press and news coverage of SpaceTime3D v. Samsung (2:19-cv-00372-JRG)

Direct press coverage of this specific case is essentially nonexistent. Despite searching the case caption, party names, patent numbers, and settlement angles, I found no dedicated Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or mainstream-technology article reporting on the Samsung E.D. Tex. litigation itself — no stories on the 2019 filing, the December 2020 Markman order, the stay denial, or the March 2021 confidential settlement and dismissal. The extensive record that does exist online is docket-aggregator and PTAB material (CourtListener, Justia, UniCourt, Docket Alarm, Patexia), plus legal-database summaries such as Studicata, which summarize the claim-construction ruling. The case appears to have flown under the press radar, consistent with its ending in a confidential settlement roughly sixteen months after filing and before any merits decision.

What reporting exists about the Samsung case is indirect and mostly found in attorney-recognition profiles and coverage of SpaceTime3D's later suits. The New York Law Journal via Law.com reported on 2023-10-02, in naming Susman Godfrey associate Y. Gloria Park a "Rising Star," that she "secured multiple favorable settlements for SpaceTime3D after years of representing the tech company in its patent litigation against Samsung and LG in the Eastern District of Texas"; Susman Godfrey's own news release uses similar "favorable results" language and stresses that Park conducted discovery in both English and Korean, and a Lawdragon profile likewise credits her with "multiple favorable settlements for SpaceTime3D in its patent litigation against Samsung and LG." Those accounts go slightly beyond the bare docket record — the settlement terms themselves were never publicized (PTAB filings confirm the Samsung Settlement and License Agreement was filed under seal as confidential business information) — but no outlet has reported any dollar figure, royalty rate, or damages number for the Samsung deal.

Coverage of the follow-on Apple and LG litigation is where the press has contextualized the Samsung case. When SpaceTime3D sued Apple in W.D. Tex. in February 2022, MacTech (republishing AppleWorld.Today) reported on 2022-02-11 that "Spacetime 3D has also sued LG and Samsung for the same alleged patent infringement," describing the accused Apple features as 3D-stacked multitasking and Safari tabs; Brazilian outlet MacMagazine reported the same day, in Portuguese, that SpaceTime3D "também chegou a processar a LG e a Samsung pela mesma violação" and aired SpaceTime3D's allegations that Apple knew of the technology through press coverage of its 2007 3D browser. Law-firm commentary on the broader campaign — e.g., Fish & Richardson's Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up (Feb. 2023) covering the related SpaceTime3D v. Apple stay motion — treats the portfolio as GUI-patent enforcement against major device makers, and a Law360 IP listing previews 2026 Federal Circuit coverage of Apple/Google IPR wins against SpaceTime3D's GUI patents. In short: analysts and trade press have framed the Samsung suit as one leg of a multi-defendant assertion campaign over pre-iPhone-era 3D-browser patents, but no outlet has reported the Samsung case's facts, figures, or outcome beyond noting it was settled favorably and confidentially.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. – CourtListener.com - SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2:19-cv-00372 (E.D. Tex. 2020)
• Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 104 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 33 PagelD #: 2343
• SpaceTime3D v. Samsung Elecs. Co. - From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
• SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
• SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al - This case was last updated from U
• Rising Star: Y. Gloria Park | Law.com - Click to purchase an individual user subscription with your credit card
• PTAB Case List for Panel Judge MINN CHUNG - Applied Filters: PANEL JUDGE: Minn ChungClear All
• SpaceTime3D v. Apple — 3D GUI & Timeline Patent Transfer | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Filed: December 17, 2020
• Search court records on patent:(9304654), page 14 - - All Courts
• Search court records on patent:(8881048)

Plaintiff's counsel of record — SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

The E.D. Tex. docket shows five plaintiff-side attorneys of record, all entering between November 14 and November 22, 2019 (Dkt. 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11; mirrored on Justia's docket and UniCourt). No filings in this case appear sealed that would hide counsel, and no separate "local counsel" beyond these five appears on the public docket. All five were, per the contemporaneous record (Dkt. 1, 5–7, 11 and the PTAB papers they signed), with Susman Godfrey LLP — with Gloria Park's sworn PTAB declaration expressly stating "I am an associate with Susman Godfrey LLP, counsel for SpaceTime3D" in this litigation (IPR2020-01419, Ex. 2015 ¶ 1, executed in New York, N.Y., Jan. 14, 2021).

Sourcing and caveats

• Docket entries: Dkt. 1 (complaint, Tribble), Dkt. 5 (designation of attorney in charge — Tribble), Dkt. 6 (Capshaw appearance), Dkt. 7 (DeRieux appearance), Dkt. 9 (Berry appearance), Dkt. 11 (Park appearance) — as reported by Justia's docket (retrieved Dec. 7, 2020) and UniCourt.
• Firm status caveat: UniCourt/Justia do not list firm names for these appearances. The earlier case overview (provided as authoritative) attributes all five to Susman Godfrey, and Park's sworn declaration confirms Susman Godfrey for the SpaceTime3D-side team. However, DeRieux and Capshaw appear in 2023–2024 PACER records at Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Gladewater, TX), so if the question concerns their current affiliation, they are no longer with Susman Godfrey. During the relevant 2019–2021 window they functioned as part of the Susman Godfrey team (Houston/E.D. Tex. presence).
• No separate local-counsel entry appears on the public docket; the three Texas-licensed attorneys (Tribble, DeRieux, Capshaw) supplied the E.D. Tex. presence, while Park (NY) and Berry (WA) filed appearances and, per E.D. Tex. practice, would have been admitted pro hac vice or under the district's admission rules (the PHV motions, if any, were not in the sources reviewed).
• Defense-side counsel (Melissa Richards Smith, Gillam & Smith, for Samsung) is noted only for completeness and is not part of the requested plaintiff list.
• No evidence was found that any plaintiff-side filing or counsel identity is sealed; the case terminated via settlement in March 2021 (dismissal of the parallel IPRs, IPR2020-01417 Paper 20), with the district case closed thereafter.

Based on the available public sources, I can identify one clearly confirmed defense attorney of record plus Samsung's parallel IPR counsel, with an important caveat about the district-court record.

Confirmed counsel of record (district court)

Melissa Richards Smith

• Role: Attorney of record / local counsel for both Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. — the only defense attorney shown on the public docket (Justia and UniCourt snapshots list "Defendant Attorney: Melissa Richards Smith" for both Samsung entities; she filed the defendants' extension-of-time motion, Dkt. 12, in December 2019).
• Firm and office: Gillam & Smith, LLP, 303 South Washington Avenue, Marshall, Texas 75670 (firm/address confirmed by her notice of appearance in a later Samsung matter, Golden v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 6:25-cv-00596-DAE (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 7, filed Jan. 8, 2026).
• Experience note: A veteran E.D. Tex. patent litigator based in Marshall who regularly appears as lead/local counsel for Samsung and other technology defendants in the Eastern District's rocket docket; her filings in this case (motion for extension, Dkt. 12; answer-stage work) were entered under her ECF account, consistent with her acting as the primary admitted attorney for Samsung.

Samsung's counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings (not district-court appearances)

Robert Buergi, Brent Yamashita, and Jonathan Hicks — DLA Piper LLP (US)

• These three were designated as Samsung's counsel on its August 4, 2020 IPR petitions against the same patents (IPR2020-01417/01418/01419), as reflected in the PTAB's Notice of Accord Filing Date (IPR2020-01417, Paper 5, Sept. 17, 2020). DLA Piper's petition practice dovetailed with the district litigation (the petitions relied on the district-court claim charts and docket-control orders as exhibits), so DLA personnel very likely supported the defense strategy — but I found no confirmation that they filed pro hac vice appearances in the E.D. Tex. action itself.

Important caveat

The publicly mirrored docket (Justia/UniCourt) is incomplete — it was last retrieved in late 2019/December 2020 and does not show all filings. Samsung's substantive briefs (e.g., its claim-construction brief, Dkt. 64, and answer) would carry signature blocks identifying any pro hac vice lead counsel, but I could not access those documents to verify names. The public docket snippets contain no pro hac vice motions or notices of appearance for defendants beyond Melissa Smith, which could mean either (a) she served as the sole/lead counsel of record for Samsung in this case, or (b) out-of-state lead counsel appeared through filings not captured in the mirrored docket. PACER verification (case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG) would be required to state the complete roster authoritatively. I have not fabricated any additional defense attorneys, in-house counsel, or lead-counsel designations because none are confirmed by the sources located.

Bottom line: The only verifiable defendant's counsel of record is Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX). Samsung's IPR-side team was DLA Piper (Buergi, Yamashita, Hicks). Any fuller district-court counsel list (e.g., pro hac vice lead counsel) should be confirmed against the PACER docket before reliance.