SureCell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.

I'll research the parties, patents, and docket before drafting.

Case Overview — SureCell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and posture. Plaintiff SureCell Transactions LLC is a U.S. patent-assertion entity (NPE/PAE) that, according to Korean business press, holds a portfolio of mobile-financial-technology patents it now seeks to license/enforce through litigation; one docket aggregator labels SureCell's party type as "Operating Company," but that classification is contradicted by the reporting, and I could not verify SureCell's formation history, principals, or the chain of title from any primary source in this session (ExParte case page; Seoul Economic Daily, Mar. 15, 2026). Defendants are Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (the U.S. sales/marketing subsidiary) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (the Korean parent and manufacturer). The complaint was filed February 12, 2026 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne; the docket reflects a jury demand by Plaintiff and a stated damages demand of $500,000,000 (aggregated docket). I was not able to pull PACER directly, so defense counsel, the Rule 12/answer posture, and any scheduling order or Markman date are unverified here.

Accused technology and patents. The accusation targets a broad swath of Samsung mobile hardware and the payment stack running on it: Galaxy S, Note, Z Fold/Flip and A-series smartphones, Galaxy Watch wearables, and Galaxy Tab tablets, accused of infringement through NFC-based short-range transactions authenticated by fingerprint/biometric sensor or PIN — i.e., Samsung Pay/Samsung Wallet (and the Samsung Blockchain Wallet), plus third-party payment apps, and adjacent functions such as smart-lock and automotive digital-key use (ExParte complaint analysis; The Biz, Sept. 5, 2026). The asserted family shares a joint priority date of May 6, 2005 and was revived via 2022–2024 continuations. Per the complaint analysis and press descriptions, the six patents are: US 7,924,156 — an RFID tag/device with a switch logic selecting among "ON" states so RF transmission is gated on the selected (authenticated) state (asserted claims include 20, 29 and method claim 60); US 11,347,949 — a cellular telephone with an inductive antenna/coupling and an electronic switch that changes circuit state to enable payment communication; US 11,599,734 — "Methods of Inductive Communication in a Cellular Telephone," covering the proximity-to-POS + state-change + inductive financial-data-transmission method (claims 1, 15, 23); US 11,687,741 — a method variant in which the switch is activated responsive to a biometric sensor, spanning NFC, RF, Wi-Fi and cellular channels; US 11,989,612 — "Cellular Telephone Including Biometric Sensor" (issued May 21, 2024; claims 1–5), biometric-triggered payment transmission; and US 12,039,396 — "Cellular Telephone Including Biometric Control of Transactions" (issued July 16, 2024; claims 1–17, 19–20), multi-radio phone with biometric approval of transactions and access-control uses. One lead I could not confirm: a Court of Federal Claims complaint in which "Mynette" was the assignee and Steven Colby the sole inventor of the '156 patent — if accurate, it would identify the original inventor/prosecution lineage, but I did not verify that link to SureCell's chain of title (CL docket 33829).

Why it matters. Venue is the headline: EDTX's Marshall Division before Judge Gilstrap remains the highest-volume, fastest-moving patent venue in the country, and a $500M ad damnum against a $1B+-scale Galaxy/Samsung Wallet franchise makes this a portfolio-scale exposure rather than a nuisance suit. The case also sits inside a documented 2026 wave of NPE activity against Korean tech — the same reporting pairs it with Netlist v. Samsung, a ~$191.4M OLED verdict against Samsung in the Pictiva matter, and Alpha Touch litigation against Samsung Display. Most significantly for strategy, Samsung has already moved at the PTAB: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. SureCell Transactions LLC, IPR2026-00508 and IPR2026-00511, were both filed September 22, 2026 and remained pending with no institution decision (and no assigned APJs) at the time of my source (IPR2026-00508; IPR2026-00511). Two petitions roughly seven months after filing is consistent with a one-petition-per-patent strategy and lands comfortably inside the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year bar (≈February 2027), setting up the familiar EDTX stay fight and Fintiv-style discretionary-denial briefing; I could not verify whether additional IPRs covering the other four patents exist. Absent verified invalidity or § 101 rulings, the substantive vulnerability angle is analytic rather than sourced: 2005-priority continuations claiming generic "cellular telephone + biometric sensor + payment" functionality map onto a crowded, decades-old mobile-payments prior-art field, which typically invites Alice/§ 112 and anticipation challenges — but no court or Board decision on these patents has issued that I could find. Facts marked "unverified" above should be confirmed against PACER and PTAB before being relied on.

I'll research this case through multiple searches, starting with the docket and party information.

Good — the case is real and I have initial leads, including an IPR. Let me dig deeper on the docket, pleadings, and PTAB proceedings.

I've hit my research limit for tool calls. Here's what the record supports, with clear flags where the record is thin. Bottom line up front: this case is at a very early stage — roughly eight months old and still pending, with only two confirmed milestones (the complaint and a single Samsung IPR petition). Most of the categories you asked about have no public record yet.

---

Case posture snapshot (as of 2026-10-12)

---

Chronological developments

1. Filing & initial pleadings

2026-02-12 — Complaint filed. SureCell Transactions LLC (identified in Korean trade press as a U.S. NPE/patent-assertion entity, "특허관리형법인") filed a six-patent infringement action in Marshall. The complaint names Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., demands a jury, and seeks $500M. Per the complaint-analysis summary (Ex Parte AI Lab), the patents and asserted claims break down roughly as:

• '156 ("RFID device" with a mechanical switch) — claims 20, 29, and method claim 60; switch-dependent RF transmission.
• '949 — cellular-telephone system with inductive antenna and an internal electronic switch that changes circuit state to enable payment communication.
• '734 ("Methods of Inductive Communication in a Cellular Telephone") — claims 1, 15, 23; POS-proximity + authentication-state + inductive-coupling steps.
• '741 — method claims emphasizing activation of the electronic switch responsive to a biometric sensor, across NFC/RF/Wi-Fi/cellular.
• '612 ("Cellular Telephone Including Biometric Sensor") — claims 1–5.
• '396 ("Cellular Telephone Including Biometric Control of Transactions") — claims 1–17, 19–20; two wireless modes + biometric approval, extending to access control (car unlock, locks, digital ID).

Accused instrumentalities: Galaxy S / Note / Z Fold-Flip / A-series phones, Galaxy Watch wearables, Galaxy Tab tablets, and Samsung Pay / Samsung Blockchain Wallet functionality, using NFC and biometric (fingerprint) authentication. The complaint's caption image referenced "future/conceptual" products (Galaxy Z Fold7, Galaxy S25 Ultra).

2. Answer, counterclaims — no public record located

I could not locate a docketed answer, Rule 12 motion, or invalidity/non-infringement counterclaims. The main aggregator page states plainly that "the docket is incomplete," so this is a source-visibility gap, not confirmation that nothing was filed. Given the filing date, an answer was almost certainly due in spring 2026, but I will not state a date I can't source.

3. Pre-trial motions (MTD / transfer / stay) — none located

No motions to dismiss, §1404/§1406 transfer, or stay-pending-IPR appear in the accessible record. A stay motion would be premature anyway: the only IPR was filed 2026-09-22 and has not been instituted (see §9).

4. Claim construction (Markman) — no evidence the case reached this stage

No Markman order, claim-construction brief, or hearing was found. At ~8 months post-filing, a Gilstrap/Payne Marshall case would typically be in discovery with claim construction briefing looming, but I found no public docket entry confirming it.

5. Discovery — no substantive milestones located

No source identifies a scheduling order, discovery cutoff, ESI disputes, or expert-report deadlines. Nothing confirmed.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions — none; case has not been tried

No trial date, verdict, or JMOL/new-trial/fee motion exists for this case.

7. Disposition / present posture

Pending. No settlement, dismissal, consent judgment, or appeal. The active defense track appears to be the PTAB challenge below.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings

2026-09-22 — IPR2026-00508, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. SureCell Transactions LLC (filed). This is the single confirmed parallel proceeding. Per Ex Parte's PTAB tracker: status Pending, no institution decision, no final written decision, administrative patent judges not yet assigned. Petition content (challenged patent/claims, grounds) was not yet publicly available in full at the time of the coverage I found. Practical read: the petition was filed within the §315(b) one-year window (complaint Feb 2026), and an institution decision would ordinarily be expected in the first half of 2027. No effect on the litigation is yet documented.

I found no PGR and no additional IPRs (e.g., against '612 or '396) in the searchable record.

---

Important caveat — cases that are NOT this case

My searches surfaced two unrelated Samsung E.D. Tex. matters that you should not conflate with SureCell:

• Vasu Holdings LLC v. Samsung — six patents on roaming/broadband; five-day trial before Judge Gilstrap; jury awarded Vasu ~$3M (vs. >$150M sought) on one of three patents; WilmerHale defense win announced 2026-07-08. Different plaintiff, different patents.
• A separate ~$78.5M E.D. Tex. Samsung verdict where the patent owner opposed a new trial (Law360, 2026-05-06). Also not SureCell.

Sourcing note

The firm specifics above (asserted claims, product lists) come from an AI-generated complaint-analysis summary and a Korean trade-press article (the-biz.co.kr, 2026-09-05), not from primary court documents, and the complaint-analysis source shows some internal inconsistency in how it labels the '612/'734 patents. Treat claim-number and title details as provisional until the complaint and docket are pulled directly from PACER/RECAP. The docket aggregator itself flags its record as incomplete, which is why sections 2–6 are gaps rather than findings.

If you want, I can attempt a follow-up pass focused specifically on the PACER/RECAP docket sheet, the IPR2026-00508 petition PDF, and any early scheduling order — that's where the missing answer/counterclaim and scheduling dates would surface.

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

Let me dig deeper across more outlets and angles.

Press and Analysis Coverage

Press coverage of SureCell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is thin and almost entirely non-U.S. trade/regional reporting rather than mainstream or specialist IP litigation outlets. I found no articles on this case in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, JD Supra, or comparable English-language litigation-tracking publications.

The earliest coverage I located is a Korean-language business-press article by The Biz (더비즈), published 2026-09-05 and credited to Seoul Wire reporter Chun Seong-yoon, which describes the Feb. 12, 2026 filing in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas. The article identifies SureCell Transactions as a U.S. mobile-financial-technology NPE and says it accuses Samsung Electronics and Samsung Electronics America of infringing six patents — 7,924,156; 11,347,949; 11,599,734; 11,687,741; 11,989,612; and 12,039,396 — covering short-range (NFC/RFID) communication design, biometric authentication, and financial-transaction methods. It walks through each asserted patent (the '156 RFID tag/switch structure, the '949 inductive-antenna phone system, the '734 and '741 method claims, the '612 biometric-sensor patent, and the '396 dual-mode/biometric-control patent) and reports that the accused products include Galaxy S/Z/A-series smartphones, Galaxy Watch wearables, and Galaxy Tab tablets used with Samsung Pay (Samsung Wallet), Samsung Blockchain Wallet, and third-party payment apps from Google Play and the Galaxy Store. Coverage of this sort is essentially a restatement of the complaint, not independent analysis.

The only English-language framing of the case I found is in a Seoul Economic Daily (en.sedaily.com) analysis by Kyung-woo Koo published 2026-03-15, headlined "Patent Trolls Threaten Korean Tech Giants Under Trump's Pro-Patent Policy." It mentions the case only in passing, reporting that "SureCell Transaction has filed suit claiming Samsung Pay's payment technology misappropriated its patents," and situates it within a broader wave of NPE litigation against Samsung and SK Hynix (it cites a ~$191.4 million damages ruling against Samsung in a separate Pictiva OLED display-patent case and an Alpha Touch Group suit against Samsung Display). That piece goes clearly beyond the court record in its analytical claims — industry observers quoted argue the Trump administration's stronger patent-protection posture, increased USPTO discretionary denials of inter partes review, and DOJ/USPTO briefs favoring patent holders are emboldening NPEs, and one unnamed industry official is quoted saying patent disputes "should not be viewed merely as legal matters, but as variables that determine industrial competitiveness, trade strategy, and the future of the national economy." Those are policy/industry reactions, not findings in this case.

On the parallel PTAB proceeding, LegalTechDaily reported in September 2026 that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. opened IPR2026-00508 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on 2026-09-22, a discretionary-denial and Fintiv-adjacent challenge tied to parallel district court litigation. Notably, that article (which reads as generic petition-preview commentary) does not name the patent owner or challenged patent; the PTAB docket aggregator Ex Parte lists the proceeding as Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Surecell Transactions LLC, and as of its last update shows no institution decision, no assigned judges, and status "pending." A separate docket aggregator for the district court case lists a demand of $500,000,000 and notes Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne and a plaintiff jury demand — that figure comes from docket data, not from any news report I found, and no outlet I located has reported a damages award, verdict, or settlement.

Bottom line: as of 2026-10-12 there is no substantive independent press investigation of this case. What exists is (a) Korean-language trade coverage that summarizes the complaint, (b) one English-language Seoul Economic Daily column that uses the suit as a data point in a policy argument about NPE risk to Korean tech firms, and (c) a generic PTAB-filing note. No damages have been awarded, no settlement has been reported, and I found no executive statements or analyst estimates specific to this litigation. I could not verify the specific dollar amount of damages sought from any press source — only from docket-aggregator metadata — so that figure should be treated as unconfirmed pending the complaint itself.

Sources

• Complaint analysis | 2:26-cv-00106 | Surecell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America Inc | Ex Parte
• IPR2026-00508 | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Surecell Transactions LLC | Ex Parte
• SureCell Transactions LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. et al, 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D.Tex.)
• IP community, Prior Art Search, Patent Search, and Patent Litigation
• CX-1494C.00016. A Bio-Rad document describes another experiment in which a SureCell 3' WTA assay was conducted using a single dd...
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• From: Director_DI To: Patrick Colsher; Director_DI; Trials CC: Matthew Berkowitz; Khue Hoang; Michael Polka; RJ Malikie
• Pursuant to 35 U

I'll search for counsel of record for SureCell Transactions in this case.

Let me dig into the docket and firm-specific searches.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff (SureCell Transactions LLC)

Bottom line: I could not verify any attorney as counsel of record for SureCell Transactions from publicly available, citable sources as of 2026-10-12. Because the operating rules require me not to invent attorneys, I am not naming any plaintiff-side lawyer here. The names below are labeled leads only where a source actually ties them to this case — and none does.

What I searched and what came back

I ran targeted queries against the docket aggregators, the Ex Parte case/complaint-analysis page, the PTAB proceeding page, and general web/legal-news indices for:

• the case caption and number ("SureCell Transactions"; 2:26-cv-00106; SureCell Samsung counsel / lead counsel / attorney);
• firm-side coverage ("SureCell Transactions" firm, patent owner, NFC litigation);
• the complaint-analysis record on Ex Parte.

Results:

1. The district-court docket aggregator explicitly reports the docket is incomplete. The E.D. Tex. case page for 2:26-cv-00106 lists only the caption metadata — filed Feb. 12, 2026; Marshall Division; Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne; Nature of Suit 830; jury demand by plaintiff — and states verbatim "The docket is incomplete," with no appearance entries and no counsel listed. (docket aggregator page)
2. The Ex Parte complaint-analysis page describes the pleading's substance (asserted claims, accused Galaxy products, infringement theories) but does not reproduce the complaint's signature block or any attorney of record. (Ex Parte complaint analysis)
3. The PTAB proceeding page (IPR2026-00508, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Surecell Transactions LLC, filed 09/22/26) shows "Pending Judge Assignment" and no attorney listing in the result I retrieved. (Ex Parte PTAB page)
4. No firm press release, Law360/Reuters docket item, or court opinion naming plaintiff's counsel was surfaced by search. The only press pieces in the record (the Korean-language The Biz item and the Seoul Economic Daily column) restate the complaint and do not name lawyers.

I cannot directly query PACER/CM-ECF myself, and the free aggregators that mirror it have not populated appearances for this case. So the honest answer is: plaintiff's counsel has either not yet been captured in the public docket mirrors, or the appearances have been made but are not reflected in the sources I can reach. It is also possible (though I have no evidence either way) that the complaint was filed pro se by the entity's principal or by counsel whose appearance had not yet been docketed.

Leads I looked at but could not tie to this case (do not treat as findings)

• The one search result that returned a populated roster of attorneys was for a different Samsung patent case — Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-01077 (E.D. Tex.) — and those appearances are defense-side Samsung counsel (e.g., local counsel Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith, among others). That listing does not pertain to SureCell's case and should not be attributed here. (source page)
• I did not find any firm bio page, case-announcement, or bar/leadership entry linking a specific attorney or firm to SureCell Transactions. Speculating about the "usual" Marshall NPE-plaintiff local-counsel shops would violate the no-fabrication rule, so I have omitted names.

Two discrepancies worth flagging against the existing summary

1. Entity type. The earlier press section characterizes SureCell as an NPE. The Ex Parte party page instead classifies Surecell Transactions LLC as "Operating Company" (and notes only one case, active). That is a data-label conflict I could not resolve; it does not affect the counsel question but is an inconsistency in the source record. (Ex Parte party page)
2. Name spelling. Sources render the plaintiff both as "SureCell" and "Surecell"; the docket caption uses "SureCell."

What would confirm this (verification path)

To make this determination with a citable source, the following would need to be pulled (none of which I could retrieve):

• PACER docket sheet for 2:26-cv-00106 — specifically Dkt. 1 (Complaint) signature block and any Dkt. 4–7 appearances / Rule 83.5 pro hac vice motions, which in E.D. Tex. Marshall practice would show both lead counsel and local counsel.
• E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-11 / AT-1 disclosures, which identify lead counsel and local counsel once entered.
• The motion for pro hac vice admission, which names the out-of-district lead attorney.

If you have PACER access, Docket Entry 1 and the first appearance entries will answer this in one pull; I can then characterize each attorney's role, firm, office, and patent-litigation track record. Until then, I have no verified counsel of record to report.

I'll research defense counsel through multiple angles — docket aggregators, firm announcements, and E.D. Tex. practice patterns.

I found a promising PTAB petition document listing Samsung's counsel. Let me verify it ties to this case and find the district court appearances.

That PTAB filing shows a Samsung counsel team, but I must confirm it belongs to this case. Let me pin down the document and look for district court appearances.

I've reached my research limit for this task. Here's the counsel analysis, with confidence levels clearly separated.

---

Defense counsel — SureCell Transactions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00106 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Bottom line

No district-court appearance of record is publicly confirmed. The only docket aggregator I could retrieve for this case expressly states "The docket is incomplete," and I found no Notice of Appearance, corporate-disclosure statement, or answer naming counsel for either Samsung entity.

However, I did locate a USPTO PTAB filing styled "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC." that lists a coherent, matching defense team (Orrick + Findlay Craft). That is the strongest available evidence of who is defending Samsung in this dispute — with the caveats flagged below.

---

Candidate defense team (high confidence in the names; medium confidence in the case link)

Source for the above: a USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board filing hosted at ptacts.uspto.gov (petition 1556217 document artifact), whose signature block reads:

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. — /s/ Steven J. Routh … ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP … Eric H. Findlay … FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.

Chambers corroboration: Orrick's D.C. IP group profile separately confirms Steven Routh's patent/antitrust trial practice (Chambers USA 2026 profile).

---

Critical caveats — read before relying on this

1. The PTAB document is not affirmatively tied to IPR2026-00508. It names both Samsung entities as defendants — which matches this case — but it does not, in the excerpt I retrieved, display a case caption, the challenged patent, or the IPR number. Because Samsung is a heavy PTAB filer with many parallel proceedings, I cannot rule out that the Orrick/Findlay team block belongs to a different Samsung matter. I graded the link as medium confidence for that reason. The Ex Parte PTAB page for IPR2026-00508 shows only the petitioner name, a 09/22/26 filing date, "Pending Judge Assignment," and no attorney data — so it does not independently confirm counsel.

2. No counsel has been confirmed appearing in the district court action itself. The aggregator record for 2:26-cv-00106 is flagged incomplete, and I found no Notice of Appearance or live docket text for the E.D. Tex. case. So as of 2026-10-12, treat the district-court appearance as unverified.

3. Orrick appears on both sides of the Samsung/BOE IP wars, but that is not a conflict here. A separate PTACTS record (petition 1558429, in a BOE Technology Group matter) shows an Orrick team including Bas de Blank (Menlo Park), Johannes Hsu (Irvine), Richard F. Martinelli and Tyler Scott Miller (New York), Will Hussein Melehani (San Francisco), plus Findlay Craft's Eric Findlay and Stuart Hene, representing BOE. That is an adversary of Samsung Display — not Samsung — and is included only to show the same Orrick/Findlay Craft pairing recurs across E.D. Tex. patent matters. Do not conflate the two.

---

Caution — do NOT attribute these to this case

My searches surfaced Samsung counsel in other matters that are frequently confused with this one:

• Fish & Richardson P.C. (Matthew P. Mosteller, Washington, D.C.) filed a Notice of Appearance for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in WILUS Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. Samsung, No. 2:24-cv-00765-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Different case, different patents. A Firm×Samsung pairing in one E.D. Tex. matter does not carry over here.
• Quinn Emanuel (Verhoeven, K.P.B. Johnson, Maroulis, Zeller) represented the Samsung entities in the N.D. Cal. Apple v. Samsung litigation — historically relevant background, not this case.
• The Orrick team above is the only Samsung-attorney listing I found that even plausibly maps to a SureCell-related proceeding.

---

What remains unknown / unverified

• Whether Samsung has formally appeared in 2:26-cv-00106 (answer or Rule 12 motion), and on what date — not in the public record I could reach.
• Whether Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is represented by the same team as the Korean parent, or by separate in-house/appellate counsel.
• Any in-house counsel (Samsung Electronics IP Center or SEA legal) — no names disclosed in any source I found.
• Whether more than one law firm shares the defense (e.g., a separate damages/appellate firm).
• The caption and counsel block of IPR2026-00508 itself, which would definitively settle the Orrick/Findlay question.

---

Recommended next steps to close the gaps

1. Pull the PACER/RECAP docket sheet for 2:26-cv-00106 directly and look for Notation of Appearance entries (E.D. Tex. requires counsel to enter appearance under Local Rule CV-5 / AT-1) and a Corporate Disclosure Statement.
2. Pull the IPR2026-00508 petition PDF and its mandatory notices on PTAB's P-TACTS system — the "ATTORNEYS FOR" block and "Real Parties in Interest" section will confirm or refute the Routh/Jensen/Pearce/Findlay attribution.
3. Check Samsung's answer and invalidity contentions (if served) for the full defense-firm roster.

Confidence summary: Names/firms in the table — well-sourced to a primary USPTO document; linkage of that team to this specific case — medium, unconfirmed; district-court appearance — not verified. I did not invent any attorney; every named person appears in a retrieved source.