Manufacturing Resources International v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Patentability filed 16 Aug 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 7 Apr 2026, with US10506740B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10506740B2
- Application no.
- US15/789331
- Case no.
- 24-2224
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 16 Aug 2024 – 7 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 599 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Electronic display with cooling
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Electronic display with cooling
An electronic display including an electronic image assembly and a cooling system for an electronic image assembly. A closed loop gas circulation path and an open loop ambient air flow path are provided to effectuate cooling. A common heat exchanger is located in gaseous communication with both the closed loop gas circulation path and the open loop ambient air flow path. The open loop ambient air flow path facilitates removal of heat from gas circulating within the closed loop gas circulation path. A cooling channel may be located behind a rear portion of the electronic image assembly to further enhance cooling via the circulation of ambient air therein.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 10 Dec 2019
- Earliest priority
- 18 Dec 2008
- Est. expiry
- 19 Sep 2028
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2023-00254 · Patentability · filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DUNN, WILLIAM · HUBBARD, TIM
- Classification
- H05K7/20G02F1/1333F28F3/02F28D9/00
- Prosecution counsel
- STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP
- Examiner
- BUI, HUNG S.
Parties of record
Manufacturing Resources International
- Core tech
- H05K7/20G02F1/1333F28F3/02F28D9/00
- Counsel
- Carl Sanders · David A. Reed · John C. Alemanni · Michael T. Morlock
- Firm
- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Sanjeet K. Dutta
- Firm
- Goodwin Procter LLP
- Also named
- Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Carl Sanders | Manufacturing Resources International | Plaintiff |
| David A. Reed | Manufacturing Resources International | Plaintiff |
| John C. Alemanni | Manufacturing Resources International | Plaintiff |
| Michael T. Morlock | Manufacturing Resources International | Plaintiff |
| Sanjeet K. Dutta | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“We have considered MRI’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision that the challenged claims of the ’740 and ’142 patents would have been obvious. AFFIRMED”
Case 24-2224 · Fed. Cir. · closed 7 April 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 24-2224?
24-2224 is a patent patentability brought by Manufacturing Resources International against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed on 16 Aug 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 7 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 24-2224?
US10506740B2 (“Electronic display with cooling”), assigned to MANUFACTURING RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC., currently active. The record also lists Electronic display with cooling.
How was case 24-2224 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “We have considered MRI’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision that the challenged claims of the ’740 and ’142 patents would have been obvious. AFFIRMED”
How long did case 24-2224 take?
599 calendar days, from filing on 16 Aug 2024 to closure on 7 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 24-2224?
Carl Sanders, David A. Reed, John C. Alemanni and Michael T. Morlock are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Manufacturing Resources International. Sanjeet K. Dutta appears for defendant Samsung Electronics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 24-2224 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.