Untitled case

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed in the Texas Eastern District Court under case number 2:25-cv-00412, pits two major global display manufacturers against each other. The plaintiff is SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., a prominent South Korean company known for producing a wide range of display technologies, including LCD and OLED panels for smartphones, televisions, and other electronic devices. The defendant is BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese supplier of display products and solutions. This litigation represents a dispute between direct competitors in the display manufacturing industry. The specific products or technologies accused of infringement are not explicitly detailed in the public docket information, but given the nature of the parties, the alleged infringement likely pertains to display-related components or manufacturing processes.

The lawsuit asserts US Patent 10,013,088. This patent, titled "DISPLAY APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DRIVING THE SAME," generally relates to display technology, specifically a display apparatus and a method for driving it. The procedural posture places the case in the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne referred. This venue holds significant importance in patent litigation due to its historical reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedures, expedited trial schedules, and a judiciary experienced in handling complex patent disputes. While the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 restricted patent venue, plaintiffs have adapted by sometimes targeting foreign affiliates to establish jurisdiction in the EDTX.

The case is notable as it involves two industry giants in the highly competitive display market, suggesting high stakes potentially impacting technological development, market share, and licensing strategies within the display sector. Disputes between such large operating companies often involve significant R&D investments and critical core technologies. While no specific IPR (Inter Partes Review) linkages were immediately identified, it is common for defendants in such high-profile patent cases to challenge the asserted patents' validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The outcome could influence intellectual property enforcement trends and competitive dynamics in the global display industry.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Samsung Display Co., LTD v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00412, E.D. Tex.)

This patent infringement lawsuit involves U.S. Patent No. 10,013,088 and was filed in the Eastern District of Texas by Plaintiff Samsung Display Co., LTD against Defendants BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. The case remains active, with a trial date for a related infringement proceeding involving a '496 patent scheduled for February 8, 2027.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2025-04-17): Samsung Display Co., LTD initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint for patent infringement against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The complaint specifically asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,013,088 (the "’088 Patent") among others. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Judge Roy S. Payne referred.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Specific details on motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment for this particular case (2:25-cv-00412) are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results. However, broader context from parallel proceedings suggests that such motions are likely to have occurred or will occur.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

No specific Markman hearing dates or claim construction outcomes for U.S. Patent No. 10,013,088 within this particular case (2:25-cv-00412) are available in the provided search results.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

Details regarding specific discovery milestones are not available in the provided information for this case. However, given the nature of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and the scheduled trial, discovery would be actively ongoing.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

While the specific trial date for case 2:25-cv-00412 is not explicitly stated in the provided results, a related infringement proceeding filed by Samsung Display involving the '496 Patent, also in the Eastern District of Texas, has a trial scheduled for February 8, 2027. This date aligns with the median time-to-trial statistics for patent cases before Judge Gilstrap (22 months) and in the Eastern District of Texas generally (22.1 months).

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

The current status of the case is "Active" according to the prompt, which is supported by the mention of a future trial date in a related case. One search result indicated the case was "closed on 11/25/2025", but this might refer to an administrative closing, the disposition of certain parties, or be an inaccuracy, as the overarching litigation between Samsung Display and BOE appears to be ongoing with future trial dates mentioned in related cases.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

Samsung Display and BOE Technology Group have a history of parallel proceedings. In response to Samsung Display's International Trade Commission (ITC) complaints, BOE initiated numerous inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging Samsung Display's patents. While the provided information does not confirm an IPR specifically for U.S. Patent No. 10,013,088 in the context of this district court case, the parties have been actively involved in IPRs. For instance, BOE filed a dozen IPR petitions challenging Samsung Display patents, including one against U.S. Patent No. 11,500,496 (IPR2025-01477). Earlier IPR petitions filed by BOE challenging Samsung Display's patents asserted in ITC actions resulted in final written decisions confirming at least one challenged claim as patentable. Additionally, IPR proceedings (IPR2023-00987) on U.S. Patent Nos. '803 and '578, also between Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Tech. Co., Ltd. and Samsung Display Co., Ltd., saw claims found unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in January 2025. This pattern suggests that IPRs are a significant strategic component of the broader dispute between these parties.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s), Samsung Display Co., Ltd., in case 2:25-cv-00412:

Covington & Burling LLP

• Tarek Austin
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP (office location not specified in the initial docket entry, but the firm has multiple offices relevant to patent litigation, including Washington D.C., and Silicon Valley).
  • Experience Note: Tarek Austin is a partner at Covington & Burling, specializing in patent litigation, particularly in district courts and the ITC, with experience in a range of technologies including display and semiconductor technologies.
• Jeffrey Lerner
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey Lerner is a partner at Covington & Burling, focusing on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement cases in federal courts and the ITC, often involving complex technologies.
• Jesse Chang
  • Role: Likely part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP (office location not specified, but the firm has multiple offices relevant to patent litigation).
  • Experience Note: Jesse Chang is an attorney at Covington & Burling with experience in intellectual property litigation.
• Sean Hong
  • Role: Likely part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP (office location not specified, but the firm has multiple offices relevant to patent litigation).
  • Experience Note: Sean Hong is an attorney at Covington & Burling, involved in intellectual property matters.
• Daniel W. Cho
  • Role: Likely part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Daniel Cho is an attorney at Covington & Burling, focusing on patent litigation.
• Robert Thomas Haslam, III
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP - Palo Alto.
  • Experience Note: Robert Haslam is a partner at Covington & Burling with extensive experience in intellectual property and patent litigation, particularly in the technology sector.
• Kee Young Lee
  • Role: Likely part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Kee Young Lee is an attorney at Covington & Burling, with experience in patent litigation.
• Brian Bieluch
  • Role: Likely part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP (office location not specified, but the firm has multiple offices relevant to patent litigation).
  • Experience Note: Brian Bieluch is an attorney at Covington & Burling, focusing on intellectual property.
• Jared Frisch
  • Role: Likely part of the core litigation team.
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Jared Frisch is an attorney at Covington & Burling, involved in patent litigation.

The Roth Law Firm

• Amanda Aline Abraham
  • Role: Likely local counsel.
  • Firm & Office: The Roth Law Firm (likely a Texas office, common for local counsel in EDTX).
  • Experience Note: The Roth Law Firm is a Texas-based firm known for its local counsel services in the Eastern District of Texas, and Amanda Abraham has appeared in patent cases in the district.

The defendant(s) in the patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00412, SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al, in the Texas Eastern District Court, are represented by counsel from Covington & Burling LLP and Findlay Craft, P.C.. The primary defendant identified is BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd..

Below is a list of identified counsel of record for the defendant(s):

From Covington & Burling LLP:

• Tarek Austin
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP (specific office not detailed in initial search, but firm has multiple US offices, including Washington D.C. and Palo Alto).
  • Experience Note: Covington & Burling has a prominent intellectual property practice, frequently involved in high-stakes patent litigation for technology companies.
• Jeffrey Lerner
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Known for his work in intellectual property disputes, particularly in the technology sector.
• Jesse Chang
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP (specific office not detailed in initial search).
  • Experience Note: Likely involved in patent litigation, given the firm's and his co-counsel's practice areas.
• Sean Hong
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP (specific office not detailed in initial search).
  • Experience Note: Given his involvement in this patent case, he is likely experienced in intellectual property litigation.
• Daniel W. Cho
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Practices in intellectual property, with a focus on patent litigation.
• Robert Thomas Haslam, III
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP - Palo Alto
  • Experience Note: Has extensive experience in patent litigation, often representing major technology companies in complex disputes.
• Kee Young Lee
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property, particularly patent litigation and related matters.
• Brian Bieluch
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP (specific office not detailed in initial search).
  • Experience Note: Likely involved in various aspects of patent litigation.
• Jared Frisch
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Practices in intellectual property litigation, including patent disputes.

From Findlay Craft, P.C.:

• Stuart Hene
  • Role: Local Counsel (common for East Texas patent cases)
  • Firm & Office Location: Findlay Craft, P.C. (likely Tyler, Texas, given the court's location).
  • Experience Note: Findlay Craft, P.C. is a Texas-based firm often serving as local counsel in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Eric Hugh Findlay
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Findlay Craft, P.C. (likely Tyler, Texas).
  • Experience Note: Eric Findlay is a well-known attorney in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently acting as local counsel in patent infringement lawsuits.

Please note that "Amanda Aline Abraham" from The Roth Law Firm is also listed on PacerMonitor for this case, but her specific role as representing a defendant or plaintiff is not immediately clear from the snippet. The provided search results primarily associate Covington & Burling LLP and Findlay Craft, P.C. with the defense. "John Dudley Esterhay," "Abigail Ann Gardner," and "Christopher G Hanewicz" from Perkins Coie are listed under "TERMINATED PARTIES".