Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Samsung Display Co. Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00430, was filed on April 23, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Samsung Display Co. Ltd., is a global leader in manufacturing OLED and QD-OLED panels for various applications, including smartphones, TVs, and laptops. The defendant, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., is a major Chinese electronic components producer and an IoT company, with core businesses in interface devices (including LCDs, OLEDs, and flexible displays), smart IoT systems, and smart medicine and engineering integration.

While the initial metadata indicated the case was active, docket monitoring services show that Case No. 2:25-cv-00430 was terminated on November 24, 2025. The specific patents at issue in this case were not explicitly identified as US Patent 10720483 in the available public search results. However, related litigation referencing this case number and involving Samsung Display and BOE Technology Group points to disputes concerning "Pixel arrangement structure for organic light emitting diode display," suggesting the patents likely relate to advanced display technologies. Further details on the accused products are not publicly detailed without access to the sealed court filings.

The case was presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas. This venue is particularly notable for patent litigation; Judge Gilstrap is recognized as one of the busiest patent judges in the United States, having overseen a significant percentage of all new patent litigation nationally in 2025. The Eastern District of Texas has a long-standing reputation as a preferred forum for patent owners, although recent data also indicates a higher defendant success rate in trials before Judge Gilstrap. The dispute between Samsung Display and BOE Technology Group is significant given their prominent positions as leading global manufacturers in the highly competitive display technology industry. The presence of inter partes reviews (IPRs), such as IPR2023-00987, linked to the parties and related cases, indicates parallel challenges to the validity of the asserted patents, which is a common and notable feature of modern patent litigation.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Samsung Display Co. Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00430)

This patent infringement lawsuit, concerning US Patent 10720483, was filed by Samsung Display Co. Ltd. against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. and other related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was initiated in 2025 and is currently active according to the provided metadata.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint: Samsung Display Co. Ltd. filed a complaint against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. on April 23, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:25-cv-00430. BOE Technology America Inc. was also initially named as a party.

Subsequent Developments:
As of May 26, 2026, extensive public docket information detailing specific pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay), claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, or trial events for this particular patent infringement case (2:25-cv-00430, involving Patent 10720483, in the Eastern District of Texas) is not readily available through general web searches.

It is important to note that publicly accessible search results for "2:25-cv-00430" also identify cases with different parties and subject matter in other federal districts (e.g., an immigration case in an unnamed district that was voluntarily dismissed on January 30, 2026, and a case in the Southern District of Iowa). These other cases are distinct from the patent infringement litigation specified in the prompt. Therefore, details found for those cases are not relevant to Samsung Display Co. Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database for U.S. Patent 10720483 did not reveal any active or terminated Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings. Therefore, there are no reported PTAB proceedings that would have affected this district court litigation.

Current Posture:
Based on the available information, the case remains active as a patent infringement litigation filed on April 23, 2025. No further specific legal developments, such as significant rulings, settlement, or final judgment, could be confirmed through public records for this specific patent case at this time.

The plaintiff in Samsung Display Co. Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00430) in the Texas Eastern District Court is Samsung Display Co. Ltd..

The counsel of record representing Samsung Display Co. Ltd. are primarily from Morrison & Foerster LLP, with local counsel from Findlay Craft, P.C. in the Eastern District of Texas. The listing of attorneys on the PACER monitor suggests the following representation:

Attorneys for Plaintiff Samsung Display Co. Ltd.:

• Brian Christopher Nash

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Chair, IP Litigation Practice, Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Group)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Austin, TX
  • Experience Note: Brian Nash is a nationally recognized intellectual property trial attorney with experience in over 200 cases in Texas alone, including more than 110 before Judges Gilstrap and Albright. He represents Fortune 50 clients in patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright matters, and has secured summary judgment wins and favorable settlements in high-stakes disputes.

• Richard S.J. Hung

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner, Global Co-Chair of Litigation Department, previously Co-Chair of IP Litigation Group)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Experience Note: Rich Hung is a nationally recognized intellectual property litigation attorney with nearly 30 years of experience, a registered patent lawyer, and a former Federal Circuit clerk. He has handled over 150 IP matters and tried over a dozen cases to verdict or final award, representing clients in patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret litigation across various courts, the PTAB, and arbitration.

• Bita Rahebi

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Vice Chair, co-chair of global IP Litigation Group, co-leader of Semiconductor Industry Group)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Bita Rahebi is a nationally recognized trial lawyer specializing in high-stakes intellectual property disputes, particularly complex patent litigation, for innovative technology companies. She has over 25 years of experience in patent, trade secret, copyright, and commercial disputes before federal and state courts, the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), across a range of technologies including semiconductors and consumer electronics.

• Yue Li

  • Role: Counsel (Associate in the Intellectual Property Practice)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience Note: Yue Li (also known as Lily Li) is a partner in the firm's Intellectual Property practice and Head of Litigation in the Palo Alto office. She represents technology companies in high-stakes patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, and licensing disputes. With an engineering background, she brings technical fluency and seasoned judgment to complex disputes across various forums, including the Eastern District of Texas.

Likely Local Counsel in the Eastern District of Texas:

• Eric Hugh Findlay

  • Role: Local Counsel (Founding Partner)
  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, TX and Marshall, TX
  • Experience Note: Eric Findlay is a trial lawyer and litigator with nearly 30 years of experience. His firm, Findlay Craft, P.C., represents clients as both lead and local counsel in hundreds of high-stakes intellectual property cases throughout Texas, with patent cases forming the majority of his practice. He has appeared in over 1000 patent cases in Texas.

• Stuart Hene

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, TX and Marshall, TX
  • Experience Note: Stuart Hene is an Of Counsel attorney at Findlay Craft, P.C. While his profile at Tarry & Hene, PLLC (which he co-founded) indicates a focus on oil & gas, business, commercial real estate, and general civil litigation, his role at Findlay Craft places him within a firm extensively involved in patent litigation in East Texas.

It is worth noting that Jason Yu of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is likely representing the defendant, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., as Orrick explicitly mentions representing BOE in multi-case global legal disputes concerning OLED displays in one of their work highlights. The PacerMonitor entry also associated Findlay Craft, P.C. with a terminated defendant, BOE Technology America Inc., further suggesting their role as local counsel for the defense.

As of May 26, 2026, publicly available web searches for specific docket entries, such as notices of appearance or answers, for Samsung Display Co. Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00430) in the Eastern District of Texas do not readily provide the names of counsel of record representing the defendant(s), BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. and BOE Technology America Inc.

While BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. has been represented by counsel from firms like Holland & Knight LLP and DLA Piper LLP (US) in various Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for other patents, and Findlay Craft, P.C. has been associated with BOE in a different Eastern District of Texas case (2:26-cv-00019), these representations are not confirmed for the specific patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00430 involving U.S. Patent 10720483.

General counsel for BOE Technology Group is Feng Liqiong, who leads the in-house legal team. However, external litigation counsel for this specific district court case could not be identified through the conducted searches.

Therefore, without direct access to the case's docket sheet through PACER or specific legal news reporting on this particular case, the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in 2:25-cv-00430 cannot be definitively identified at this time.