Untitled case

Samsung Display Sues BOE Technology Group Over OLED Display Patent in Eastern District of Texas

Samsung Display Co., Ltd., a global leader in OLED and QD-OLED panel manufacturing, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., a major Chinese electronic components producer specializing in LCD and OLED displays, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case, numbered 2:25-cv-00430, is assigned to the Honorable Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Both parties are prominent operating companies in the highly competitive display technology industry, supplying panels for a wide range of consumer electronics including smartphones, televisions, laptops, and automotive applications.

The core of the dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,832,616, titled "Pixel arrangement structure for organic light emitting diode display." This patent generally relates to specific configurations of pixels within OLED displays, aiming to improve display performance. While specific accused products or services from BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries of the initial filings, the nature of the asserted patent and the businesses of the involved parties strongly suggest the alleged infringement concerns BOE's OLED display panels used in various electronic devices that incorporate pixel arrangements covered by the patent.

This litigation is particularly notable due to the intense rivalry between Samsung Display and BOE Technology Group in the global display market, especially in the advanced OLED sector where both companies are key competitors for supplying major device manufacturers like Apple. The procedural posture in the Eastern District of Texas is also significant; the court has historically been a popular venue for patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for a fast-paced "rocket docket" and plaintiff-friendly jury pools, though the Supreme Court's 2017 TC Heartland decision has somewhat restricted venue options. Furthermore, the case is linked to parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, specifically IPR2023-00987, IPR2023-00988, and IPR2023-01075, initiated by Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. and others against Samsung Display Co., Ltd. regarding the '616 patent, indicating a multifaceted legal battle over the patent's validity. These IPRs had their decision dates in January 2024 and termination dates in January 2025, with final written decisions appealed, adding a critical layer to the overall litigation landscape.

Based on the provided case metadata and web search results, the patent infringement litigation identified as 2:25-cv-00430 in the Texas Eastern District Court involved Samsung Display Co. Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.. This case was filed on April 23, 2025, and concluded with a dismissal with prejudice on November 24, 2025..

Important Note on Patent 10832616: While the case metadata in the prompt identifies U.S. Patent 10,832,616 as the patent at issue, web searches for case 2:25-cv-00430 in the Texas Eastern District Court, specifically for Samsung Display Co. Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al., did not explicitly confirm that patent 10,832,616 was asserted in this particular litigation. One search result mentioned a different patent, the '483 patent, being involved in a case with the same number.. However, adhering to the instruction to treat the provided metadata as authoritative, this report proceeds under the assumption that 10,832,616 was indeed among the patents involved in the litigation, despite the lack of direct corroboration from public search records for this specific case.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome for this case:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint: Samsung Display Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on April 23, 2025. The nature of the suit was identified as "Property Rights - Patent" with the cause being "28:1338 Patent Infringement".. The assigned judge was District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, and the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S Payne..
  • Details regarding the answer, specific counterclaims, or the precise patents asserted by Samsung Display (beyond the general classification as a patent case) are not explicitly available in the summarized search results for this specific case number.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • The docket entries show that several motions were filed, with Motion(s) 27 and 34 being terminated by the final dismissal order.. Without direct PACER access or more detailed reporting, the specific nature or outcome of these motions (e.g., motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay) is not detailed in the available search snippets.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • No information regarding a Markman hearing or claim construction order for this specific case was found in the search results.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • No specific discovery milestones or disputes with strategic significance were identified in the public summaries.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • The case did not proceed to trial.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case was terminated on November 24, 2025, when District Judge Rodney Gilstrap signed an "ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE" on November 21, 2025..
  • This dismissal followed a "JOINT STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice" filed by the defendants on November 18, 2025, which included BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., along with several of its subsidiaries.. A dismissal with prejudice typically indicates that the parties reached a settlement agreement and the plaintiff is barred from refiling the same claims.
  • A Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120) was filed on November 24, 2025, and emailed to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at the termination of the case..
  • No information about an appeal was found.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically related to U.S. Patent 10,832,616 on the USPTO's PTAB database (P-TACTS) did not yield any results.. Therefore, there were no identifiable parallel PTAB proceedings affecting this litigation.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Samsung Display Co. Ltd., in Samsung Display Co. Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00430) in the Texas Eastern District Court:

Amanda A. Abraham

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Roth & Abraham Law Firm
• Office Location: While a specific office location for Roth & Abraham Law Firm is not immediately available, such firms often maintain a presence or local counsel affiliation in high-volume patent litigation venues like the Eastern District of Texas.

Jeffrey H. Lerner

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
• Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP has multiple offices. Further research would be needed to pinpoint Lerner's primary office, but a firm of this size typically staffs cases from various locations.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Covington & Burling LLP is a global firm with an extensive intellectual property practice, frequently handling high-stakes patent disputes for technology and life sciences clients.

Jared R. Frisch

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
• Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: As part of Covington & Burling's IP team, Frisch is involved in patent litigation.

Daniel W. Cho

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
• Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Involved in intellectual property matters at Covington & Burling.

Kee Young Lee

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
• Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Part of Covington & Burling's patent litigation team.

Robert T. Haslam

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
• Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: An experienced patent litigator, often recognized for work with technology companies.

Scott A. Schrader

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
• Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Contributes to Covington & Burling's intellectual property and patent litigation efforts.

Jesse Y. Chang

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
• Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Member of Covington & Burling's IP litigation team.

Sean Hong

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
• Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Practices patent litigation at Covington & Burling.

It is common for large national firms like Covington & Burling to associate with local counsel for cases in the Eastern District of Texas, even if not explicitly labeled as "local counsel" in the initial filing summary. Amanda A. Abraham at Roth & Abraham Law Firm would likely serve in this capacity, given the firm's probable location or specialization in local practice.

Here is a list of the counsel of record representing the defendant(s), BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al., in the dismissed case 2:25-cv-00430 in the Texas Eastern District Court:

Morrison & Foerster LLP (National Counsel)

• Brian Christopher Nash
  • Role: Lead Counsel. He serves as the Chair of Morrison Foerster's global Intellectual Property Litigation Group and is the Managing Partner of the firm's Austin office.
  • Firm & Office: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Nash has extensive experience in complex intellectual property disputes, including patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and copyrights. He has litigated over 250 IP cases in federal district courts, before the PTAB, at the ITC, and on appeal in the Federal Circuit, with over 200 cases litigated in Texas alone. He is a registered patent attorney with an engineering degree.
• Richard S.J. Hung
  • Role: Lead Counsel. He is the Global Co-Chair of Morrison Foerster's Litigation Department and previously co-led the firm's IP Litigation Group and cross-disciplinary Intellectual Property Group for over a decade.
  • Firm & Office: Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience Note: A registered patent lawyer and former Federal Circuit clerk, Mr. Hung has nearly 30 years of experience leading complex technology matters, including high-stakes patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret litigation. He has tried over a dozen cases to verdict or final award and handled more than 150 IP matters.
• Bita Rahebi
  • Role: Lead Counsel. She is a Vice Chair at Morrison Foerster and co-chair of the global IP Litigation Group and the cross-disciplinary Intellectual Property Group, as well as co-leader of its Semiconductor Industry Group.
  • Firm & Office: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Rahebi is a nationally recognized trial lawyer specializing in complex patent, trade secret, copyright, and commercial disputes, with over 25 years of experience. She is known for her ability to simplify complex technologies for judges and juries and leads matters before federal and state trial courts, the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
• Yue Li (also known as Lily Li)
  • Role: Lead Counsel. She is a partner in the firm's Intellectual Property practice and Head of Litigation in the Palo Alto office. Her profile explicitly states she "Defended BOE in multi-patent competitor cases involving OLED display technology (Eastern District of Texas)".
  • Firm & Office: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Experience Note: With an engineering background and prior in-house semiconductor leadership experience, Ms. Li represents technology companies in high-stakes patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, and licensing disputes across various forums, including the International Trade Commission and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Findlay Craft, P.C. (Local and Lead Counsel)

• Eric Hugh Findlay
  • Role: Local Counsel / Lead Counsel. He is a Founding Partner of Findlay Craft, P.C., and the firm represents clients as both lead and local counsel in patent litigation throughout Texas, including the Eastern District.
  • Firm & Office: Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, TX, or Marshall, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Findlay is a seasoned trial lawyer with nearly 30 years of experience, having appeared in over 1000 patent cases, primarily in the Eastern District of Texas. He is Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization (inactive).
• Stuart Hene
  • Role: Of Counsel / Local Counsel. He is listed as "Of Counsel" at Findlay Craft, P.C. Given the firm's focus on East Texas patent litigation as both local and lead counsel, he likely served in a local counsel capacity for BOE.
  • Firm & Office: Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, TX, or Marshall, TX.
  • Experience Note: Findlay Craft generally represents clients in hundreds of high-stakes intellectual property cases throughout Texas.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (National Counsel)

• Jason Yu
  • Role: Lead Counsel. He is a partner in Orrick's Intellectual Property Group.
  • Firm & Office: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Silicon Valley, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Yu focuses primarily on complex patent and trade secret litigation matters, as well as inter partes proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office. He has represented technology companies in various venues, including federal courts and the International Trade Commission, and has litigated patent cases in areas like mobile computing.

The district court action for this case (2:25-cv-00430) has been dismissed.