Untitled case

The patent infringement lawsuit, bearing case number 2:25-cv-00426, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on April 21, 2025. The plaintiff in this case is SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., and the defendants are BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. The case has been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne referred to the case. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, often favored by patent holders due to its fast-paced dockets and a reputation for being patent-owner friendly. This court's approach to personal jurisdiction, particularly concerning foreign defendants and the "stream of commerce" doctrine, can be a significant factor for plaintiffs in selecting this venue.

The patent at issue is US Patent 11500496. A quick search reveals that this patent number is associated with "Bovine Albumin Fraction V (7.5% solution) 100 mL" from Gibco, a brand of Thermo Fisher Scientific, and relates to cell culture media and reagents. However, given that the case involves Samsung Display and BOE Technology Group, both prominent in the display technology industry, it is highly improbable that the asserted patent relates to bovine albumin solution. There appears to be a discrepancy in publicly available information tying the patent number directly to the correct technology in the context of this specific lawsuit. Without access to the complaint itself, or more specific patent litigation databases, the exact technical sketch of the patent as asserted in this case remains unclear.

The procedural posture indicates that the case is active, with a docket control order issued on October 14, 2025, scheduling a pretrial conference for January 4, 2027, in Marshall, Texas, before Magistrate Judge Roy Payne. This suggests the case is moving through the discovery and pre-trial phases. The involvement of major display technology companies like Samsung Display and BOE Technology Group indicates that this case could have significant implications for the display industry, potentially impacting product design, manufacturing, and intellectual property licensing within this sector.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.

The patent infringement litigation, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00426, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 11,500,496, among others, and has seen significant activity, including parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), ultimately leading to a global settlement.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

• Complaint Filing (2025-04-21): Samsung Display Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. and other related entities in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of several OLED-related patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,500,496. Samsung Display had previously notified BOE of its alleged infringement via letter in May 2022. The complaint followed earlier patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation complaints filed by Samsung Display against BOE at the U.S. International Trade Commission.

• Docket Control Order (2025-10-08): A Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 57) was issued in the Eastern District of Texas case by Judges JRG-RSP, setting a trial date for February 8, 2027. This indicated the court's intention to move the case towards trial within approximately 22 months from the complaint filing, consistent with median time-to-trial statistics for Judge Rodney Gilstrap and the Eastern District of Texas.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2025-08-31 - 2025-12-30): In response to Samsung Display's assertions, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed multiple inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging Samsung Display's patents, including IPR2025-01477 against U.S. Patent No. 11,500,496. Several other IPRs were also filed by BOE against Samsung Display patents, with filing dates ranging into September 2025.

• PTAB IPR Settlement (2025-08-31 to 2025-12-30): The IPR petition against U.S. Patent No. 11,500,496 (IPR2025-01477) was terminated due to a settlement on August 31, 2025. Other IPRs filed by BOE against Samsung Display patents were also terminated by settlement, with termination dates around December 30, 2025. The PTAB had previously issued final results in some IPRs challenged by BOE against other Samsung Display patents on January 6, 2025, where most claims were invalidated, but some were retained.

• ITC Preliminary Ruling and Global Settlement (July 2025 - 2025-11-19): In a parallel trade secret misappropriation case at the ITC, a preliminary ruling in July 2025 banned BOE and its subsidiaries from importing products into the U.S. for 14 years and 8 months. Facing a potential block on U.S. exports, BOE actively pursued a settlement with Samsung Display. A global settlement was reached in November 2025, leading to the withdrawal of lawsuits filed in the U.S., China, and other jurisdictions. BOE reportedly agreed to pay royalties to Samsung Display as part of this settlement. The ITC announced the suspension of its litigation on November 18, 2025, which was interpreted as a result of this mutual agreement.

• Present Posture (As of 2026-05-26): While the global settlement announced in November 2025 indicated the withdrawal of lawsuits, case 2:25-cv-00426 in the Eastern District of Texas is still listed as "Open/Active" with a trial scheduled for February 8, 2027. However, given the comprehensive settlement including the withdrawal of U.S. lawsuits, it is highly probable that the district court case has either been dismissed or is in the process of being formally dismissed following the terms of the global settlement. Further updates on the specific dismissal docket entry for 2:25-cv-00426 are needed to confirm the final disposition in the district court.

Due to the comprehensive nature of the global settlement, which encompassed the withdrawal of lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions, the Eastern District of Texas case is expected to have been concluded, likely through dismissal or a consent judgment, even if the latest public docket information still shows an active trial date. Information regarding specific motions to dismiss, answers, counterclaims, or Markman orders within the Eastern District of Texas case beyond the initial filing and docket control order were not explicitly detailed in the publicly available search results.

The plaintiff, Samsung Display Co., Ltd., is represented by attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP, acting as lead counsel, and The Roth Law Firm, serving as local counsel.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record for the plaintiff:

Covington & Burling LLP (Lead Counsel)

• Daniel W. Cho (Partner)

  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. Cho is a trial lawyer focusing on high-stakes intellectual property disputes in technology and life sciences, including cases involving OLED/LCD technologies, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices. He has been recognized as a "Rising Star" in Intellectual Property Litigation by Washington DC Super Lawyers.

• Jared Frisch (Partner)

  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. Frisch specializes in complex patent trials across U.S. district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His experience spans technologies such as LCD, OLED, LED, semiconductors, and software. He has notably represented Samsung Display Company in a patent litigation victory.

• Robert Thomas Haslam, III (Senior Counsel)

  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Palo Alto (Silicon Valley)
  • Experience: Mr. Haslam's practice emphasizes trial work in patent and trade secret litigation and other high-technology disputes, covering semiconductor products and processes, cryptography, GPS, cellular technology, microprocessors, software products, and medical devices. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

• Jeffrey Lerner (Partner, Vice Chair of Covington's Patent Litigation Group)

  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. Lerner has extensive experience representing clients in patent litigation before federal district courts, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit, across various technology areas including semiconductor devices, advanced materials, electronics, and medical devices. He has represented Samsung Electronics and Samsung Display in patent infringement cases concerning LCD and OLED display technology.

• Jesse Chang (Associate)

  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, New York
  • Experience: Mr. Chang is an associate in the firm's Litigation and Investigations Practice Group. While his firm profile does not specifically detail patent litigation experience, he is listed as counsel of record in this patent case.

• Kee Young Lee (Litigator)

  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. Lee is a litigator experienced in intellectual property disputes in U.S. district courts and the ITC, with a focus on semiconductors, organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays, liquid crystal displays (LCD), software, and wireless communications. He previously served as a patent examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

• Brian Bieluch (Partner, Vice Chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation Group)

  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Los Angeles
  • Experience: Mr. Bieluch focuses on complex, multi-forum patent and technology litigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission, district courts, and the Federal Circuit. His experience includes electronics, smartphone, semiconductor, and display technologies, and he has represented Samsung Electronics in critical IP litigation.

• Sean Hong (Associate)

  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, New York
  • Experience: Mr. Hong is a member of Covington's Patent Litigation Practice Group, with listed practice areas including Patent Litigation and Patent Office (PTAB) Trials.

• Tarek Austin (Special Counsel)

  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. Austin focuses on high-stakes intellectual property disputes and appeals in federal district and appellate courts and the ITC. His experience spans semiconductors, electronics, solar energy, wireless networking systems, quantum computing, software, and pharmaceuticals. He played a key role in a patent victory for Netflix.

The Roth Law Firm (Local Counsel)

• Amanda Aline Abraham (Senior Associate)
  • Firm & Office: The Roth Law Firm, Marshall, Texas
  • Experience: Ms. Abraham's primary area of practice is intellectual property litigation, and she has appeared as counsel of record in over 150 civil cases in federal court. The Roth Law Firm is noted for serving as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

The counsel of record representing the defendant(s), BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al., in the patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00426 in the Texas Eastern District Court, include attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Perkins Coie LLP, and local counsel from The Roth Law Firm and Findlay Craft, P.C..

Based on the available docket information, the following attorneys are associated with the defense:

Covington & Burling LLP

• Daniel W. Cho (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Note: Daniel Cho is known for his patent litigation work, particularly in the technology sector.
• Jared Frisch (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Note: Jared Frisch has experience in complex patent and technology disputes.
• Robert Thomas Haslam, III (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP - Palo Alto
  • Note: Robert Haslam is recognized for his work in intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and licensing disputes.
• Jeffrey Lerner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
  • Note: Jeffrey Lerner specializes in patent litigation, particularly for high-tech companies.
• Jesse Chang (Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP
• Kee Young Lee (Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP - Washington D.C.
• Brian Bieluch (Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP
• Sean Hong (Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP
• Tarek Austin (Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Covington & Burling LLP

Morrison & Foerster LLP

• Jason Yu (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (listed under Morrison & Foerster in search results, which requires further clarification, however, typically firms are listed separately)
  • Note: Jason Yu is experienced in patent and technology litigation.
• Yue Li (Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP
• Bita Rahebi (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP - Los Angeles
  • Note: Bita Rahebi focuses on patent and intellectual property litigation, particularly in the electronics and software industries.
• Richard S J Hung (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP - San Francisco
  • Note: Richard Hung is a recognized patent litigator with extensive experience in various technology fields.
• Brian Christopher Nash (Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP

Perkins Coie LLP

• Christopher G Hanewicz (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Note: Christopher Hanewicz specializes in patent litigation, particularly for technology companies.
• John Dudley Esterhay (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Perkins Coie - San Diego
  • Note: John Esterhay has significant experience in patent litigation, especially related to IPR proceedings and district court cases.
• Kyle Ryan Canavera (Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP - San Diego
• Abigail Ann Gardner (Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP - San Diego

Local Counsel

• Amanda Aline Abraham (Local Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: The Roth Law Firm
• Eric Hugh Findlay (Local Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Findlay Craft, P.C.
  • Note: Eric Findlay is a well-known local counsel for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Stuart Hene (Local Counsel)
  • Firm and Office Location: Findlay Craft, P.C.