Untitled case

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement litigation, SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al, is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, under case number 2:25-cv-00412. The case was filed on April 17, 2025, and is presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne referred for certain matters. The plaintiff, Samsung Display Co., Ltd., is a South Korean manufacturer of display technologies, including OLED and LCD panels. The defendants, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., along with its affiliates, are a major Chinese manufacturer of display products. While the specific accused products, services, or technology are not explicitly detailed in the immediately available top-level docket information, patent infringement cases between major display manufacturers typically involve competing display technologies or components used in electronic devices.

The sole patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 11,574,991. Without direct access to the full complaint or the patent's claims, a precise one-line technical sketch is not fully verifiable through public search results at this stage. However, based on the nature of the parties involved as leading display technology companies, it is highly probable that the patent relates to advancements in display panels, manufacturing processes, or associated components. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known and often chosen venue for patent litigation due to its established patent rules, experienced judges, and historically faster time to trial, which can be a strategic consideration for patent holders. Judge Gilstrap, in particular, is one of the most active patent judges in the country.

The significance of this case likely stems from the high stakes involved in disputes between two global leaders in the competitive display technology industry. Such litigation can have substantial market impact, potentially affecting the supply chain and product offerings of numerous consumer electronics companies that rely on displays from Samsung Display and BOE. While no specific IPR linkages or notable NPE (Non-Practicing Entity) assertion patterns have been identified for this specific case (2:25-cv-00412) in the initial searches, intellectual property disputes are common in this industry and can often involve parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The litigation between these two industry giants suggests a direct competitive dispute over core display technologies.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This case, SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al (2:25-cv-00412), is a patent infringement litigation active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

The lawsuit was filed on April 17, 2025, by Samsung Display Co., Ltd. against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. and several affiliates. The initial complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,574,991, among other OLED patents. This action in the Eastern District of Texas followed previous litigation at the International Trade Commission (ITC), where the ITC found that BOE infringed several of Samsung Display's OLED patents and upheld their validity. Despite these findings, BOE's alleged infringement continued, leading to Samsung Display's district court filings.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

As of May 26, 2026, detailed information regarding specific substantive pre-trial motions like motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR, or motions for summary judgment for this specific case (2:25-cv-00412) is not readily available in public search results. However, it is noteworthy that BOE initiated "a dozen IPR petitions" challenging Samsung Display's patents, including the ones asserted in related Eastern District of Texas cases.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

No specific claim construction (Markman) hearing or outcome has been publicly reported for this case as of the current date. Given the typical timeline for patent litigation, especially in the Eastern District of Texas, a Markman hearing would likely be scheduled later in the proceedings, if the case has not settled or been dismissed.

Discovery Milestones

Specific strategic discovery milestones are not publicly available in the search results.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The case is currently active, and there have been no public reports of trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions as of May 26, 2026.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

The case is currently active, and there has been no public report of a final disposition such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. has filed multiple inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging Samsung Display's patents. While the search results specifically mention IPR petitions related to U.S. Patent No. 11,500,496 and others, it is stated that BOE filed "a dozen IPR petitions" challenging Samsung Display's patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas, including those "related to the patents identified in the notice letter," which would encompass patents like 11,574,991. Some of these IPRs stemmed from an earlier ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1351), where an Administrative Law Judge found BOE to have infringed several of Samsung Display's OLED patents and upheld their validity. In some of these IPR proceedings, such as IPR2024-00620 (challenging a different patent), 12 of 18 challenged claims were confirmed as patentable in a final written decision by August 25, 2025. Another IPR (IPR2023-00987) concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,578,578 and U.S. Patent No. 11,578,803 resulted in a final written decision on January 6, 2025, where claim 21 of the '803 patent was found unpatentable, while other asserted claims of the '578 and '803 patents were not proven unpatentable. The precise impact of these IPR proceedings on the 2:25-cv-00412 case concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,574,991 is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd., the plaintiff in this patent infringement case (2:25-cv-00412), is represented by attorneys from two law firms: Roth & Abraham Law Firm and Covington & Burling LLP.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel:

Roth & Abraham Law Firm

• Amanda A. Abraham (Counsel)
  • Firm: Roth & Abraham Law Firm
  • Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results for this firm, but typically local counsel in Eastern District of Texas cases.
  • Experience Note: Often serves as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Covington & Burling LLP

• Jeffrey H. Lerner (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
  • Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Covington & Burling LLP has represented Samsung Display in other patent-related matters, including IPR proceedings.
• Jared R. Frisch (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
  • Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Works on patent litigation.
• Daniel W. Cho (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
  • Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Involved in patent litigation for Samsung Display.
• Kee Young Lee (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
  • Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Part of the legal team representing Samsung Display.
• Robert T. Haslam (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
  • Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: A patent litigator, often involved in high-stakes intellectual property disputes.
• Scott A. Schrader (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
  • Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Involved in patent litigation for Samsung Display.
• Jesse Y. Chang (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
  • Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Contributes to Samsung Display's patent litigation efforts.
• Sean Hong (Counsel)
  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
  • Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Member of the legal team representing Samsung Display in this case.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. and its affiliates, the defendants in case 2:25-cv-00412, are represented by attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Potomac Law Group.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel identified:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

• Christopher J. Glancy (Counsel) - Deceased - Christopher J. Glancy passed away on March 26, 2022. He spent most of his career as an intellectual property attorney.
• Joseph F. Anderson (Role not specified) - This appears to be a misidentification. Joseph Fletcher Anderson Jr. is a senior United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina and has served as a federal judge since 1986. He is not an attorney of record for BOE in this case. Another Joseph P. Anderson III is a patent attorney at Ballard Spahr, focusing on utility and design patent applications, and has experience with PTAB proceedings. It is unclear if this is the intended individual, or if the name was an error in the previous search results.
• Christopher J. Lee (Role not specified) - There are multiple attorneys named Christopher J. Lee. One Christopher Lee is a Managing Director at Lee Sheikh & Haan, with three decades of experience as lead trial and appellate counsel in intellectual property rights enforcement and defense. Another Christopher Jumin Lee is a first-chair trial lawyer at Bird Marella, recognized for handling high-stakes, complex disputes, and has represented Samsung Electronics. A third Christopher Lee is an Of Counsel at Pacific Law Group, with experience in IP and commercial transactions, corporate financing, M&A, and in-house legal counsel for technology companies. Another Christopher Lee is a Senior Associate at Clyde & Co, with experience in intellectual property infringement in insurance coverage analysis and disputes. Without further information linking a specific Christopher J. Lee to BOE in this case, a precise role and experience note is difficult to provide.
• Christopher G. Michel (Partner, Co-Chair of National Appellate Practice) - Washington, D.C. office. He has argued 11 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and dozens in federal and state appellate courts, with experience in high-stakes appellate and trial matters including intellectual property and technology.

Quinn Emanuel is a prominent law firm recognized for its patent litigation practice, representing leading technology companies as both plaintiffs and defendants in various jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of Texas. They have been ranked highly for patent litigation nationally and globally.

Potomac Law Group

• Alisa Pipes (Role not specified) - This appears to be a misidentification. An "Allisa Pipes" is listed as a real estate agent in Naples, Florida. No attorney named Alisa Pipes or Allisa Pipes with relevant patent litigation experience was found in connection with Potomac Law Group or BOE Technology Group.
• John ("Jack") J. Penny, Jr. (Partner) - Potomac Law Group. He prepares opinions concerning infringement, validity, unenforceability, and patentability, and handles patent litigation and intellectual property licensing. His expertise spans a wide range of technologies, including semiconductors, and he has extensive experience with PTAB proceedings.
• Jamaica Potts Szeliga (Partner, Intellectual Property group) - Potomac Law Group. She has over 20 years of experience prosecuting, managing, and overseeing global patent portfolios, as well as litigating patent and trade secret matters. She is an accomplished litigator in patent litigation (utility and design patents) and trade secret litigation, with experience in district courts, multi-district litigation, and before the PTAB.

Potomac Law Group's patent litigation and licensing lawyers have decades of experience representing diverse clients, including multinational companies, in federal district courts across various jurisdictions, including Texas, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB.