Untitled case

The patent 11626066 could not be found via USPTO Public Search directly from the search results, it seems that the USPTO search engine results are not showing direct patent links. I will try a more direct search for the patent abstract itself.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Patent Infringement Litigation 2:25-cv-00426

The patent infringement lawsuit, "Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.," Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-00426-JRG-RSP, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This case was part of a larger, multi-year global patent dispute between the two display manufacturing giants concerning OLED technologies.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Samsung Display Co., Ltd. initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. on April 21, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleged patent infringement related to Samsung Display's patented OLED technologies.
• Asserted Patents: While the litigation involved "additional OLED patents" from Samsung Display's portfolio, the specific assertion of US Patent 11626066 in this particular case (2:25-cv-00426) is not explicitly detailed in the available records. Other patents, such as US Patent No. 9,299,730 and US Patent No. 11,500,496, were mentioned in connection with this or related cases between the parties.
• Docket Control Order: A Docket Control Order was issued on October 8, 2025, outlining the schedule for the litigation.

Pre-trial Motions:

• Motions to Stay Pending IPR: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed "a dozen IPR petitions" challenging various Samsung Display patents, including a petition for inter partes review of US Patent No. 11,500,496. It is implied that motions to stay the district court proceedings pending these IPRs may have been considered, but the Eastern District of Texas and Judge Rodney Gilstrap are known to routinely deny such requests, especially in cases involving direct competitors. No specific ruling on a motion to stay for case 2:25-cv-00426 was explicitly found in the provided information.
• No other substantive pre-trial motions (e.g., motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment) specific to this case were detailed in the available snippets prior to the settlement.

Claim Construction (Markman):

• There is no explicit record of a Markman hearing or claim construction order for this specific case in the provided information. Given the timeframe from filing to settlement (April to November 2025), it is possible the case settled before reaching this stage.

Discovery Milestones:

• No specific details regarding discovery milestones or strategic significance were found in the provided information.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• A trial was reportedly scheduled for February 8, 2027, for an infringement proceeding involving the '496 Patent, which was estimated to be approximately 22 months after the complaint was filed. However, this trial did not occur due to the subsequent settlement.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition:

• In November 2025, Samsung Display and BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. reached a global settlement. As a result of this agreement, all pending litigation between the companies was terminated, and their respective complaints were withdrawn.
• As part of the settlement, BOE reportedly agreed to license Samsung Display's OLED intellectual property and pay royalties.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed numerous inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging Samsung Display's patents, described as "a dozen IPR petitions." One such petition specifically targeted US Patent No. 11,500,496. US Patent No. 9,299,730, also asserted in the district court action, would also be a candidate for IPRs.
• The available information does not explicitly confirm any IPR or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically for US Patent 11626066. While BOE challenged "dozens of patents" from Samsung Display's OLED portfolio through IPRs, a direct record for 11626066 in the PTAB database was not found through web search. The extensive IPR activity likely contributed to the broader global settlement between the parties.

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-00426, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas:

Covington & Burling LLP (Lead Counsel)
Covington & Burling LLP has a well-established patent litigation practice with over 130 attorneys, frequently representing technology and pharmaceutical companies in federal courts, the ITC, and before the PTAB. The firm is known for handling complex, high-stakes disputes and has a strong appellate practice.

• Daniel W. Cho (Partner, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Experience: A trial lawyer specializing in high-stakes intellectual property disputes for technology and life sciences clients. He has experience in patent litigation involving electronics, semiconductors, smartphones, manufacturing systems, and OLED display technology. He has been recognized as a "Rising Star" in Intellectual Property Litigation by Washington D.C. Super Lawyers.

• Jared Frisch (Partner, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Experience: Specializes in complex patent trials across U.S. district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Federal Circuit. His litigation experience includes matters involving LCD, OLED, and LED displays, as well as semiconductors and micro-electromechanical systems.

• Robert Thomas Haslam, III (Senior Counsel, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Palo Alto
  • Experience: Emphasizes trial work in patent and trade secret litigation, particularly in high-technology disputes involving semiconductor products, cryptography, GPS and cellular technology, and medical devices. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer.

• Jeffrey Lerner (Partner, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Experience: Vice chair of Covington's Patent Litigation Group, with extensive experience before federal district courts, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit. He has tried cases in various technology areas, including pharmaceuticals, DNA technology, semiconductors, electronics, and medical devices. He previously represented Samsung as a respondent in an ITC investigation concerning LEDs.

• Jesse Chang (Attorney, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP (office location not specified in provided search results, but typically Washington D.C. or California for patent litigation related to the firm).
  • Experience: The search results indicate he is an attorney at Covington & Burling LLP and part of the patent litigation group. Specific detailed experience for Jesse Chang was not readily available beyond his affiliation with the firm.

• Kee Young Lee (Litigator, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Experience: Specializes in intellectual property disputes in U.S. district courts and the ITC, leveraging his electrical and computer engineering background. He has litigated cases involving semiconductors, OLED and LCD displays, software, and wireless communications. He previously worked as a patent examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

• Brian Bieluch (Partner, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Los Angeles and Washington D.C.
  • Experience: Vice chair of the Intellectual Property Litigation Group, focusing on complex, multi-forum patent and technology litigation in the ITC, district courts, and the Federal Circuit. He has served as coordinating counsel for international IP disputes and has represented Samsung Electronics in past IP litigation.

• Sean Hong (Associate, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, New York.
  • Experience: Member of the firm's Patent Litigation Practice Group, with expertise in patent litigation, PTAB trials, and technology.

• Tarek Austin (Litigator, Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Covington & Burling LLP, Washington D.C.
  • Experience: Focuses on high-stakes intellectual property disputes and appeals for technology and life sciences clients, primarily before federal district and appellate courts and the ITC. His experience spans semiconductors, electronics, solar energy, wireless networking, and software. He also played a key role in Covington's patent victory for Netflix.

The Roth Law Firm (Local Counsel)
The Roth Law Firm is a "boutique" law firm located in Marshall, Texas, specializing in intellectual property, products liability, and commercial litigation. The firm is known for its expertise in local federal court practice within the Eastern District of Texas and its attorneys often serve as local and trial counsel.

• Amanda Aline Abraham (Attorney, Local Counsel)
  • Firm: The Roth Law Firm, Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience: An attorney at The Roth Law Firm, which has significant expertise in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, often serving as local counsel.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 2:25-cv-00426, in the Texas Eastern District Court:

Defendant(s): BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.

The defendant BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. is represented by attorneys from Morrison & Foerster LLP, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, and Findlay Craft, P.C..

Morrison & Foerster LLP

• Brian Christopher Nash
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner, Chair of the global IP Litigation Group and Managing Partner of the Austin office.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Experience Note: Brian Nash has litigated over 250 intellectual property cases nationally, with significant experience in the Western District of Texas, and represents clients in complex patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright disputes across various technologies, including semiconductors.
• Bita Rahebi
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner, Vice Chair of Morrison Foerster's global IP Litigation Group, and Co-Leader of its Semiconductor Industry Group.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Bita Rahebi is a nationally recognized trial lawyer for high-stakes intellectual property disputes, including complex patent litigation in technologies such as semiconductors, software, and consumer electronics, and has secured preliminary injunctions and dispositive wins.
• Richard S.J. Hung
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner, Global Co-Chair of Morrison Foerster's Litigation Department.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience Note: Richard Hung, a registered patent lawyer and former Federal Circuit clerk, has nearly 30 years of experience in high-stakes patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret litigation across a broad range of technologies, including smartphones and semiconductors.
• Yue Li (also known as Lily Li)
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner in the firm's Intellectual Property practice and Head of Litigation in the Palo Alto office.
  • Firm & Office Location: Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Experience Note: Lily Li has an engineering background and experience in-house at a semiconductor company, leading high-stakes patent litigation, trade secret matters, and licensing disputes across various technologies, including semiconductors, software, and hardware systems.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

• Jason Yu
  • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner, Member of the Intellectual Property Group.
  • Firm & Office Location: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Silicon Valley, CA.
  • Experience Note: Jason Yu focuses primarily on complex patent and trade secret litigation and inter partes proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, representing technology companies in various state and federal courts and the International Trade Commission. His firm, Orrick, represents BOE in disputes concerning OLED displays.

Findlay Craft, P.C.

• Eric Hugh Findlay
  • Role: Local Counsel, Founding Partner.
  • Firm & Office Location: Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, TX.
  • Experience Note: Eric Findlay is a trial lawyer with nearly 30 years of experience, specializing in patent litigation in East Texas, having appeared in over 1000 patent cases as both lead and local counsel.
• Stuart Hene
  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, TX.
  • Experience Note: Stuart Hene's legal career has focused on oil & gas, business, commercial real estate, and general civil litigation, and he is admitted to practice in the Texas Eastern District Court. He provides local counsel services in East Texas patent litigation.