Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: [Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Tianma%20Microelectronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al

This patent infringement litigation, case number 1:25-cv-02021, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs are Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd., both operating companies based in China that manufacture display panels. The defendants are LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc., a prominent South Korean operating company specializing in display technology. Tianma alleged that certain LG Display monitor and automotive panel products infringed its intellectual property. The case has recently reached a settlement, with the court approving it on May 22, 2026, and a notice of settlement or motion to extend the stay due by June 29, 2026.

Tianma asserted four patents related to various display technologies, including thin-film transistor (TFT) structures, touch display panels, organic light-emitting diode (OLED) manufacturing stability, and high-resolution OLED pixel arrangements. While the original case metadata mentioned US Patent 12293691, current search results for this specific case primarily describe the asserted patents generically by their technical focus areas rather than listing individual patent numbers. This dispute is part of a broader patent conflict between the two display manufacturing giants, which also involved LG Display countersuing Tianma in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of seven LCD and OLED-related patents.

The procedural posture of this case is notable for its venue in the Western District of Texas, presided over by Judge Robert Pitman. The Western District of Texas has historically been a popular forum for patent litigation, known for its fast-paced proceedings and, previously, the high concentration of patent cases on Judge Alan Albright's docket. However, a new rule implemented in July 2022 introduced random assignment of judges to patent cases in the district. The case is particularly notable due to the linkage with parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Tianma's petitions to invalidate LG Display patents at the PTAB were dismissed in March 2026, as the U.S. patent office raised concerns about Tianma's eligibility to file the petitions, citing its potential ties to Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC), a Chinese state-owned aerospace and defense group, and questioning its "real party in interest" (RPI) status. This aspect highlights the increasing scrutiny of foreign state-owned entities in U.S. patent disputes and adds a layer of complexity to cross-border intellectual property enforcement. The resolution of all litigation between the two companies is expected with this settlement.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al. (1:25-cv-02021)

This patent infringement case, filed in the Texas Western District Court, involved Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Tianma") as plaintiffs, asserting infringement of four U.S. patents against LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. (collectively, "LG Display"). The asserted patents were U.S. Patent No. 8,785,925, U.S. Patent No. 10,234,971, U.S. Patent No. 10,770,525, and U.S. Patent No. 12,293,691.

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-06-13: Related Litigation Filed by LG Display: Prior to this specific case, LG Display initiated its own patent infringement lawsuit against Tianma in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of seven patents related to LCD and OLED technologies.
• 2025-10: IPR Petition Filed by Tianma: In response to LG Display's lawsuit, Tianma filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) targeting one of LG Display's patents, U.S. Patent No. 11,251,394 B2. This patent covered an OLED structure that integrated touch sensing.
• 2025-12-09: Complaint Filed (1:25-cv-02021): Tianma filed the patent infringement complaint against LG Display in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Tianma alleged that LG Display's TFT-LCD and OLED display panels, including those in certain monitor and automotive products, infringed four of Tianma's patents related to thin-film transistor structures, touch-display panel configurations, OLED manufacturing processes, and high-resolution pixel arrangements. The patents asserted by Tianma were U.S. Patent No. 8,785,925, "Thin Film Device" (issued July 22, 2014); U.S. Patent No. 10,234,971, "Touch-Display Panel and Touch-Display Device" (issued March 19, 2019); U.S. Patent No. 10,770,525 (issued September 8, 2020); and U.S. Patent No. 12,293,691, "Display Device and Luminance Allocation Method" (issued May 6, 2025). The case was assigned to Judge Robert Pitman.
• 2026-03-18: PTAB Denies Institution of Tianma's IPR Petition: USPTO Director John Squires issued a precedential ruling denying institution of Tianma's IPR petition against LG Display's U.S. Patent No. 11,251,394 B2. The denial was not based on the technical merits of the challenge but on grounds that Tianma lacked the legal standing to file the petition. The USPTO found that Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. failed to demonstrate its independence from Aviation Industry Corp. of China (AVIC), a state-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate which owned more than 10% of Tianma's stock. The Director held that foreign governments, like the U.S. government, are not considered a "person" permitted to be a petitioner or real party in interest in IPR or PGR proceedings under the America Invents Act. This ruling effectively closed the PTAB route for Tianma to challenge LG Display's patents and was seen as a significant win for LG Display.
• 2026-05-22: Settlement Approved and Case Outcome: The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas approved a settlement in the patent infringement lawsuit 1:25-cv-02021. This settlement resolved all patent disputes between Tianma and LG Display in the United States, including both this case and the separate lawsuit LG Display had filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Industry observers noted that Tianma likely opted for settlement following the unfavorable PTAB decision, which limited its avenues for challenging patent validity. The companies are understood to be proceeding with dismissal procedures for both lawsuits.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:
LG Display also filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR2026-00028) petition against Tianma's U.S. Patent No. 12,293,691, one of the patents asserted in the Western District of Texas case. However, the precedential PTAB decision on March 18, 2026, regarding Tianma's standing as a foreign government-controlled entity, significantly impacted any ongoing or future PTAB challenges involving either party. The overall settlement encompassed all pending litigation and IPR proceedings between the parties.

Given the settlement, the case did not proceed to pre-trial motions of substance beyond what might have occurred before May 2026, nor did it reach claim construction, extensive discovery milestones, or trial events. The final disposition is a settlement and expected dismissal.

In the patent infringement case Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al (1:25-cv-02021), the plaintiff, Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd., is represented by attorneys from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Wilson, Robertson & Vandeventer, P.C..

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for the plaintiff:

• Timothy Vann Pearce, Jr.

  • Role: Representing Plaintiff Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd.. He appears to be lead or substantive counsel given his repeated mention in docket entries.
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Wilson, Robertson & Vandeventer, P.C..
  • Note: Timothy Vann Pearce, Jr. has been identified as counsel for Tianma Microelectronics in other patent litigation contexts and PTAB proceedings, for example, regarding Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices in a PGR proceeding involving US Patent 12293691.

• Christian A. Chu

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff, with a motion to appear Pro Hac Vice filed on March 13, 2026.
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but likely associated with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, as that firm is generally identified as Plaintiff's counsel.
  • Note: His motion to appear pro hac vice indicates he is not locally admitted to the Western District of Texas.

• Joshua Goldberg

  • Role: Counsel for Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd. in related PTAB proceedings.
  • Firm: Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.. (Though note that in an IPR against Japan Display Inc., he was listed as "Petitioner Counsel" for Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd.).
  • Note: Joshua Goldberg has represented Tianma Microelectronics in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

The case has recently reached a settlement, which was approved by the court on May 22, 2026.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record in this case.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.

Bottom line: Unlike the plaintiff side (Orrick + Wilson, Robertson & Vandeventer), LG Display did not use its Eastern District of Texas team (Mayer Brown) in this W.D. Tex. case. Both LG Display entities were represented by Fish & Richardson P.C., which filed a Notice of Special Appearance and then moved its attorneys in pro hac vice. No in-house counsel and no separate Texas "local counsel" firm appear on the docket — Fish & Richardson filled both roles, with its W.D. Tex.-admitted principal R. Andrew Schwentker serving as the Texas-facing signatory.

Table of counsel of record

Docket trail (as reflected in public docket mirrors)

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint filed 12/9/2025 by Timothy J. Carroll (Orrick), 46 pages, assigned to Judge Robert Pitman; Magistrate Judge Howell designated for referrals/consent. (PACER Monitor mirror)
• Dkt. 5–7 — Service on LG Display America, Inc. (12/15/2025) and LG Display Co., Ltd. (12/16/2025).
• Notice of Special Appearance of Counsel by LG Display America, Inc. and LG Display Co., Ltd., signed by Schwentker — consistent with a foreign-defendant strategy of appearing specially while contesting the response deadline rather than answering.
• Dkt. 9 — Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; Rule 7 Disclosure Statement and reply filed by Ballanco for both LG entities (disclosure identified LG Display Co., Ltd. as parent of LG Display America, Inc., and LG Electronics Inc. as parent of LG Display Co., Ltd.). Text order by Judge Pitman granted the motion in part, setting answer/response due March 31, 2026.
• Pro hac vice motions filed by Schwentker for Christian A. Chu and Jared M. Hartzman (receipt nos. ATXWDC-21564023 and ATXWDC-21563953), plus McKeon's own PHV motion (receipt no. ATXWDC-21581343) and Dkt. 26, McKeon's Notice of Attorney Appearance adding him for both defendants.
• May 22, 2026 — joint stipulation dismissing all claims with prejudice; case closed May 26, 2026 (basis of termination: "dismissed with prejudice"). (Patsnap litigation record)

Corroboration that Fish & Richardson was LG Display's chosen firm for this dispute

• In the parallel PTAB proceeding PGR2026-00028, LG Display's petitioner counsel is W. Karl Renner — a Fish & Richardson principal — challenging Tianma's U.S. Patent No. 12,293,691, the same patent asserted here. (IPVerse PGR2026-00028)
• In IPR2025-01579 (Tianma's petition against LG Display's '394 patent), LG Display's respondent counsel is Amanda Bonner — i.e., its E.D. Tex./Mayer Brown team, confirming the split: Mayer Brown handled LG Display's offensive E.D. Tex. case and the '394 IPR, while Fish & Richardson handled this W.D. Tex. defensive case and the '691 PGR. (IPVerse IPR2025-01579)
• Fish firm materials confirm McKeon, Schwentker, and Chu work as a team for LG entities. (fr.com — Schwentker; fr.com — McKeon; CCB Journal on the LG Delaware Supreme Court win)

Flags and contradictions to resolve

1. Christian A. Chu is on the wrong side in the previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section. That section lists Chu as a plaintiff's pro hac vice applicant (motion filed March 13, 2026) and speculates he is "likely associated with Orrick." The docket shows the Chu PHV motion was filed by Schwentker on behalf of LG Display America, Inc. and LG Display Co., Ltd., and Fish & Richardson's own announcements identify Chu as a Fish principal on the LG team. Chu should be treated as LG Display's counsel, not Tianma's. (Chu's firm/office should be corrected accordingly.)
2. The same section's note that Timothy Vann Pearce, Jr. is at "Orrick … and Wilson, Robertson & Vandeventer" conflates two firms; the docket shows Orrick (Carroll, Pearce, Guerra, Higgins, Sun, Ma) and Waco local counsel Wilson, Robertson & Vandeventer (Jennifer Parker Ainsworth; Gerald E. Porter) as separate entries. Not a defendant-side issue, but it affects the mirrored counsel table.
3. Fish & Richardson appears in Patsnap's plaintiff-side firm list for this case. That is almost certainly a data-grouping error: Fish is the LG Display firm, and its attorneys (McKeon, Schwentker, Chu, Hartzman, Ballanco) are the ones the docket attributes to the defendants. Treat any source placing Fish with Tianma skeptically.

Not verified / caveats

• The actual PACER docket sheet was not directly retrieved; the entries above come from PACER Monitor's public docket mirror and Patsnap's docket-derived party record. Document numbers for the individual PHV motions (Chu, Hartzman, McKeon) beyond the "Dkt. 26" appearance could not be confirmed and are therefore described without numbering.
• Office locations for Chu, Hartzman, and Ballanco were not confirmed in the sources I could reach; Fish & Richardson's directory pages list McKeon (Washington, D.C.), Schwentker (Washington, D.C./New York), and describe Chu as a principal but did not surface an office in the material reviewed.
• No in-house LG Display legal-department attorney appears in the counsel record; if one was involved, it was not entered on the docket.
• Because the case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on May 22, 2026, no further appearances (e.g., trial or appellate counsel) will appear in this docket.