Untitled case

I'll verify the case metadata and patent first, since ITC investigation numbers in the 3,600s would be unusual for the current date.

Key finding: the "337-TA-3661" in the metadata appears to be a document-number artifact. Let me verify the real investigation number, the presiding ALJ, and the IPR history.

Metadata correction (read first)

The case number in the record — 337-TA-3661 — does not correspond to any ITC investigation. ITC investigation numbers were in the 1,350–1,400 range in 2023–2025, and the "3661" is almost certainly an artifact of the Commission's EDIS document numbering: the USITC's own Commission Notices index lists the institution notice as "337-TA-1351 DN # 3661" (document number 3661, investigation 1351). The real matter is:

In re Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1351 (USITC), instituted Jan. 27, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 7,463, Feb. 3, 2023), terminated March 2025 with a finding of no violation (90 Fed. Reg. 13,624, Mar. 25, 2025). Complainant: Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (Korea).

The narrative below treats 337-TA-1351 as the case, and flags where I could not confirm a fact.

Parties and accused technology

The complainant was Samsung Display Co., Ltd. ("SDC"), the Korean display-panel manufacturer (a Samsung Electronics affiliate and the principal AMOLED supplier for Apple's iPhones) — a classic operating company, not an NPE. The named respondents were seventeen U.S. aftermarket/repair-parts distributors — Apt-Ability LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix, Mobile Defenders, Injured Gadgets, Group Vertical, Electronics Universe (Fixez.com/Repairs Universe), LCTech/SEGMobile, Sourcely Plus, eTech Parts Plus, Parts4Cells, Wholesale Gadget Parts, Captain Mobile Parts, DFW Imports, Phone LCD Parts/Parts4LCD, Mengtor, and Gadgetfix — plus the Office of Unfair Import Investigations as a party. Critically, Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (BOE) intervened as a respondent in March 2023 (Order No. 7, unreviewed Mar. 22, 2023), because the panels the U.S. distributors were importing were made by Chinese panel makers. The accused products were AMOLED display panels and modules used as replacement/repair screens for mobile devices and components thereof — not finished phones. SDC sought a general exclusion order (or a limited exclusion order) and cease-and-desist orders, i.e., it was aiming at the upstream Chinese supply chain through the downstream U.S. importers. By the time of the final ID only a handful of claims survived: claims 5 and 21 of the '803 patent, claims 5, 10, 17, 40–41, 47 of the '578 patent, claims 2–3, 13, 15–16 of the '599 patent, and claim 6 of the '593 patent.

The patent at issue ('599) and its companions

U.S. Patent No. 7,414,599 ("organic light-emitting display device pixel circuit and driving method") covers the transistor-and-capacitor pixel circuit that drives each OLED sub-pixel — in one line: a drive transistor whose threshold-voltage deviation is detected and self-compensated by an auxiliary transistor, with emission controlled by series/power-supply transistors gated by a light-emitting (emission) signal, so brightness stays uniform despite TFT variation. It was asserted alongside U.S. 9,818,803 ('578 family), U.S. 10,854,683, U.S. 9,330,593, and later U.S. 11,594,578 (added by amendment of the complaint in March 2023) — a portfolio of AMOLED pixel-circuit/compensation patents. The '599 is the workhorse: SDC also asserted it in district court against BOE (E.D. Tex. No. 2:23-cv-00309, filed June 2023) and, per secondary reporting, in its later N.D. Tex. suits against TCL CSOT/Wuhan China Star (June 2025) and in the 2026 round of China–Korea OLED litigation.

Procedural posture and outcome

Section 337 proceedings are not district-court litigation: no jury, no damages, no Article III case-or-controversy requirement; the remedy is exclusion from the U.S. market. The case was tried before an ITC administrative law judge (I was not able to confirm the ALJ's name from the sources I reached — treat any attribution as unverified) with a 17-month target date. The procedural history is unusually eventful. In late 2023 the ALJ granted summary determination that SDC lacked standing, reasoning that its parent Samsung Electronics held an unrestricted sublicense right that divested SDC of exclusionary rights (Order No. 44, Jan. 9, 2024). On May 15, 2024, the Commission vacated that ID and remanded, holding that Section 337 does not require Article III standing, expressly overruling its prior decisions, while reaffirming that a complainant must be the patent "patentee"/owner or exclusive licensee at filing. On Nov. 15, 2024, the ALJ issued the final ID on remand finding no violation: SDC satisfied the technical prong for the '803, '578 and '599 patents, and at least one representative accused product infringed, but SDC failed the economic prong of the domestic-industry requirement for every asserted patent (and failed the technical prong for '593). The Commission reviewed in part (Jan. 2025), then terminated the investigation with no violation in March 2025 — no exclusion order ever issued.

Why the case matters

Three reasons. (1) It shows the limits of a general-exclusion-order strategy against upstream suppliers. SDC sued seventeen small U.S. repair-parts importers, but a GEO would have reached panels made by non-respondents — which is why BOE intervened and why BOE, TCL CSOT, Tianma and Visionox jointly filed IPRs against the same patents (including IPR2023-00941 on the '599, filed June 9, 2023), an unusually coordinated multi-panel-maker validity challenge. Per industry reporting, the PTAB ultimately declined to invalidate the '599 and '578, while knocking out some '593 claims; the '599 outcome was appealed to the Federal Circuit (Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor v. Samsung Display, No. 25-1426, an agency-case docket referencing IPR2023-00941). I could not independently pull the '599 FWD text or the appeal's disposition, so treat those specifics as secondarily sourced. (2) It produced a precedential standing ruling — the May 2024 Commission Opinion is now the cite for "no Article III standing at the ITC, but complainant must be a patentee" (see 337-TA-1351, Comm'n Op., May 15, 2024). (3) It is a market-structure case. The real dispute is Korea vs. China in AMOLED: BOE overtook SDC in annual U.S. patent grants in 2022, Chinese makers were supplying replacement and third-party panels, and the ITC turned out to be a poor lever because SDC could not show a U.S. domestic industry for repair-grade panels. The fight therefore migrated to district court (E.D. Tex. and, reportedly, N.D. Tex. against TCL CSOT in 2025–2026) and to parallel China litigation, including BOE's Chongqing suits against Samsung entities and Chinese invalidation actions.

Caveats: (a) 337-TA-3661 is not a valid investigation number; use 337-TA-1351. (b) I could not verify the ALJ's identity, the '599 IPR final-written-decision text, or the precise filing dates/outcomes of the 2025–2026 CSOT district-court actions; my sourcing for those is secondary trade press, not PACER/EDIS. (c) The '599's patent term (earliest non-provisional filing plus 20 years) should be checked against the face of the patent before relying on it for post-2025 assertions.

I'll investigate this ITC investigation number and the patent.

The investigation number in the metadata does not appear to exist. Let me verify what proceedings actually involve the '599 patent.

Preliminary note on the case identifier (important)

Investigation No. 337-TA-3661 does not exist. I could not find any ITC investigation, Federal Register notice, EDIS docket, or secondary report under that number, and the numbering is chronologically impossible: ITC Section 337 investigations were in the 337-TA-13xx range in 2023–2025 (the matter discussed below is 337-TA-1351, instituted 2023). A "‑3661" docket would imply several decades of future filings. The metadata supplied in this prompt appears to be erroneous — likely a transcription or generation error in the Google Patents "litigation" field, which is user-populated and notoriously unreliable.

The actual ITC proceeding involving U.S. Patent No. 7,414,599 is Investigation No. 337-TA-1351, Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof, instituted 2023-01-27. The narrative below covers that investigation and the directly related PTAB and district court proceedings on the '599 patent, flagging anything I could not verify. Treat the "337-TA-3661" label as unverified/incorrect pending confirmation.

---

The patent

U.S. Patent No. 7,414,599 B2 ("Pixel circuit of an organic light emitting display and driving method thereof"), issued 2008-08-19, inventors Ho-Kyoon Chung, Yang-Wan Kim, Choon-Yul Oh, Oh-Kyong Kwon, and Sang-Moo Choi, assigned to Samsung Display Co., Ltd. ("SDC"). Claims 1–18. It is the "pixel circuit" patent in SDC's AMOLED enforcement campaign — the companion "scan driver stage circuit" patent is the '593 patent.

---

1. Filing and institution of the ITC investigation

• 2022-12-28 — SDC files the Section 337 complaint against 17 U.S. respondents, all replacement-display wholesalers/refurbishers (MobileSentrix, Mobile Defenders, Injured Gadgets, Group Vertical, Electronics Universe/Fixez/Repairs Universe, LCTech/SEGMobile, Sourcely Plus, eTech Parts Plus, Parts4Cells, Wholesale Gadget Parts, Captain Mobile Parts, DFW Imports, Phone LCD Parts/4LCD, Mengtor, Gadgetfix). Supplement filed 2023-01-17.
• Asserted claims at institution: claims 1–5, 19–21 of the '803 patent; claims 1, 2, 4–10, 13 of the '683 patent; claims 1–18 of the '599 patent; claims 1–3, 6–8, 14–22 of the '593 patent. Requested remedy: general exclusion order (or LEO in the alternative) plus cease-and-desist orders.
• 2023-01-27 — Commission votes to institute; notice published at 88 Fed. Reg. 7463-64 (2023-02-03). OUII is a party.
• 2023-03-15 (order), 2023-03-22 (Comm'n notice) — Order No. 7 grants Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.'s unopposed motion to intervene as a respondent. This is the pivotal joinder in the case: BOE — the actual panel maker, and the real commercial target — enters even though the named respondents were U.S. resellers.
• No answer/counterclaim practice in the district-court sense. Under 19 C.F.R. § 210.13 respondents file a response to the complaint; there are no counterclaims at the ITC (respondents must litigate affirmative claims elsewhere). The substantive defenses here were raised by motion (standing), in pre-hearing briefs (waiver, invalidity, non-infringement, no domestic industry), and at hearing.

2. Amendment of the complaint and the '578 patent

• 2023-03-28 (Order No. 8), unreviewed 2023-04-20 — Commission grants SDC leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add U.S. Patent No. 11,595,578, asserting claims 1–6, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21–23, 40–47, 51–52.

3. Defaults and consent-order terminations

A strategic signature of this investigation: the small resellers defaulted en masse, leaving BOE and three "BLF Respondents" (Injured Gadgets, Wholesale Gadget Parts, Phone LCD Parts) to carry the defense.

• 2023-05-10 — Order No. 16: Captain Mobile Parts in default (unreviewed 2023-06-07).
• 2023-06-27 — Order Nos. 22/23: Group Vertical, Sourcely Plus, Mengtor in default (unreviewed 2023-07-20).
• 2023-07-19 — Order No. 25: Electronics Universe (Fixez.com / Repairs Universe) and LCTech/SEGMobile in default (unreviewed 2023-08-18).
• 2023-08-08 — Order No. 27: Parts4Cells, DFW Imports, Gadgetfix, eTech Parts Plus in default (unreviewed 2023-08-30).
• 2023-12-20 — Order No. 43: Apt-Ability (MobileSentrix) and Mobile Defenders terminated on consent order (unreviewed 2024-04-18).

4. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2023-06-30 — Markman hearing before the ALJ.
• 2023-09-11 — Order No. 28, "Construing Certain Claim Terms," addressing terms from three of the asserted patents, including a dedicated section (Part III.B) on the '599 patent. The order is in the record as an exhibit (Ex. 2018) in the parallel IPRs and was expressly considered by the PTAB. Note that the ITC construes terms under the Phillips framework; the Board in IPR2023-00941 cited Order No. 28 (via Ex. 2005) and stated its conclusions would be unchanged under either party's proposed claim-construction approach.
• Separately, in the final ID the ALJ made infringement findings on the surviving '599 claims: claims 15 and 16 infringed; claims 2, 3, and 13 not infringed (per the Commission's 2025-01-23 review notice, 90 Fed. Reg. 8034).

5. Claim-by-claim attrition and the standing bombshell

• 2023-10-26 — Order No. 34 terminates certain claims (unreviewed 2023-11-27).
• 2023-11-27 — Commission grants SDC's motion for partial termination as to '599 claims 4, 6–12, and 14 (plus claims of the '803, '683, '578, and '593 patents), based on withdrawal.
• 2023-11-15 — BOE and the BLF Respondents jointly move for summary determination that SDC lacks standing — theory: SDC's parent, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC"), holds an unrestricted right to sublicense the asserted patents, divesting SDC of exclusionary rights.
• 2024-01-09 — Order No. 44: ALJ grants the motion and finds no violation for lack of standing. This was decided on the eve of the evidentiary hearing and, had it stood, would have ended the investigation outright — a much bigger event than the '599 patent alone, since it would have voided the entire Section 337 framework for subsidiary-held patents.
• 2024-01-08 — Commission grants SDC's motion for partial termination as to '599 claims 1, 5, 17, and 18 (unreviewed; Order No. 39 of 2023-12-07).
• 2024-04-24 (Comm'n Op. dated 2024-05-15) — The Commission vacates Order No. 44 and remands. Holding: (1) Article III standing is not required before the Commission — an administrative tribunal, not an Article III court; the Commission expressly overruled its prior decisions applying a constitutional standing requirement; but (2) the complainant must still be the owner or exclusive licensee ("patentee" in the Commission's practice) at filing, and there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether SEC actually had an unrestricted sublicense right and whether SDC held all substantial rights. This is the single most-cited legal holding to come out of the investigation (see, e.g., Nat'l L. Rev., 2024-05-30, "Section 337 Doesn't Require Article III Standing for Claimant but Claimant Must Be 'Patentee'").
• On remand: 2024-06-11 Order No. 50 — the ALJ held SDC had waived the "all substantial rights" argument because respondents did not raise it in their pre-hearing brief under the Ground Rules; 2024-06-14 Order No. 51 partially terminated the investigation as to '593 claim 20 and the '683 patent in its entirety (unreviewed 2024-07-03).
• Surviving at the final ID: '803 claims 5 and 21; '578 claims 5, 10, 17, 40–41, 47; '599 claims 2–3, 13, 15–16; '593 claim 6.

6. Evidentiary hearing and final initial determination

• 2024-07-08–09 and 2024-07-15–17 — Evidentiary hearing (six days) before the ALJ.
• 2024-11-15 — Final ID: NO VIOLATION of Section 337. Principal ground: SDC failed to prove the existence of a domestic industry (in particular the economic prong — the Commission later affirmed the ID's refusal to count Samsung Electronics America's investments in Galaxy phones toward the domestic industry, applying the "articles protected by the patent" / Magnetic Tape line of cases). On infringement, the ALJ found at least one representative accused product infringes '599 claims 15–16 but not claims 2–3 or 13, and found the claims had not been shown invalid.
• 2024-11-29 — SDC petitions for review (targeting '803, '578, '599 findings and the economic prong; notably did not challenge the '593 findings). BOE and the BLF Respondents file a joint contingent petition. Responses 2024-12-09. OUII does not petition.
• 2024-11-22 — Commission solicits public-interest comments, 89 Fed. Reg. 92721; comments received from Rep. John Moolenaar (House Select Committee on China) and ITIF's Robert Atkinson — a signal of the geopolitical salience of a potential GEO against Chinese-sourced AMOLED panels.
• 2025-01-23 — Commission determines to review in part, 90 Fed. Reg. 8034. Issues taken up: (1) statutory authority to investigate and the waiver/Rule 210.12 question; (2) the technical prong for the '803 patent; (3) the economic prong of domestic industry. All other findings — including the no-violation finding on the '593 patent — were not reviewed and thus became final.
• 2025-03-25 (Federal Register) — **Investigation TERMINATED with

Threshold point: this is Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1351, not “337‑TA‑3661”

Before naming anyone, the case identifier in the metadata needs correcting, because the answer depends on it.

• There is no ITC investigation numbered 337‑TA‑3661. ITC investigation numbers were still in the 1,4xx range in 2026.
• “3661” is a Commission Determination number, not an investigation number. The USITC's own Commission Notices index lists: “Certain Active Matrix Organic Light‑Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof — 337‑TA‑1351 — DN # 3661 — Institution of Investigation — Jan 27, 2023” (usitc.gov Commission Notices).
• The investigation that actually asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,414,599 is Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1351, instituted January 27, 2023 on a complaint filed December 28, 2022 (supplemented January 17, 2023) by Samsung Display Co., Ltd. of Gyeonggi‑do, Korea, asserting the '803, '683, '599 and '593 patents (USITC News Release 23‑010; 88 FR 7463 (Feb. 3, 2023)). The '599 patent is one of the four patents in that investigation and was among the patents on which claim construction was litigated (see the Board's discussion of the ALJ's '599 constructions in Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1351, IPR2023‑00941 record).

So the “plaintiff” here is the complainant, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“SDC”). (Strictly, a § 337 investigation has a complainant, not a plaintiff; the Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also a party, but OUII staff are not complainant's counsel.)

---

Counsel of record for the complainant (Samsung Display Co., Ltd.), Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1351

Roles below are characterized from the public record (notices of appearance, service lists, and signature blocks); the ITC docket does not formally designate a single “lead counsel” the way a district court does, so “lead” reflects who signed and served as the primary contact.

Sources for the counsel list: the November 19, 2024 Notice of Appearance for respondent Mianyang BOE, whose certificate of service lists “Counsel for Complainant Samsung Display Co., Ltd. — Jeffrey H. Lerner, Covington & Burling LLP … S. Alex Lasher, Quinn Emanuel …” with case‑specific service mailboxes SDC-OLED-Cov-337@cov.com / jlerner@cov.com and qe-sdc-1351@quinnemanuel.com / alexlasher@quinnemanuel.com (EDIS doc via Docket Alarm); and SDC's unopposed motion for leave to file its public‑interest submission out of time (Dec. 2024), whose signature block carries the full Covington team and offices listed above (EDIS doc).

Covington's institutional role for SDC is corroborated independently: an expert declaration filed in IPR2023‑00941 describes the firm as “retained by plaintiff Samsung Display Company Ltd.” in ITC 337‑TA‑1351, and Covington has held SDC's PTAB power of attorney in earlier SDC IPRs (e.g., IPR2015‑01491, backup counsel Jay I. Alexander and Andrea G. Reister of Covington, DC).

---

What I could not verify — stated explicitly

• No PACER/docket pull. ITC is not on PACER; the docket is EDIS (edis.usitc.gov). My counsel list comes from public EDIS filings surfaced through secondary aggregators (Docket Alarm, RPX, USITC/FR notices), not from a live EDIS query. Some filings in this investigation are confidential/business‑confidential‑redacted, so the appearance list above may be incomplete for later phases, and it likely over‑includes associates who signed a single Commission filing.
• No separate “local counsel” — the ITC has no local‑counsel requirement; Covington (DC) served as lead with Quinn Emanuel (DC) as co‑counsel.
• In‑house counsel: not identified in any public filing I found; SDC's in‑house IP department is not named on the public docket. I will not guess at names.
• Parallel district court cases asserting the '599 patent exist — Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2:23‑cv‑00309 (E.D. Tex.) (complaint at CourtListener docket 67529099) and a later SDC suit against CSOT in N.D. Tex. — but I did not verify the appearance dockets for those cases in this pass, so I am not attributing counsel to them beyond noting Covington's known SDC relationship.
• IPR2023‑00941 / Fed. Cir. No. 25‑1426 (BOE, CSOT, Tianma, Visionox challenging the '599 patent; appeal at the Federal Circuit) is the main parallel PTAB track. SDC's counsel in that IPR/appeal is not confirmed by anything I retrieved; the PTAB power‑of‑attorney data I found is from 2015 and should not be assumed to carry forward.

Practical note on the caption for your file

If the intent is “the ITC matter asserting the '599 patent,” the correct citation is:

Certain Active Matrix Organic Light‑Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof, Inv

Bottom line first: the docket number in the case metadata does not check out

Before naming anyone, I have to flag a threshold problem that materially affects the answer.

I could not verify any ITC investigation numbered "337-TA-3661." The Commission assigns Section 337 investigation numbers sequentially; as of late 2025/2026 the numbering is in the 337-TA-1470s–1480s range (e.g., the Netlist/Samsung matter instituted December 29, 2025 is 337-TA-1472). An investigation numbered 3661 does not exist and, on the current trajectory, would not exist for decades. My searches for the literal string "337-TA-3661" returned only unrelated Federal Register document numbers (e.g., FR Doc. 2010-3661, the Toshiba notebook computer investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-705). There is no EDIS docket, no Commission notice, and no press release corresponding to 337-TA-3661.

What the patent actually maps to. U.S. Patent No. 7,414,599 (OLED pixel circuit and driving method) has been asserted in a well-documented ITC proceeding and in district court:

So the metadata's "defendant(s)" are, in the ITC analogue, respondents — and the only ITC vehicle for the '599 patent is 337-TA-1351, not 337-TA-3661. I have proceeded on that basis and I am labeling the discrepancy rather than guessing.

---

Counsel I could verify

Respondents' side

Important caveat: the four Orrick attorneys above are documented as PTAB counsel of record for Mianyang BOE, Wuhan China Star, Tianma, and Visionox in IPR2023-00941 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,414,599), per Samsung Display's mandatory notices and the petitioners' service certificates. Orrick is the natural candidate for BOE's ITC defense team as well, since the IPR petitioners coordinated with ITC counsel and sought discovery of ITC-produced material — but I did not verify their appearance in 337-TA-1351's EDIS docket, and I will not state that they are ITC counsel of record.

I was also unable to verify counsel for the "BLF Respondents" (Injured Gadgets, LLC; Wholesale Gadget Parts, Inc.; Phone LCD Parts LLC/Parts4LCD) — the three active non-defaulting respondents who jointly briefed and litigated the standing and domestic-industry issues alongside BOE. Those names appear in EDIS certificates of service and in the parties' briefs, but my research was cut short before I could pull a filing and confirm. I am not going to invent them. Note that the respondent group publicly crowdsourced its legal fees ("All proceeds from this GoFundMe campaign will go to fund the legal fees of this group"), which is consistent with a shared/small-firm defense team — but that is inference, not a verified appearance.

Complainant's side (for contrast — these are the plaintiff's counsel, not defendants')

---

What happened in the real proceeding (context for the respondent team)

• Feb. 3, 2023 — Commission institutes 337-TA-1351 against 17 aftermarket repair respondents; OUII named a party. (88 FR 7463)
• Mar. 22, 2023 — Commission grants Mianyang BOE's unopposed motion to intervene as a respondent (Order No. 7).
• Jan. 9, 2024 — ALJ (Moore) grants Respondents' motion for summary determination of no violation for lack of constitutional standing, holding Samsung Electronics' unrestricted sublicense right divested SDC of exclusionary rights (Order No. 44).
• Apr. 24, 2024 — Commission vacates that ID, holding Article III standing is not required at the Commission and remanding.
• Nov. 15, 2024 — Final ID of no violation: SDC failed the economic prong of domestic industry for all asserted patents; certain claims of the '599 patent (2–3, 13) not shown to be infringed.
• Jan. 16, 2025 — Commission reviews in part (statutory authority, Rule 210.12 waiver, '803 technical prong, economic prong); Mar. 19, 2025 target date; investigation terminated with a finding of no violation (90 FR, Mar. 25, 2025).
• Parallel PTAB: IPR2023-00941 ('599) filed June 9, 2023 by BOE/CSOT/Tianma/Visionox — the '599 patent was upheld (per subsequent reporting that the '599 and '578 patents "have already been upheld as valid in IPR proceedings").

---

Sources

• USITC News Release 23-010 (Jan. 27, 2023), https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2023/er0127_63471.htm
• 88 FR 7463 (Feb. 3, 2023) institution notice, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2023-02-03/2023-02246
• 90 FR 8034 (Jan. 23, 2025) Commission determination to review in part, https://www.thefederalregister.org/documents/2025-01563/
• USITC notice extending target date to Mar. 19, 2025, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1351_notice03172025sgl.pdf
• IPR2023-00941 filings (Orrick service certificate; Samsung Display mandatory notices) via Docket Alarm, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00941/
• Fish & Richardson, "ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2024," https://www.fr.com/insights/thought-leadership/blogs/itc-monthly-wrap-up-january-2024/
• Communications Daily, "ITC Ends Investigation on Cellphone Screens…" (Mar. 24, 2025)
• Blue Peak Law Group attorney bio, https://www.bluepeak.law/attorneys/heng-gong
• Injured Gadgets respondent-group page, https://www.injuredgadgets.com/itc

---

Explicit gaps — do not treat as verified

1. No docket exists for 337-TA-3661. Any counsel list for that number would be fabricated.
2. Counsel of record for the BLF Respondents in 337-TA-1351 is unverified. I did not retrieve an EDIS filing or notice of appearance naming them.
3. BOE's ITC counsel is unverified. I have confirmed Orrick as BOE's PTAB counsel on the '599 patent, not its ITC counsel.
4. Counsel for BOE and TCL CSOT in the district court suits (E.D. Va. 1:25-cv-00908; N.D. Tex. 2025) is unverified — I confirmed the dockets' existence but not appearances.

To close these gaps, the authoritative step is to pull from EDIS (https://edis.usitc.gov) for Inv. No. 337-TA-1351: the complaint's notice-of-appearance filings, Order No. 7 (BOE's intervention motion, which lists its counsel), the joint pre-hearing brief cover pages for the BLF Respondents, and any certificate of service in the Nov. 29, 2024 petitions for review. If you can confirm which real docket you intended — 337-TA-1351, or one of the district court cases — I'll run the appearance list to ground each name to a specific filing.