Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00532, is active in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The plaintiffs are Pictiva Displays International, Ltd. and its parent company, Key Patent Innovations Limited (KPI), both identified as patent assertion entities (PAEs) specializing in patent monetization. Pictiva Displays International acquired its asserted patents, including those originally from OSRAM. The defendants are [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., global manufacturers of consumer electronics. The accused products are a broad range of Samsung's consumer electronics that feature Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) displays, specifically including Galaxy smartphones, tablets, computers, personal wear products, and televisions.

The litigation involves US Patent 8,723,164, among six other patents (US6949389B2, US8314547B2, US11828425B2, US8558223B2, US20240110678A1, and US9257492B2), all generally pertaining to OLED display technology. U.S. Patent No. 8,723,164 specifically describes an electronic device designed for improved charge carrier transport and balance within its organic layers, aiming for increased efficiency, often embodied in an organic light-emitting diode (OLED).

The case was initially filed on July 12, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and is presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. On May 29, 2025, this case (referred to as Pictiva II) was consolidated for all pretrial purposes with a previously filed, related case (Pictiva I), which now serves as the lead consolidated case. This consolidation streamlines pretrial management, including discovery and claim construction, under a single docket, though the underlying claims remain active. The Eastern District of Texas, particularly the Marshall Division and before Judge Gilstrap, is a historically plaintiff-friendly venue known for its experienced case management in complex patent disputes. The case is notable due to the assertion of a portfolio of OLED technology patents by a PAE against a major global electronics company, impacting the broader consumer electronics industry. Furthermore, Samsung Display Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR2024-01093) against US Patent 8,723,164, with an effective date of June 28, 2024, indicating parallel challenges to the patent's validity at the USPTO.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al (2:24-cv-00532)

This patent infringement case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, is an active component of a broader litigation concerning organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display technology. The case, originally filed by Pictiva Displays International, Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Limited against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., asserts infringement of U.S. Patent 8,723,164, among others.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:
The case, identified as Pictiva Displays International, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00532), was filed on July 12, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas. This action, sometimes referred to as "Pictiva II," asserted seven U.S. patents related to OLED display structures and electroluminescent device technologies against various Samsung products, including Galaxy smartphones, tablets, computers, personal wear products, and televisions. The initial pleadings, including the complaint, were filed on this date.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance & Consolidation:
A significant pre-trial development occurred on May 29, 2025, when Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered the consolidation of Case No. 2:24-cv-00532 ("Pictiva II") with a related, previously filed case (referred to as "Pictiva I") for all pretrial purposes. The lead consolidated case is not explicitly identified by number in the provided search results, but Pictiva I became the lead case. This consolidation, occurring approximately 10 months after filing, streamlines pretrial management, including discovery, claim construction, and motion practice, under a single docket. As a result, 2:24-cv-00532 ceased to exist as a standalone action, although its underlying claims remain active within the consolidated proceeding.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
As of the current date (July 9, 2026), no unified Markman rulings interpreting patent claim terms have been issued for the patents involved in this specific case, including US8723164. This stage is anticipated to occur within the consolidated proceeding.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:
The consolidation order on May 29, 2025, implies that technical and financial discovery, as well as invalidity challenges, will proceed once for all asserted patents across the consolidated cases, aiming for judicial efficiency and reduced duplicative effort. Specific discovery milestones for this consolidated action are not detailed in the provided search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:
The case is still in its pretrial phases within the consolidated litigation. No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred for Case No. 2:24-cv-00532.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
Case No. 2:24-cv-00532 was "closed" on May 29, 2025, with the outcome noted as "Case Consolidated." This means it was dismissed as a standalone action but its claims continue as part of the lead consolidated case. There has been no final judgment on the merits, infringement findings, or damages issued.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A search for IPRs related to US Patent 8723164 did not yield any direct results in the provided snippets. The IPR2025-00532 mentioned in the search results pertains to a different patent (US Patent No. 10,556,381) and a different litigation (Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Stratasys, Inc. et al.). Therefore, there is no information about any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically impacting US Patent 8723164 in the context of this litigation.

The plaintiffs in the case Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al (2:24-cv-00532) are Pictiva Displays International, Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Limited. They are represented by attorneys from Irell & Manella LLP and McKool Smith, P.C. The case, filed on July 12, 2024, in the Texas Eastern District Court, has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with a related case as of May 29, 2025.

The counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) includes:

Irell & Manella LLP

• Jeffrey Linxwiler
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Irell & Manella LLP
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey Linxwiler is listed among the plaintiff's counsel in this case.
• Rebecca L. Carson
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Irell & Manella LLP - Newport Beach
  • Experience Note: Rebecca L. Carson is listed among the plaintiff's counsel.
• Hong Annita Zhong
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Irell & Manella LLP - Los Angeles
  • Experience Note: Hong Annita Zhong is recognized as plaintiff counsel in this OLED patent dispute.
• Jason G. Sheasby
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Irell & Manella LLP - Los Angeles
  • Experience Note: Jason G. Sheasby is named as plaintiff counsel in this matter.
• Jie Gao
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Irell & Manella LLP
  • Experience Note: Jie Gao is listed among the plaintiff's counsel.

McKool Smith, P.C.

• Jennifer Leigh Truelove
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm & Office: McKool Smith, P.C. - Marshall
  • Experience Note: Jennifer Leigh Truelove serves as local counsel from the Marshall office in this Eastern District of Texas case.
• Samuel Franklin Baxter
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm & Office: McKool Smith, P.C. - Marshall
  • Experience Note: Samuel Franklin Baxter is listed as local counsel from McKool Smith's Marshall office.

The defendants in this case, Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al (2:24-cv-00532), are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. The case was filed on July 12, 2024, in the Texas Eastern District Court and was later consolidated with a related case (Pictiva I) for all pretrial purposes on May 29, 2025.

Counsel representing the defendant(s) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. include attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Gillam & Smith, LLP.

The following attorneys have been identified as representing the defendant(s):

From Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP:

• Attorney Name: Not explicitly listed by name in the provided snippets under "Defendant Counsel" from Quinn Emanuel, but the firm is named as representing Samsung.
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred based on firm's role as primary defense counsel for major corporations in complex patent litigation).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
  • Office Location: To be determined by further research of specific attorneys from this firm appearing on the docket.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP is known for its aggressive defense strategies and successful invalidation campaigns in intellectual property litigation.

From Gillam & Smith, LLP:

• Attorney Name: Not explicitly listed by name in the provided snippets under "Defendant Counsel" from Gillam & Smith, LLP, but the firm is named as representing Samsung.
  • Role: Local Counsel (inferred based on firm's typical role in the Eastern District of Texas for out-of-state lead counsel).
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Office Location: To be determined by further research of specific attorneys from this firm appearing on the docket.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: To be determined by further research.

Since specific attorney names from Quinn Emanuel and Gillam & Smith, LLP representing the defendants are not fully detailed in the provided snippets, further research on the docket would be necessary to identify individual attorneys, their specific roles (e.g., lead, local, of counsel), and office locations, and then their individual litigation experience.