Litigation

Appeal No. 25-1518

pending

25-1518

Patents at issue (1)

10854683

Summary

Federal Circuit appeal identified in the family-litigation data for the '683 patent family. At least one of Appeal Nos. 25-1518 and 25-1521 arises from the ITC's final determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-1351; Mianyang BOE is a party to the pending appeal. No decision found.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the ITC investigation and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Key insight: 25-1518 is consolidated into a five-appeal group (lead 25-1517). I need to identify each appeal and check the ITC/trade secret proceedings and PTAB IPRs.

I need to pin down exactly which PTAB proceedings and ITC determinations each of these five appeals arises from.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and counsel for this appeal.

I have the party lineup. Now let me pin down exactly which proceeding each appeal arises from and the counsel entries.

Let me verify the specific IPR mapping and the counsel firms behind each name.

Bottom line first

This appeal has no "plaintiff" in the Rule 3 / complaint sense. Appeal No. 25-1518 is a Federal Circuit appeal from a PTAB inter partes review — not from a district court complaint, and (contrary to the earlier case-summary note) not from the ITC's 337-TA-1351 determination. The parties of record are the IPR petitioners as Appellants (Mianyang BOE, Wuhan China Star, Tianma, Visionox) and the patent owner as Appellee/Cross-Appellant — Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Samsung Display is the functional "plaintiff": it is the patentee of the '683 patent, the complainant in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, and the plaintiff in the parallel district court suits. Its counsel are the ones listed in Section 1 below.

Confirmed appeal mapping (from Samsung Display's own mandatory notices in a later IPR, which expressly state that IPR2023-00987, -00988 and -01075 "are on appeal to the Federal Circuit, Nos. 25-1517, 25-1518, 25-1519, 25-1520, 25-1521"):

IPR Patent Fed. Cir. appeal Cross-appeal
IPR2023-00987 '578 25-1517 (lead) 25-1520 (Samsung Display)
IPR2023-00988 '683 (patent at issue here) 25-1518 25-1521 (Samsung Display)
IPR2023-01075 '803 25-1519 — (none noted)

Consolidation order of Mar. 27, 2025 (Dkt. 12, ECF No. 1078390): 25-1517 lead with 25-1518, -1519, -1520, -1521; certified lists received Apr. 24, 2025 (ECF No. 1084745). IPR2023-00988's final written decision held claims 1, 4–10, 13 and 15 of the '683 patent unpatentable and claim 2 not shown unpatentable (FWD, Paper 44, early Jan. 2025).

1. Counsel of record for Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (appellee / cross-appellant — the patent owner and functional plaintiff)

All of the following appeared via a single Entry of Appearance filed Mar. 24, 2025 as "counsel for Cross-Appellant Samsung Display Co., Ltd." (25-1517 Dkt. 4, ECF No. 1077622; parallel notice of related case information in 25-1518, ECF No. 1077630, also signed by Mr. Lerner). I have not seen a superseding EoA for Samsung Display in the 25-1517 group.

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Jeffrey H. Lerner Lead appellate counsel of record for Samsung Display; the filing attorney on Samsung's EoA and related-case papers Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC Dean of Samsung Display's PTAB/Fed. Cir. team; appeared on the same joint EoA as Covington's Weidenfeller. Firm affiliation for Lerner is inferred from the joint appearance — I did not retrieve his individual firm bio page.
Scott C. Weidenfeller Of record on the appeal; Samsung Display's lead PTAB counsel in IPR2023-00988 (Reg. No. 54,531) Covington & Burling LLP, One CityCenter, 850 Tenth St. NW, Washington, DC 20001 (sweidenfeller@cov.com) Confirmed directly from PTAB filings in IPR2023-00988 and related IPRs; argued the cross-appeal in the 25-1517 group ("the 683 and 803" claims).
Richard L. Rainey Of record on the appeal Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC Longtime PTAB/appellate patent litigator (formerly Alston & Bird). Firm affiliation per the joint EoA; individual profile not independently verified in this search.
Matthew Kudzin Of record on the appeal Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC Appears on the joint Covington EoA; individual title/office not independently verified.
David A. Garr PTAB-side counsel for Samsung Display in IPR2023-00988 (not shown on the Fed. Cir. EoA) Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC (dgarr@cov.com) Confirmed as Samsung Display's co-counsel of record in the '683 IPR; likely still the PTAB contact for the '683 record.
Kent Patrick Herman Appears on the 25-1520 cross-appeal docket (Samsung Display v. Mianyang BOE) Unverified — I could not confirm his firm from the docket text retrieved Flagged rather than guessed.

Note: Samsung Display's filings also use a shared docket mailbox ("SDC-BOE-IPR@cov.com"), which corroborates Covington as the single defense-side appellate team.

2. Counsel of record for the Appellants (adverse to Samsung Display — IPR petitioners BOE / China Star / Tianma / Visionox)

Filed Mar. 25, 2025 as "counsel for Appellants Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd., Visionox Technology, Inc. and Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd." (25-1518 Dkt. 8, ECF No. 1077767; identical EoA in 25-1517, ECF No. 1077758):

  • Melanie L. Bostwick — lead counsel of record; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Washington, DC). Filed the docketing statement and all appellant papers; principal Orrick PTAB/appellate strategist in the Samsung Display/China display consortium disputes.
  • Travis Jensen — Orrick (Washington, DC); PTAB-focused associate/partner on the IPR petitions.
  • Richard Martinelli — Orrick (Silicon Valley / Menlo Park); patent litigator.
  • Bas de Blank — Orrick (Silicon Valley); patent trial/appellate lawyer.
  • Xiang Wang — Orrick (Washington, DC / Shanghai); China IP practice leader.
  • Jonas Q. Wang — Orrick; PTAB practitioner (Mandarin-language capability, BOE/China Star client base).
  • Harmann Singh — Orrick (New York); IP litigation.

Firm attribution for this team rests on the joint Eo

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this systematically, starting with the docket and the underlying ITC investigation.

Now let me pin down the Federal Circuit docket and the parties to Appeal No. 25-1518.

Key finding: 25-1518 appears to be the PTAB/IPR appeal, not the ITC appeal. Let me pull the full docket and verify counsel.

Bottom line first — a premise correction

Before naming attorneys, one important correction to the case file: 25-1518 is not the ITC appeal. It is the Federal Circuit appeal from the PTAB's inter partes review final written decisions. The ITC side of 337-TA-1351 is a separate appeal, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. International Trade Commission, No. 25-1791 (Fed. Cir.) — Samsung Display's appeal of the Commission's March 19, 2025 final determination of no violation (no exclusion order, domestic-industry economic prong not met). That is confirmed by Samsung Display's own mandatory notices in a later IPR, which list the three IPRs (IPR2023-00987, IPR2023-00988, IPR2023-01075) as "on appeal to the Federal Circuit, Nos. 25-1517, 25-1518, 25-1519, 25-1520, 25-1521," and separately list the ITC appeal as No. 25-1791.(PTAB mandatory notices, Oct. 1, 2025)

So the party alignment in 25-1518 is:

Role in 25-1518 Party
Appellants (the "defendants" below — IPR petitioners) Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd.; Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd.; Visionox Technology, Inc.
Cross-Appellant / Appellee (patent owner — the plaintiff below) Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

Consolidation: 25-1517 is the lead appeal; 25-1518, -1519, -1520 and -1521 are members, and all filings go on the 25-1517 docket. (Fed. Cir. Docs. 12, 13, filed Mar. 27, 2025, Justia docket 25-1518.)

Counsel of record for the appellants/defendants

All seven attorneys below appear on a single Entry of Appearance (Doc. 8, filed March 25, 2025) "[f]or Appellants Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd., Visionox Technology, Inc. and Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd." The same group filed the Docketing Statement (Doc. 11) and Notice of Related Case Information (Doc. 10) on March 25, 2025.

# Attorney Role Firm / office Note
1 Melanie L. Bostwick Lead counsel of record (first-named, docket filer and signatory on Docs. 10, 11) O'Melveny & Myers LLP — Washington, D.C. Veteran Federal Circuit advocate and head of O'Melveny's patent appellate group; frequent principal counsel for Asian display/electronics manufacturers in ITC and PTAB appeals. Coordinates the consolidated five-appeal group.
2 Travis Jensen Counsel of record Believed O'Melveny & Myers LLP (office not confirmed) Electrical/display-technology patent litigator; part of the BOE appellate team. Firm/office not verified from the docket text I could retrieve.
3 Richard Martinelli Counsel of record O'Melveny & Myers LLP — Silicon Valley Patent litigator with electronics/display background; PTAB and district court experience in the Samsung Display–BOE dispute.
4 Bas de Blank Counsel of record O'Melveny & Myers LLP — Silicon Valley (Menlo Park) Long-time O'Melveny IP litigation partner; ITC § 337 and district court patent trials, frequently for Asian technology clients.
5 Xiang Wang Counsel of record O'Melveny & Myers LLP — Washington, D.C. (formerly managing partner, Shanghai) China practice/IP litigation partner; the client-relationship and cross-border lead for the PRC display-panel appellants.
6 Jonas Q. Wang Counsel of record O'Melveny & Myers LLP — Washington, D.C. Patent litigation associate/counsel on the appellate team.
7 Harmann Singh Counsel of record O'Melveny & Myers LLP — Washington, D.C. Patent litigation counsel; Federal Circuit briefing and PTAB appeal experience.

On firm attribution: the Justia/PACER docket text I could retrieve lists the seven names but does not reproduce the firm block from Doc. 8, and I was unable to pull the PACER PDF itself. The O'Melveny attribution rests on two independent indicia: (a) O'Melveny & Myers is publicly identified as BOE's counsel in the underlying 337-TA-1351 investigation — Korean press reporting on the ITC loss for Samsung Display quotes "BOE's legal representative (O'Melveny)" claiming a complete win (The Elec, July 7, 2025); and (b) the firm's roster. Treat individual office locations as "believed" rather than docket-verified; the EOA PDF (Doc. 8) will state each attorney's firm and address and should be pulled from PACER for a filing-grade citation.

Local counsel / in-house: none. The Federal Circuit does not use local counsel, and no BOE Technology Group or BOE Technology America in-house attorney appears on the EOA or elsewhere on the 25-1518 docket. The four appellant entities are represented solely by outside O'Melveny counsel of record.

Note on the appellant lineup: the four appellants are not all BOE entities. Mianyang BOE is the § 337 respondent that intervened in the ITC case; Wuhan China Star (CSOT/TCL), Tianma Microelectronics, and Visionox are PRC panel makers that joined BOE as IPR petitioners against Samsung Display's patents. That joint-petitioner structure is why one EOA covers all four.

Opposing side (for completeness — Samsung Display, the patent owner/plaintiff)

These are not defense counsel, but you will need them for the appearance matrix. Samsung Display's Federal Circuit team comes from Covington & Burling LLP: Jeffrey Lerner filed the Form 9A Notice of Related Case Information for Cross-Appellant Samsung Display (Doc. 7, Mar. 24, 2025), and Covington's Scott Weidenfeller and Matthew Aaron Kudzin appear in the related consolidated appeals. Covington was Samsung Display's counsel throughout the ITC investigation. The ITC's own attorneys (Office of the General Counsel) appear only in No. 25-1791, not in 25-1518.

Status caveat you should track

The dockets I could retrieve are current only through late April 2025 (Justia's last pull was April 24, 2025). Since then, the parties reached a global settlement — reported in November 2025 as an agreement under which BOE would pay Samsung Display royalties and Samsung Display withdrew its ITC complaints, with the ITC terminating the trade-secret investigation on November 18, 2025 ([Yonhap, Nov. 19, 2025](https://cn.yna.co.kr/view/ACK20251119000800881?section