Litigation

Appeal No. 25-1521

pending

25-1521

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 appeal, the underlying ITC investigation, and the '683 patent family.

Important lead: the docket shows 25-1521 is consolidated under 25-1518, with the four Chinese panel makers as appellees. Let me verify what it appeals from.

Now let me pin down the specific PTAB case behind 25-1521 and the current appellate status.

Case Overview — Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., No. 25-1521 (Fed. Cir.)

A correction to the prior summary first. No. 25-1521 is not an appeal from the ITC's final determination. It is one of five consolidated appeals from Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decisions in the inter partes reviews of Samsung Display's OLED pixel-arrangement patent family; the ITC appeal is a separate docket, Samsung Display Co. v. ITC, No. 25-1791 (Fed. Cir., noticed May 20, 2025). The Federal Circuit docketed 25-1521 on March 11, 2025 (notice of appeal received March 10), and by order of March 27, 2025 consolidated it with 25-1517 (lead), 25-1518, 25-1519, and 25-1520, with all filings to be made in the lead appeal. See Justia dockets for Nos. 25-1521, 25-1518, and 25-1520. Samsung Display is the appellant/cross-appellant in 25-1520 and 25-1521; the four Chinese panel makers are appellees. Samsung's own mandatory notices in later IPRs confirm the mapping: "IPR2023-00987, IPR2023-00988, and IPR2023-01075, which are on appeal to the Federal Circuit, Nos. 25-1517, 25-1518, 25-1519, 25-1520, 25-1521" (IPR2025-01545, Paper 6, Oct. 1, 2025). Based on that statement plus the PTAB outcome in IPR2023-00988 and Korean press coverage of the cross-appeals, 25-1521 corresponds to IPR2023-00988, the '683 patent — but I could not retrieve the Federal Circuit docket entry that names the PTAB proceeding for this specific number, so treat the final one-to-one assignment as a well-supported inference rather than a directly quoted fact.

Parties and technology. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (SDC) is the Korean operating-company plaintiff — the leading AMOLED panel supplier and owner of the patents — represented on appeal by Scott Weidenfeller, with Jeffrey H. Lerner (Covington & Burling) and S. Alex Lasher (Quinn Emanuel) in the underlying matters. The defendants/appellees are Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (the BOE Technology Group subsidiary that fabricates and sells AMOLED panels, and the party that intervened as a respondent in the ITC case) plus, as IPR petitioners/appellees, Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology (CSOT), Tianma Microelectronics, and Visionox — i.e., four of China's largest

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research the full procedural history — the ITC investigation, the parallel IPRs, and the Federal Circuit posture — before laying out the chronology.

Strong material. Now let me pin down the PTAB decision dates, the Federal Circuit's current posture (oral argument, any decision), and the district court tracks.

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research this appeal and the underlying ITC investigation to identify counsel of record.

Bottom line first — a posture correction that matters for "who is plaintiff"

Appeal No. 25-1521 is not a district‑court infringement appeal. The underlying proceeding is USITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑1351, Certain Active Matrix OLED Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof, instituted 3 Feb. 2023 on the complaint of Samsung Display Co., Ltd. ("SDC") of the Republic of Korea. There is therefore no "plaintiff" in the Article III sense; the party in the plaintiff‑side position is SDC as Complainant below / Appellant on appeal.

Two docket facts I can source, and one caution:

  • Justia's PACER mirror of the Federal Circuit docket captions No. 25‑1521 as Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., Appellant: Samsung Display Co., Ltd.; Appellees: Mianyang BOE, Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology, Tianma Microelectronics, and Visionox Technology. Filed 11 Mar. 2025 (notice of appeal received 10 Mar. 2025). (dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1521)
  • Filing 2 (11 Mar. 2025) consolidates "25‑1518 Lead with 25‑1521 Cross‑Appeal," and Filing 3 (24 Apr. 2025) records the certified list in **[25‑1517, 25‑1518, 25‑1519, 25‑1520, 25‑1521]

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research this appeal and the underlying ITC investigation to identify counsel.

Key finding: the docket suggests this is a PTAB appeal, not an ITC appeal. Let me dig into the docket and party counsel.

Threshold point on posture (important for the counsel question)

Before naming counsel, one correction to the working assumption in the case summary: Appeal No. 25-1521 does not appear to be the ITC appeal.

  • The PACER/Justia docket captions 25‑1521 as Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., docketed March 11, 2025, and notes: "The following cases are consolidated: 25-1518 Lead with 25-1521 Cross-Appeal." It was later folded into the 25‑1517 lead group (25‑151