Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit, Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al., centers on alleged infringement of display technology patents. The plaintiff, Bishop Display Tech LLC, is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), managed by the principals of the Texas-based monetization firm IP Edge LLC. Bishop Display Tech acquired the asserted patents from IP Bridge, Inc., with the original ownership tracing back to Panasonic and Seiko Epson. The defendants include LG Display Co., Ltd., a major South Korean manufacturer of thin-film-transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) and OLED panels, and its largest shareholder, LG Electronics, Inc., a global South Korean multinational corporation known for consumer electronics and home appliances such as televisions. The third defendant, New Optics, Ltd. (also referred to as WOOREE BIO (New Optics)), is a South Korean company involved in semiconductor and electronic component manufacturing, specifically producing LCD flat panel display products. The accused products, services, or technology are centered around TFT-LCDs and products incorporating them, including liquid crystal modules (LCMs), monitors, smartphones, tablets, and TVs.

The lawsuit, filed on February 10, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case Number 2:24-cv-00085), asserts six patents, including US Patent 8,093,830. The specifically named US Patent 8,093,830, titled "Semiconductor Light Source Driving Apparatus and Semiconductor Light Source Driving Method," describes a system and method for controlling the output voltage of a power supply to drive a semiconductor light source, such as an LED or laser diode, based on measured current and impedance. Other patents asserted in this particular case include US Patents 6,819,377; 6,822,706; 7,414,682; 7,583,347; and 7,995,047. While a specific judge for this case was not confirmed, similar and related patent cases filed by Bishop Display Tech in the Eastern District of Texas, such as 2:25-cv-00310, are presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a prominent judge in this venue. The Eastern District of Texas remains a favored venue for patent owners due to its reputation for efficient "rocket docket" scheduling and plaintiff-friendly outcomes. This district has also seen a strategy where plaintiffs sue foreign affiliates to bypass venue restrictions established by TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC.

This case is notable as part of a broader pattern of patent assertions by Bishop Display Tech LLC, an entity linked to IP Edge LLC, which frequently engages in "file-and-settle" litigation. The plaintiff often files lawsuits in "couplets" against major display and electronics manufacturers. For instance, Bishop Display Tech initiated two cases against LG Display, LG Electronics, and New Optics (including this one), and separate pairs of cases against Heesung Electronics, Samsung, and BOE Technology, all within the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint specifically alleges willful infringement, claiming that LG entities had prior knowledge of several of the patents-in-suit as early as February 2017, through notification from a former patent owner, Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. This ongoing litigation reflects the sustained efforts of NPEs to monetize patent portfolios related to fundamental display technologies widely used across the consumer electronics industry.

The patent infringement litigation of Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al. (2:24-cv-00085, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) commenced on February 10, 2024. The case is ongoing and involves U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830. Bishop Display Tech LLC is known to be an entity that has engaged in numerous patent litigation campaigns.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and current posture:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-02-10: Bishop Display Tech LLC filed its patent infringement complaint against LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and New Optics, Ltd.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
No substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment, have been publicly reported or identified through the available search results as of May 23, 2026, for this specific case.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage, or at least no outcomes have been publicly reported in the provided search results.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:
No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported or identified through the available search results.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
The case is still in its early stages, and there have been no reported trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition or Present Posture:
The case remains active and ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. There is no information available regarding a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal in this case.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
While Bishop Display Tech LLC has been involved in previous IPR proceedings related to other patents (e.g., IPR2022-00508, which was terminated-settled), there is no public information found in the provided search results indicating any parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830, which is at issue in this litigation.## Legal Developments and Outcome for Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al., case number 2:24-cv-00085, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 10, 2024. The case remains ongoing as of May 23, 2026. This litigation involves U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830 and is part of a broader series of patent enforcement actions by Bishop Display Tech LLC, a known non-practicing entity.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-02-10: Bishop Display Tech LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing a patent infringement complaint against LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and New Optics, Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas. Details regarding the defendants' answers or any counterclaims are not yet publicly available from the provided search results.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • As of the current date, no public records or reports indicate the filing or resolution of any substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, motions to transfer venue, requests for a stay pending inter partes review (IPR), or motions for summary judgment in this particular case.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The case has not progressed to the claim construction (Markman) stage, or at least no Markman hearing outcomes or orders have been publicly reported.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • There is no publicly available information detailing any significant discovery milestones in this litigation.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • Given the relatively recent filing date and the absence of pre-trial motion outcomes, the case has not reached trial, nor have there been any verdicts or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition or Present Posture:

  • The case is currently active and ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. No settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal has been reported.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • While Bishop Display Tech LLC has been involved in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings for other patents in prior litigation (e.g., IPR2022-00508, which was terminated due to settlement), current public records do not indicate any parallel PTAB IPR or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830, the patent asserted in this case.

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this specific case.

Key finding: the docket shows a settlement/dismissal in March 2025 — which contradicts the existing summary. Let me dig into press coverage and that development.

Strong findings. Let me pin down the Law360 article, the IPR against the '830 patent, and any other coverage.

I've reached the search limit. Here's what the press and analyst coverage shows.

---

Press and analyst coverage of Bishop Display Tech v. LG Display (2:24-cv-00085)

The filing drew specialized NPE-trade coverage, not mainstream press. The most substantive account is RPX Insight, which on 2024-02-10 reported that Bishop Display filed this case as one half of a "couplet" — 2:24-cv-00085 alongside 2:24-cv-00084 — against LG Display, LG Electronics, and WOOREE BIO (New Optics) in the Eastern District of Texas, with a parallel couplet (2:24-cv-00086/-87) against Heesung Electronics. RPX specified the patents asserted in this case as the '377, '706, '682, '347, '047, and '830 patents, and reported the portfolio provenance: IP Edge acquired the assets from IP Bridge, Inc. in May 2019 through Parkside IP LLC, with the underlying inventions originating with Panasonic and Seiko Epson. Notably for this case's '830 patent, RPX reported that Bishop Display pleaded willful infringement based on February 2017 notice from former owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, and pleaded joinder on the theory that LG Display-branded TFT-LCDs are "common to all Defendants' infringement," including through New Optics LCMs. Mondaq republished the same RPX analysis on 2024-03-06 under the identical headline, "IP Edge's Bishop Display Keeps Filing In Couplets."

Coverage of the outcome reported a settlement/dismissal — which contradicts the existing case summary. Law360 published a short item headlined "LG Resolves Screen Display Patent Suit" on 2025-03-07, stating that "Bishop Display Tech LLC and LG Electronics have resolved a dispute over allegations that LG and its subsidiaries infringed several patents for liquid crystal screen displays, according to a filing in Texas federal court on Thursday" (i.e., a March 6, 2025 filing). The Korean government's KIPO bulletin gave a more detailed Korean-language summary of the same event, reporting that the parties had told the court in October 2024 they had reached agreement on basic terms and obtained deadline extensions, then asked the court to dismiss all claims with prejudice — and noting Bishop Display had sought up to treble damages on its willfulness theory. The docket confirms a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. 76, 2025-03-06) and an order (Dkt. 77, 2025-03-10) dismissing "all claims by and between the Parties" with prejudice, expressly covering Associated Cases: 2:24-cv-00084-JRG and 2:24-cv-00085-JRG (Docket Alarm, N.D. Tex. E.D., 2:24-cv-00084). One caution: the same docket then shows a joint motion (Dkt. 79, 2025-04-07) and order (Dkt. 80, 2025-04-14) dismissing claims without prejudice and closing the lead case — an internal inconsistency I could not reconcile from public sources.

Analysis-grade coverage beyond the court record. PatSnap's litigation blog (an AI-assisted piece, so treat with care) quotes the dismissal order verbatim and adds commentary: it characterizes the "raised or could have raised" language as a mutual release with res judicata effect barring Bishop Display from resurrecting the claims against these LG entities, and warns that downstream OEMs and module assemblers "are not covered and should assess their exposure independently." PatSnap also lists defendant-side counsel — Baker Botts LLP, Gillam & Smith LLP, and Ropes & Gray LLP — plus local counsel Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith) and Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding. This supplements, and partly conflicts with, the case summary's statement that defendant counsel could not be identified. Chinese-language trade press framing is more analytical than factual: EET-China / CINNO Research (2026-03-31) describes Bishop Display's later suits against TCL CSOT's 11 entities and characterizes the LG, Samsung, and Innolux campaigns as a "sue–pressure–settle–dismiss" playbook, while the Shenzhen IP Protection Center alert on iprdaily.cn describes Bishop Display as an IP Edge litigation vehicle with 12+ U.S. suits since 2020, overwhelmingly in E.D. Tex., mostly settling within about a year. Neither outlet reported specific settlement dollars, and I found no reporting on any damages figure sought or paid.

What the press did not cover: a parallel PTAB challenge to the '830 patent. No news outlet I found reported that BOE Technology Group petitioned for IPR of U.S. Patent 8,093,830 (IPR2025-01331, filed 2025-07-28, challenging claims 1–5 on obviousness grounds over Ghanem/Nishimura and Tripathi/Nishimura) — a proceeding directly relevant to this case's sole remaining asserted patent, and one the existing summary says does not exist. An earlier Samsung IPR against the same '830 patent (IPR2022-00503) was filed 2022-01-31 and terminated-settled on 2022-06-01. Database listings rather than journalism also confirm this case's patent linkage: the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and RPX Insight's docket page both map 2:24-cv-00085 to the '830 and '682 patents, and the Justia docket confirms Judge Gilstrap's assignment.

Bottom line on coverage volume: there is no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, or Patently-O reporting on this specific case. Coverage is confined to one RPX analysis (syndicated to Mondaq), one Law360 headline item, one AI-generated PatSnap post, Korean and Chinese-language regulatory/trade pieces, and litigation databases. All of it is procedural; none of it reports settlement terms, damages numbers, or market impact.

Flags against the existing sections (per your instructions):

1. The case is not "ongoing." The summary's statement that no settlement, dismissal, or judgment has occurred, and that "no substantive pretrial motions" were filed, is contradicted by Dkts. 74–80 in the lead case — repeated stipulated stays starting October 2024 and a with-prejudice dismissal in March 2025.
2. The '830 patent has been challenged at the PTAB twice, most recently in IPR2025-01331, contrary to the summary's statement that no parallel IPR/PGR exists.
3. Party-name discrepancy: the docket also names LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. as a defendant, which the case metadata omits.
4. Filing-date discrepancy: metadata says 2024-02-10; the docket says the complaint was filed 2024-02-08 (RPX's article carries the 2024-02-10 date).

Sources

• 7414682 | NPE Litigation Database
• Cases
• • 텍사스 동부 연방지방법원(U
• Bishop Display Tech v. LG Electronics — TFT-LCD Patent Dispute | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• 2:24-cv-00085 | Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DOCKET IN THE LEAD CASE AS DIRECTED | RPX Insight
• Technology : Law360 UK : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Telecommunications : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Complaint analysis | 2:24-cv-00084 | Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Electronics Inc | Ex Parte
• Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al, 2:24-cv-00084 (E.D.Tex.) - Track Docket
• Search court records on patent:(6787829)
• Intellectual Property : Law360 UK : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• 6801293 | NPE Litigation Database

Based on available information from related patent infringement cases filed by Bishop Display Tech LLC in the Eastern District of Texas and general knowledge of patent litigation practice in the district, the following attorneys are likely representing the plaintiff, Bishop Display Tech LLC:

• Patrick Joseph Conroy

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, with offices in Fort Worth and Dallas, TX.
  • Note: Regularly appears as counsel for Bishop Display Tech LLC in other patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas, including recent filings in 2025 and 2026.

• Wesley Hill

  • Role: Local Counsel / Trial Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Note: An experienced trial lawyer in the Eastern District of Texas, with over a dozen patent trials as lead or co-lead counsel. He is also the former chairman of the Eastern District of Texas Local Rules Committee.

• Johnny Ward

  • Role: Local Counsel / Trial Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Note: A distinguished trial attorney frequently serving as local counsel in high-profile infringement litigation, known for securing multi-million dollar patent infringement verdicts.

• Sidney Calvin Capshaw

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw Derieux, LLP, Longview, TX and Washington, DC.
  • Note: His practice includes commercial litigation and patent litigation, with experience in federal courts, including the Eastern District of Texas.

It's a common practice for plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas to engage local counsel, such as attorneys from Ward, Smith & Hill and Capshaw Derieux, alongside lead counsel for patent infringement cases. While direct PACER filings for case 2:24-cv-00085 were not explicitly found in the search results to confirm appearances, these attorneys are consistently associated with Bishop Display Tech LLC's patent litigation activities in the district.

I am unable to definitively identify the counsel of record representing the defendants (LG Display Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., and New Optics, Ltd.) in Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Display Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00085 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

A direct search for the docket or counsel appearances in this specific case did not yield a list of attorneys. While web searches indicate that LG entities are frequently involved in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and have been represented by firms such as O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP in other cases, this information is not specific to case 2:24-cv-00085. LG Display also has its own internal IP prosecution and litigation teams.

Without direct access to the docket sheet for this particular case, it is not possible to confirm which specific attorneys have entered an appearance for each defendant. If filings are sealed or counsel has not yet appeared on the public docket, such information would not be available through public web searches.