Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Samsung

Bishop Display Tech LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) managed by the prolific Texas patent monetization firm IP Edge LLC, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [[Samsung Electronics America Inc](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%20Inc).](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%20Inc.) were the named defendants. Samsung is a global operating company renowned for its consumer electronics, including a wide array of display products. Bishop Display Tech acquired the asserted patent from IP Bridge, Inc., with the original ownership tracing back to Panasonic and Seiko Epson, indicating a strategy of monetizing acquired intellectual property rather than practicing the invention.

The litigation centered on U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830, titled "Semiconductor light source driving apparatus and semiconductor light source driving method." This patent broadly describes a system and method for efficiently driving semiconductor light sources, such as LEDs or laser diodes, by precisely controlling the power supply's output voltage based on measurements of the light source's current and impedance. Bishop Display Tech alleged that various Samsung products incorporating thin-film-transistor liquid-crystal displays (TFT-LCDs), including liquid crystal modules (LCMs), monitors, smartphones, tablets, and televisions, infringed this patent.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX), and was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is historically significant in patent litigation, known for its "rocket docket" reputation, plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, and typically accelerated trial schedules, making it a preferred forum for patent owners, including NPEs. The case is notable for exemplifying the assertion patterns of IP Edge LLC, a firm recognized for its frequent use of acquired patent portfolios to target major technology companies. Furthermore, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR2022-00508) against Bishop Display Tech concerning the '830 patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which was ultimately terminated due to settlement, highlighting a common defensive tactic against NPE assertions. The swift termination of the district court case in May 2022, following a settlement notice, is a common outcome in such high-stakes patent disputes involving display technology in the consumer electronics market.

Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Samsung: Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Case Background: Bishop Display Tech LLC, an entity managed by the patent monetization firm IP Edge LLC, initiated patent infringement litigation against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit, filed on April 19, 2021, asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830, related to semiconductor light source driving apparatus and methods. The case was ultimately terminated on May 12, 2022, following a settlement between the parties.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2021-04-19): Bishop Display Tech LLC filed its complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:21-cv-00136). Specific details regarding Samsung's answer or any counterclaims filed in this particular case are not readily available in the public search results, but in similar IP Edge litigation, cases often settle at early stages.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2022-01-31): Samsung Display Co., Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830 (IPR2022-00508) on January 31, 2022, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Another IPR petition (IPR2022-00503) against the same patent was also filed around the same time and also reached a settlement.

• Settlement and Dismissal (2022-05-12, 2022-06-01): The district court litigation was dismissed on May 12, 2022, due to an earlier noticed settlement between Bishop Display Tech LLC and Samsung. Shortly thereafter, the parallel IPR proceeding (IPR2022-00508) was also terminated as settled on June 1, 2022. Given the early termination of the district court case, it did not proceed to substantive pre-trial motions, claim construction (Markman), discovery milestones of strategic significance, or trial events.

I'll search for press coverage of this case from multiple angles.

Now let me verify the three IPWatchdog articles and check what they say about this case.

Press coverage

Press coverage of Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Samsung is, in practical terms, nonexistent. The three articles flagged in the news index are weekly IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" columns by Matthew Beck — docket-tabulation pieces rather than case reporting — and in the portions I was able to retrieve, none of them discusses the Bishop Display–Samsung dispute, its settlement, or the '830 patent. IPWatchdog (2024‑02‑15) leads with Helios Streaming's DASH patents being invalidated under §101 in the Central District of California and with PTAB Fintiv denials in Samsung's IPRs IPR2023‑01096 and IPR2023‑10199 — proceedings from 2023 concerning different patents entirely, not the 2022 Bishop Display IPRs. IPWatchdog (2022‑02‑17) covers Magnetar/Arigna's Waco suit against Qualcomm's envelope-tracking chips and a §314(d) discretionary denial in Lumentis v. BTL Healthcare; its PTAB table lists contemporaneous Samsung filings but I could not confirm a Bishop Display entry in the accessible text. IPWatchdog (2022‑02‑11) reports a 92-filing end-of-January spike and 66 terminations, the period in which Samsung's Bishop Display IPR petitions were filed, but again no retrievable discussion of the case. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently‑O, or JD Supra coverage at all — unsurprising for a case that settled roughly 13 months after filing without a Markman ruling or trial.

Because no outlet reported on the outcome, there are no reported settlement figures, damages estimates, or executive/analyst commentary to attribute. The only public record of the settlement's economics is procedural: petitioner's Exhibit 1041, a "Settlement Agreement," was filed with the Board's joint motion to terminate on 2022‑05‑18 with a request for confidential business-information treatment, and the Board terminated IPR2022‑00503 as settled on 2022‑06‑01 (see the Docket Alarm docket). Terms remain non-public; any figure beyond that would be speculation.

Two corrections to the previously generated sections, based on PTAB filings surfaced in search. First, the earlier section states that Samsung Display Co., Ltd. filed IPR2022‑00508 against the '830 patent. That is wrong on both party and patent: IPR2022‑00503, captioned Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Bishop Display Tech LLC, is the '830 proceeding, with Baker Botts (Eliot Williams, Neil Sirota, David Tobin) as petitioner's counsel — as shown in the petition — while IPR2022‑00508 belongs to Samsung Display and challenges U.S. Patent No. 6,787,829. Second, the assertion that "no claim construction" occurred needs nuance: Judge Gilstrap's November 19, 2021 docket control order in both 2:21‑cv‑00136 and 2:21‑cv‑00139 set a Markman hearing for May 18, 2022 and jury selection for December 5, 2022, per the calendar exhibit reproduced in IPR2022‑00501 — the cases simply settled days before the Markman date rather than never reaching it. Also relevant to the "why it mattered" question that no outlet addressed: Samsung's petitions describe 13 patents across two suits (7 in 2:21‑cv‑00136, 6 in 2:21‑cv‑00139), with Samsung filing IPR challenges to "the majority" of them — the scale that likely drove the global settlement.

Bottom line: the case's significance is visible only in docket and PTAB records, not in reporting. The one press genre that touches it — IPWatchdog's weekly roundups — does so, if at all, only as a row in a filing table. The claim in the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section that Bishop Display's counsel "could not be definitively identified" is also now contradicted by primary sources: the Patent Owner's mandatory notices in IPR2022‑00501/‑00503 identify Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. (Justin B. Kimble, Patrick J. Conroy, T. William Kennedy Jr., John P. Murphy) as Bishop Display's counsel, and the December 5, 2022 calendar entry lists Kimble, Conroy, Kennedy, Murphy, Ryan P. Griffin, Jonathan Hart Rastegar and Andrea Leigh Fair appearing for Bishop Display, with Samsung represented by Baker Botts (Sirota, Tobin, Eric Faragi) and Miller Fair Henry (Melissa Richards Smith, Robert Maier), among others.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

• Ex

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Search court records on patent:(6787829)
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Bishop Display Tech LLC, IPR2022-00503 (P.T.A.B.) - Track Docket
• Bishop Display Tech LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al
• 2:21-cv-00139 | Bishop Display Tech LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al | RPX Insight
• Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al - This case was last updated from U
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IPR2022-00503, No. 1002-2 Exhibit - Kattamis Decl (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2022) - Exhibits:

Despite extensive web searches across legal news outlets, public records databases, and firm websites, the specific counsel of record, including their roles, firms, and detailed patent litigation experience, for Bishop Display Tech LLC in Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Samsung, case number 2:21-cv-00122 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, could not be definitively identified.

It is known that Bishop Display Tech LLC is an entity associated with IP Edge LLC, a prominent patent monetization firm. IP Edge LLC's operations and its network of attorneys have been the subject of various legal discussions and investigations, particularly concerning the principals who often direct the litigation of their affiliated LLCs. IP Edge was founded by Lillian Woung, Gautham (Gau) Bodepudi, and Sanjay Pant, who are Texas attorneys.. These individuals, or attorneys working under their direction, typically represent IP Edge-affiliated plaintiffs. However, their specific appearances in this particular case are not detailed in the publicly accessible search results.

A closely related case, Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, case number 2:21-cv-00136, was also filed in the Eastern District of Texas around the same time and also involved Bishop Display Tech LLC and Samsung. While this suggests a related litigation effort, the specific attorney appearances for case 2:21-cv-00122 remain unconfirmed through public web search.

Without direct access to the docket sheet for case 2:21-cv-00122, identifying the precise attorneys who entered appearances as lead counsel, local counsel, or of counsel for Bishop Display Tech LLC in this specific patent infringement case is not possible.

I am unable to definitively identify the counsel of record representing Samsung in Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Samsung, Case No. 2:21-cv-00136 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, based on the publicly available web search results.

While the case information confirms its filing and termination via settlement, and that Samsung was a defendant, the detailed docket information listing specific attorney appearances for Samsung in this particular case is not readily accessible through the provided search capabilities. Searches for "Attorneys for Defendants Samsung" in the context of this case number in public records are either too general or refer to redacted documents that do not clearly list the attorneys and their firms.