Certain Samsung Display / BOE ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-3661

I'll verify the case details against multiple sources before drafting.

Now let me verify the investigation number, the April 2025 complaint, and the IPR history for the '683 patent.

Case Overview

Parties — operating companies, not an NPE. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (Yongin, Gyeonggi-do, Korea) is the display-panel subsidiary of Samsung Electronics and the world's largest AMOLED supplier — roughly 41% of the global AMOLED market by UBI Research's December 2024 figures, with LG Display (~20%) and BOE (~11.6%) behind it. [BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/BOE%20Technology%20Group%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) (Beijing), together with affiliates such as Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., Chengdu BOE Optoelectronic Technology Co., and several U.S. distribution subsidiaries, is China's largest panel maker and a growing supplier of OLED panels to Apple and Chinese handset brands. This is a straight head-to-head competitor dispute between two vertically integrated manufacturers — there is no university, PAE, or litigation-financed NPE anywhere in the caption, and no damages claim, since Section 337 relief is injunctive (exclusion and cease-and-desist orders) rather than monetary. Note also the parent-level asymmetry: Samsung Electronics has historically been a defensive patent litigant, while Samsung Display has driven the offensive campaign here.

Accused technology. The accused products are active-matrix OLED ("AMOLED") display panels and modules used as replacement displays for mobile devices, and components thereof — i.e., the panels and the module assemblies (connector cable, polarizer, window glass) built around them. Samsung Display's theory has been that BOE's panels, and their importation/sale by U.S. repair-and-resale distributors, infringe Samsung's pixel-arrangement, pixel-circuit, and gate-driver patents. That framing reflects the commercial stakes: an exclusion order at the ITC reaches the whole downstream U.S. supply chain for replacement screens, which is why BOE's counsel argued that excluding non-Samsung OLED panels would shrink consumer choice and raise U.S. repair prices.

Patents asserted. The '683 patent identified in the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 10,854,683 B2, "Pixel arrangement structure for organic light emitting display device" (issued Dec. 1, 2020; Samsung Display; Korean priority dating to March 2012). In one line: it claims a sub-pixel layout for an OLED panel — the "diamond"/PenTile-type arrangement in which sub-pixels of one color are offset and spaced around sub-pixels of other colors to raise effective resolution and extend emitter lifetime without a proportional increase in fine-metal-mask density. It belongs to the same family and title grouping as U.S. Pat. No. 9,818,803, and was asserted alongside three others in the earlier ITC case: U.S. 7,414,599 ("Organic light emitting device pixel circuit and driving method" — the compensation/driving circuit inside each pixel), and U.S. 9,330,593 ("Stage circuit and organic light emitting display using the same" — the gate-driver/scan-driver stage circuitry).

Procedural Posture and Venue

The verified ITC vehicle for the '683 patent is Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof, instituted February 3, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 7463) on a complaint filed December 28, 2022 and supplemented January 17, 2023. The original respondents were 17 U.S. mobile-screen repair/resale companies; Mianyang BOE intervened as a respondent on March 22, 2023, and ten respondents went into default. The ALJ issued an initial determination in November 2024 finding that BOE infringed three of the four asserted patents and that the U.S. distributors infringed all four — but that Samsung Display failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic-industry requirement (no significant U.S. investment in research, development, or employment tied to the asserted patents). On March 19, 2025, the Commission affirmed: infringement confirmed, no violation of Section 337, no exclusion order. All asserted claims of the '683 patent had already been terminated from the investigation (Order No. 34 and related orders), and the '683 patent was separately the subject of IPR2023-00988, instituted January 8, 2024, with a final written decision on January 6, 2025 holding some — not all — challenged claims unpatentable. A parallel ITC trade-secret investigation (filed October 2023, "Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules and Components Thereof") went the other way: ALJ MaryJoan McNamara's July 11, 2025 initial determination found misappropriation and recommended a limited exclusion order running 14 years and 8 months. In district court, Samsung Display filed a cluster of patent and DTSA suits in the E.D. Tex. in April 2025 (targeting, among other things, the OLED display supplied for the Nubia Z60 Ultra), while BOE counter-sued in the same district in May 2024 over under-display-camera technology in the Galaxy Z Fold line; PTAB briefing in that dispute references a trial setting of February 8, 2027 and a BOE Sotera stipulation. Venue matters here because the ITC offered Samsung Display something E.D. Tex. could not: an in rem border remedy against panels and modules regardless of which U.S. entity imported them — and conversely, the Commission's domestic-industry ruling is precisely the constraint that E.D. Tex. does not impose.

Why It's Notable

Three things make this dispute a reference case. First, the domestic-industry holding: the Commission confirmed infringement yet denied relief because a foreign complainant's R&D and manufacturing sat in Korea — a meaningful limit on Section 337 as a tool for Asian display makers against Chinese competitors, and a point noted widely in Chinese industry commentary as protecting BOE's access to Apple and the U.S. repair market. Second, the IPR/WD interplay: BOE and other Chinese panel makers (CSOT, Tianma, Visionox) attacked the Samsung patents in both the PTAB and China's CNIPA, and the '683 patent's asserted claims were knocked out of the ITC case — a textbook illustration of validity proceedings eroding a parallel infringement case before remedy. Third, the global settlement: in mid-November 2025, days before the Commission's scheduled November 17 final determination in the trade-secret case, the parties settled, jointly moved to terminate the ITC investigations, and withdrew all suits in the U.S. and China (including BOE's Chongqing win against Samsung Display); Korean press reported a royalty in the range of roughly KRW 1 trillion, which Samsung Display declined to confirm.

Verification status — please read

• The investigation number 337-TA-3661 could not be corroborated. A search for that string returns nothing relevant, and it is inconsistent with ITC numbering: 337-TA-1351 was instituted in January 2023, and a 2025 filing would fall roughly in the 1370–1420 range. Treat 3661 as unverified pending an EDIS lookup.
• I could not verify a second ITC investigation asserting the '683 patent. Every verified ITC appearance of the '683 patent is in 337-TA-1351 (2022 complaint, instituted 2023). The April 2025 activity I could confirm is E.D. Tex. district court filings (three patent suits plus a DTSA suit), not a new ITC complaint. It is possible the case metadata conflates the 2022 ITC complaint with the 2025 district court filings, or that a 2025 ITC complaint exists that my sources did not surface; that should be resolved against the Commission's EDIS docket and the Federal Register institution notice before any of the above is relied on as to docket specifics.
• Not verified: the ALJ assigned to 337-TA-1351; the E.D. Tex. division, judge, and case numbers; the exact claim language of the '683 patent (the technical sketch above is drawn from the patent's title and family, not from a claim-by-claim reading); and the specific claim set left standing after IPR2023-00988.

I'll research this investigation systematically, starting with the docket and party/patent verification.

I'll research this ITC investigation and identify plaintiff's counsel of record.

Bottom line, and an important case-identification caveat

Investigation No. 337-TA-3661 does not appear to exist. ITC section 337 investigations are numbered sequentially (the Commission was instituting investigations in the 1340s–1360s in 2023 and roughly 1460s–1500s by mid‑2025). No public source — Federal Register institution notices, USITC news releases, EDIS, docket aggregators, or press coverage — shows a "337-TA-3661," and I found no ITC complaint by Samsung Display against BOE filed "around April 2025." The April 2025 Samsung Display/BOE filing I can verify is the E.D. Tex. suit, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., No. 2:25‑cv‑00412 (E.D. Tex.).

U.S. Patent No. 10,854,683 (the '683 patent) was asserted in Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof, instituted February 3, 2023 on Samsung Display's December 28, 2022 complaint. 88 Fed. Reg. 7463‑64 (Feb. 3, 2023) (naming the '803, '683, '599 and '593 patents). The second Samsung Display ITC action against BOE was Inv. No. 337-TA-1378 (trade secrets), instituted December 6, 2023. 88 Fed. Reg. 84829‑30. Both were terminated in late 2025 pursuant to the November 2025 global settlement.

So the useful answer is: counsel of record for Samsung Display in 337‑TA‑1351 (the '683 patent investigation) and in the companion 337‑TA‑1378, which is what the metadata most likely intends. I flag confidence levels below because the ITC trial-level appearance lists are in EDIS and were not fully retrievable here.

---

1. Inv. No. 337-TA-1351 (the '683 patent investigation) — most likely referent

Lead trial counsel — Covington & Burling LLP (Washington, DC).

• Role: lead counsel for complainant Samsung Display Co., Ltd. in 337‑TA‑1351.
• Source/confidence: moderate. The attribution comes from a testifying expert's CV/declaration filed with the PTAB, which lists "Samsung Display Company Limited v. Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., ITC 337‑TA‑1351 … (retained by plaintiff Samsung Display Company Ltd.) — retained by counsel Covington and Burling LLP." (PTAB exhibit, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556156](/patent/1556156)/download-documents). I did not retrieve the EDIS notice of appearance for the investigation itself, so individual attorney names at the ALJ level are not verified.
• Experience note: Covington's Washington, DC ITC/§ 337 group is one of the longest-standing complainant-side practices before the Commission.

Appellate counsel of record (Fed. Cir. No. 25‑1791, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. ITC) — this is Samsung Display's appeal of the adverse 1351 determination (the Commission found infringement of some patents but affirmed no violation for failure to satisfy the domestic-industry requirement; 90 Fed. Reg. 8034 (Jan. 23, 2025)). The CourtListener docket records entries of appearance for Samsung Display by:

• Brian G. Bieluch — counsel for appellant.
• Sturgis M. Sobin — counsel for appellant (later entry also lists Jared Frisch).
• Daniel W. Cho — counsel for appellant.
• "Jeffrey H. ___" — counsel for appellant (the surname is truncated in the retrieved docket text; I will not guess at it).
• Role: appellate counsel of record, not ITC trial counsel.
• Firm: not confirmed in the sources retrieved. Their appearance alongside Covington & Burling as SDC's 1351 counsel, and the DC ITC bar profiles of several of these names, are consistent with a Covington & Burling appellate team, but I could not verify firm affiliations and am not asserting them. (Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70318452/samsung-display-co-ltd-v-itc/)
• Experience note: Bieluch, Sobin and Cho appear repeatedly in Samsung-side ITC appeals to the Federal Circuit; I did not verify individual case histories.

Local counsel: Not applicable — the ITC does not require local counsel. In-house counsel: Samsung Display's in-house IP/legal attorneys are not identified in any public filing I retrieved; do not assume a name.

---

2. Inv. No. 337-TA-1378 (trade secrets, the companion/“second” ITC action) — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

This is the best-documented SDC team, and it is the team most likely to be carried into any new SDC-vs-BOE ITC complaint (if 337‑TA‑3661 corresponds to an unfiled or non-public 2025/2026 action, these are the lawyers to look for).

Sources: https://www.legal500.com/rankings/ranking/c-united-states/intellectual-property/patents-litigation-international-trade-commission/50811-quinn-emanuel-urquhart-sullivan-llp; https://www.quinnemanuel.com/the-firm/news-events/partner-kevin-chu-named-a-washington-d-c-rising-star-at-the-national-law-journal-awards-2025/; https://www.quinnkorea.com/attorneys/doman-mike/; https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/inside-samsungs-landmark-itc-trade-secret-victory/id1612309007?i=1000728484416.

---

3. What I could not verify — stated explicitly

• No docket sheet, notice of appearance, or EDIS filing exists for "337‑TA‑3661." If such an investigation was recently instituted, the complainant's appearances would be docketed in EDIS as a "Complainant's Notice of Appearance of Counsel"; that document is the only authoritative source and I could not obtain it.
• Individual attorney names for SDC in 337‑TA‑1351 at the ALJ level are unverified; only the firm (Covington & Burling) is sourced (secondary source, expert CV).
• Firm affiliations of the Federal Circuit appellant counsel (Bieluch, Sobin, Cho, Frisch, "Jeffrey H. ___") are unverified.
• The E.D. Tex. 2:25‑cv‑00412 team (Samsung Display's April 2025 district-court suit against BOE) was not identified in the sources I retrieved.
• Nothing here is drawn from sealed material; the gap is retrieval, not sealing — ITC pleadings and appearances are public, so the absence of a 3661 record is itself evidence the investigation number is wrong.
• Note also that respondent BOE's ITC counsel (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, per its March 21, 2025 press release) and OUII staff attorney participation are outside the scope of your question but are confirmed in the record.

Recommendation before this section is finalized: replace "337‑TA‑3661" with 337‑TA‑1351 in the case header (and add 337‑TA‑1378 as the companion), then pull the Complainant's Notice of Appearance from EDIS for 1351 to convert the Covington attribution into a named, docket-cited counsel list.

I'll research this. Note upfront: this is an ITC Section 337 investigation, not a district court case, so "counsel of record" means counsel appearing for respondents in ITC filings (and any parallel district court case). Let me search.

Let me dig into the actual ITC investigation numbers and the 2025 complaints.

Now let me find the actual investigation numbers and BOE's counsel.

Bottom line up front

Two threshold corrections before the counsel list, because they change who "the defendant" is:

1. This is not a district court patent case, and the case number in the metadata does not appear to correspond to a real ITC investigation. ITC investigation numbers in this period run in the 337‑TA‑13xx–14xx range. I could not find any "337‑TA‑3661" in searches of Federal Register notices, EDIS-related documents, Commission opinions, or press coverage. The patent in the metadata — U.S. Patent No. 10,854,683 (the '683 patent, "Pixel arrangement structure for organic light emitting display device") — was asserted in Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1351, Certain Active Matrix Organic Light‑Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof, instituted Feb. 3, 2023 (88 FR 7463) on a complaint filed Dec. 28, 2022. That is the investigation in which the '683 patent actually lived (its claims were later terminated from the investigation). I've answered as to 337‑TA‑1351, which is the only publicly documented ITC vehicle for the '683 patent.
2. "Defendants" is really "respondents." The respondent side is (a) Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. ("Mianyang BOE"), which intervened as a respondent (Order No. 7, granted/unreviewed Mar. 22, 2023), plus respondent BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. in the parallel trade‑secret investigation, and (b) roughly seventeen U.S. distributor respondents (Injured Gadgets, Wholesale Gadget Parts, Phone LCD Parts — the "BLF Respondents" — plus a long list of defaulted repair-parts sellers). Counsel for the distributors on the merits is not something I could verify; see "what I could not verify" below.

Also relevant: the parties settled in November 2025 and jointly moved to terminate the ITC investigations (ITC stayed the trade‑secret case on Nov. 18, 2025). So the appearances below are historical; expect withdrawals/terminations on the docket.

---

Counsel of record for respondents (BOE side)

PTAB-side counsel for BOE (not ITC counsel of record, but part of the same defense program in the co-pending IPRs, e.g., IPR2023‑00941 and IPR2024‑00620, Mianyang BOE v. Samsung Display): Richard Martinelli (lead, Orrick, New York), with Donald Daybell (Orrick, Irvine), Travis Jensen (Orrick, Menlo Park), and H. Patrick Herman (Orrick) as back-up counsel. Sourced from BOE's Notice/Power of Attorney filed June 9, 2023.

Do not confuse these with the adverse side: Samsung Display's ITC counsel in 337‑TA‑1351 was Covington & Burling LLP (Jeffrey H. Lerner, Washington, D.C. — noted as receiving service as complainant's counsel) and, in the litigation program generally, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (S. Alex Lasher, 1300 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, D.C., per the EDIS service list in 1351 and the 1378 trade‑secret investigation; firm bios also advertise the 1378 work). Several secondary write-ups list Lasher, Kevin Chu, Sean S. Pak, D. James Pak and a "David A." in the same breath — those are complainant-side names, not BOE's.

---

What I could not verify (and won't guess at)

• Counsel for the U.S. distributor respondents (Injured Gadgets, LLC; Wholesale Gadget Parts, Inc.; Phone LCD Parts LLC; and the defaulted respondents such as Mengtor, Gadgetfix, Apt‑Ability/MobileSentrix, Mobile Defenders). The defaulted parties almost certainly never appeared. I found no reliable record of merits counsel for the BLF Respondents.
• In-house counsel for BOE Technology Group, Mianyang BOE, or BOE Technology America — no sourced identification.
• Counsel in 337‑TA‑1378 (the OLED trade‑secret investigation naming BOE Technology Group, BMOT, BOE Technology America, Chengdu BOE, Chongqing BOE, Mianyang BOE, Ordos Yuansheng, and Wuhan BOE). I confirmed Quinn Emanuel for complainant Samsung there but did not confirm respondent-side appearances.
• Any investigation numbered 337‑TA‑3661, and any second ITC patent investigation filed by Samsung Display in April 2025. What the April–May 2025 escalation actually consisted of, per contemporaneous reporting and dockets, was district court activity: additional Samsung patent complaints in the Eastern District of Texas (including the Nubia Z60 Ultra display allegations, e.g., No. 2:25‑cv‑00412) and a further Samsung filing in the E.D. Va. (1:25‑cv‑00908, filed June 24, 2025), which was stayed under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) pending 337‑TA‑1351. If the metadata's "337‑TA‑3661" is meant to denote a later-filed ITC investigation, it is not documented in anything I could retrieve, and I'd treat the number as unverified.

Recommended verification path: pull the EDIS docket for 337‑TA‑1351 and 337‑TA‑1378 (the Rule 210.7(b) service list and each Notice of Appearance are the authoritative "counsel of record" record at the ITC), plus the PACER dockets for E.D. Tex. 2:23‑cv‑00309‑JRG, 2:25‑cv‑00412 and E.D. Va. 1:25‑cv‑00908, and confirm current status given the November 2025 settlement and joint motions to terminate.