LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al.

LG Display Co., Ltd., a major South Korean manufacturer of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, OLEDs, and flexible displays, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. and its affiliates (Tianma Microelectronics (HONG KONG) Limited and Wuhan Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd.). Tianma Microelectronics is a prominent Chinese company specializing in the research, development, manufacturing, and sales of flat-panel displays, including LCDs and next-generation screen technologies for various sectors like consumer electronics, automotive, industrial applications, and medical equipment. Both companies are operating entities in the highly competitive global display technology market.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 5:25-cv-00078), alleges infringement of seven patents, including the 11,251,394 patent. The '394 patent specifically covers an OLED structure with integrated touch functionality. The accused products or technologies are Tianma's display panels, particularly those related to OLED and LCD technologies, as this litigation stems from over a decade of unfruitful licensing negotiations between LG and Tianma, initially involving LCD patents and later extending to OLED innovations after Tianma acquired control of NLT. Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, is assigned to the case, with Magistrate Judge James Boone Baxter handling scheduling. The Eastern District of Texas is a frequent venue for patent litigation due to its reputation for a fast-paced docket and historical plaintiff-friendly rulings, although recent Supreme Court decisions like TC Heartland have aimed to restrict venue choices.

This case is notable as it highlights the intensifying competition and intellectual property disputes among major Asian display panel manufacturers as the industry shifts from LCD to advanced OLED and MicroLED technologies. Similar patent disputes between industry giants like Samsung and BOE underscore the strategic importance of IP in gaining leverage in the high-end display market. Tianma has a history of proactive IP risk management, including patent invalidation efforts, suggesting a potentially robust defense strategy in this ongoing litigation.

LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. - Key Legal Developments

The patent infringement lawsuit, LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00078, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on June 13, 2025. The plaintiff, LG Display Co., Ltd., has asserted seven patents related to LCD and OLED technologies, with patent 11251394 specifically covering an OLED structure with integrated touch functionality.

As of May 15, 2026, the case is open and active. Detailed information regarding initial pleadings (such as answers or counterclaims), substantive pre-trial motions (like motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay), claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, or a final disposition (settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal) is not yet publicly available in the search results. Similarly, there is no specific information available regarding any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patent 11251394.

The initial filing identifies Mayer Brown LLP and Patton Tidwell & Culbertson as counsel involved in the case.

LG Display Co., Ltd. is represented by attorneys from Mayer Brown LLP and Patton Tidwell & Culbertson.

Here is the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s):

Mayer Brown LLP

• Jamie B. Beaber
  • Role: Lead Counsel (likely, given patent litigation focus).
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience Note: Jamie Beaber is a partner in Mayer Brown's Intellectual Property practice and focuses on patent litigation, Section 337 investigations before the ITC, and PTAB proceedings. He has represented clients in a wide range of technologies, including display technologies.
• Kfir B. Levy
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience Note: Kfir Levy is a partner at Mayer Brown, focusing on patent litigation, IPR proceedings, and ITC investigations across various technologies.
• Seth Weston Bruneel
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience Note: Seth Bruneel is an associate in Mayer Brown's Intellectual Property practice, concentrating on patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes.
• Young Kyoung Kim
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience Note: Young Kyoung Kim is an associate at Mayer Brown with experience in patent litigation and other IP matters.
• Bryan Christopher Nese
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience Note: Bryan Nese is an associate in Mayer Brown's Intellectual Property practice, with experience in patent litigation and disputes.
• James A. Fussell, III
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience Note: James Fussell is a partner in Mayer Brown's Intellectual Property practice, handling patent litigation and post-grant proceedings.
• Don Hyun Min
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience Note: Don Hyun Min is an associate at Mayer Brown, focusing on patent litigation and intellectual property matters.
• Amanda Streff Bonner
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago..
  • Experience Note: Amanda Bonner is a partner in Mayer Brown's Intellectual Property practice, involved in patent litigation and other IP disputes.
• Baldine Brunel Paul
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience Note: Baldine Paul is an associate at Mayer Brown, focusing on patent litigation and other intellectual property matters.
• Alison T. Gelsleichter
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience Note: Alison Gelsleichter is an associate at Mayer Brown, working on patent litigation and IP matters.
• Amanda Elizabeth Stephenson
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Mayer Brown LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience Note: Amanda Stephenson is an associate at Mayer Brown, focusing on intellectual property and patent litigation.

Patton Tidwell & Culbertson

• Kelly B. Tidwell
  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, Texarkana, Texas..
  • Experience Note: Kelly Tidwell is a partner at Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, a firm known for its local counsel work in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Geoffrey Patton Culbertson
  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, Texarkana, Texas..
  • Experience Note: Geoffrey Culbertson is a partner at Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, providing local counsel services in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Based on available public information and general firm representation patterns in patent litigation, the following attorneys are likely representing the defendant(s), Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al., in LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. (5:25-cv-00078) in the Eastern District of Texas. It is important to note that without direct, real-time access to the PACER docket for this specific case, their definitive appearance and precise roles (e.g., lead, local, of counsel, in-house) cannot be confirmed.

Attorneys of Record (Likely):

• Michael J. Abernathy

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or senior counsel.
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Experience Note: Co-leader of Morgan Lewis's intellectual property disputes practice, with 35 years of experience in patent, trade secret, and antitrust litigation, including first-chair trial experience in biopharma and technology cases and Section 337 investigations at the ITC.

• David F. Nickel

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or senior counsel, particularly for ITC-related aspects if applicable.
  • Firm: Foster, Murphy, Altman, & Nickel, PC, Washington, DC.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on Section 337 proceedings at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), including patent infringement, and has represented clients in over 100 such investigations.

• Craig S. Krummen

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Experience Note: Represents clients in complex commercial litigation and intellectual property litigation involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, with trial experience in federal and state courts.

• William R. Peterson

  • Role: Likely counsel, potentially with an appellate focus.
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Houston, TX. (Note: As of June 2025, William Peterson was appointed Texas Solicitor General, which may impact his current role in private practice cases. However, the case was filed in June 2025, so he may have been involved prior to that appointment or is involved in a limited capacity).
  • Experience Note: A former software engineer, he is a member of the intellectual property practice and regularly argues patent appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He previously clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court and Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit.

• John K. Kim

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm: Clark Hill PLC, Scottsdale, AZ (one source shows this firm). (Note: Other results mention John Kim at Lee & Ko in Seoul, Korea, or WilmerHale, or Kim & Chang IP, but the Clark Hill reference seems most pertinent to U.S. litigation practice, although firm changes are common).
  • Experience Note: Has over 25 years of experience in various aspects of intellectual property law, including patent, trademark, and copyright litigation, and prosecuting AIA trials before the PTAB.

Please note: The information above is compiled from publicly available professional profiles and news articles. A definitive list of counsel of record and their specific roles would require direct access to the court's official docket for case 5:25-cv-00078.