Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics et al. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Since the metadata indicates this is a PTAB IPR (not a district court case), I'll verify the actual procedural posture and identify any parallel litigation.

Let me gather more on the patent, the parallel litigation, and the broader dispute.

Case Overview and Background

Note on posture: The metadata describes IPR2024-00620 as an "infringement litigation," but it is not — it is an inter partes review before the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a validity proceeding, not a district court infringement action. There is therefore no district court "division" or presiding judge for this case number. The accused-product and venue questions must be answered by reference to the parallel district court and ITC proceedings that gave rise to the IPR.

The parties. The Patent Owner, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (SDC), is a Korean operating company and the world's largest OLED panel maker (roughly 41–42% of the smartphone/tablet OLED market per Omdia/UBI Research figures cited in contemporaneous coverage), a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics and the owner of the '593 patent by assignment. It is an operating-company enforcer here, not an NPE/PAE or university. The Petitioners are four Chinese display-panel manufacturers — Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (BOE Technology Group), Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. (TCL CSOT; some filings caption this entity "TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd."), Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd., and Visionox Technology, Inc. — filing jointly, with their subsidiaries named as real parties-in-interest. All are operating companies and direct competitors of SDC in a supply chain where Chinese panel makers have been gaining share rapidly.

The technology and the patents. The IPR challenges only U.S. Patent No. 9,330,593 B2, titled "Stage Circuit and Organic Light Emitting Display Using the Same" (invent

I'll research this. Note upfront: the docket number given (IPR2024-00620) is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court case — so I'll need to check whether a parallel district court action exists and map the requested categories onto the IPR's own procedure. Let me search.

I have strong PTAB data. Now let me nail down the parallel district court and ITC actions.

Now let me pin down the sibling IPRs and the Federal Circuit appeals.

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioners in this IPR. Let me run several searches.

I have strong initial data. Let me drill into the specific attorneys and the power of attorney/mandatory notice filings.

Counsel of Record — Petitioners ("plaintiffs") in Mianyang BOE et al. v. Samsung Display, IPR2024-00620

Framing note: This is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action. The parties alignment is Petitioner (BOE / China Star / Tianma / Visionox) v. Patent Owner (Samsung Display) — so the "plaintiff-side" counsel are the petitioners' counsel. The Patent Owner side (Samsung Display) is represented by Covington & Burling (David A. Garr, Scott C. Weidenfeller, Derek J. Andros, Jared Frisch) and is not covered here.

All four petitioner entities are represented jointly by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. Every attorney identified below appears as a registered practitioner (Reg. No. shown) on Petitioner's Power of Attorney and/or on the caption block of Petitioner's papers.

---

Counsel of record (PTAB trial stage)

Notes on each:

• Richard F. Martinelli — Orrick partner, New York. Registered patent attorney; litigates patents in district court, at the ITC, and before the Federal Circuit; has handled IPRs in support of offensive district-court campaigns (e.g., Canon v. Avigilon). He is the formal lead counsel of record on the March 6, 2024 Power of Attorney (Paper 2) and remains listed on the Board's ordering documents.
• K. Patrick Herman — Orrick, New York. Signed essentially every Petitioner filing in IPR2024-00620 (Petitioner's Reply, cross-examination notices, the Joint Notice re: the redacted Final Written Decision) and appeared for Petitioners at the Foty and Wolfe depositions. Functionally the attorney most on the record.
• Xiang Wang — Orrick, Beijing. Listed "For PETITIONER" on the Board's September 13, 2024 Scheduling Order (Paper 13) and on Patent Owner's certificates of service as counsel of record (Paper 28). Holds a Ph.D.; he is the Orrick China IP litigator frequently used to interface with PRC-based clients. No Reg. No. was captured in the retrieved filing.
• Travis Jensen — Orrick, Menlo Park. Named back-up counsel in the PoA; also on the Federal Circuit appearance (below).
• Donald Daybell — Orrick, Irvine. Named back-up counsel in the PoA; his name did not otherwise appear in later filings I retrieved.

---

Counsel appearing at the Federal Circuit stage (appeal from this IPR)

The IPR was appealed. In Fed. Cir. No. 25-1426 (filed Feb. 6, 2025; later 2026-1092/1106), the Feb. 20, 2025 Entry of Appearance for the Appellants (the same petitioner group) listed:

• Melanie L. Bostwick (Orrick — Washington, D.C.; appellate/PTAB practice, the firm's highest-profile Supreme Court/Federal Circuit advocate)
• Travis Jensen, Richard Martinelli, Bas de Blank (Orrick — Silicon Valley/Menlo Park), Xiang Wang, Joseph R. Kolker, and Jonas Q. Wang (all Orrick)

These seven are appellate counsel, not PTAB trial counsel, though Martinelli, Jensen, and Wang overlap both stages.

---

Caveats and verification notes

• Source basis. The core PoA roster comes from Petitioner's Power of Attorney (Paper 2, filed 3/6/2024) and the Board's Scheduling Order caption block, as reproduced on PTAB docket mirrors (Docket Alarm, docket-alarm PDF renderings, and a PTAB docket index). I did not retrieve the live PACER/PTAB docket directly in this session, so Reg. Nos. and office addresses should be re-verified against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's PTAB Center/PACER docket for IPR2024-00620 before being relied on in a filing.
• No in-house counsel identified. Nothing in the filings I reviewed names an in-house attorney for BOE, China Star/TCL, Tianma, or Visionox. The petitioners appear to rely entirely on Orrick.
• Caption discrepancy to flag. The case metadata lists the second petitioner as "Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd.", which is how the March 2024 PoA and the March 25, 2025 Patent Owner notice caption it. However, Petitioner filings from February 2025 onward caption that same petitioner slot as "TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd." — suggesting a substitution/renaming within the China Star group. Anyone drafting papers should confirm which entity is the current named petitioner.
• Related proceeding. There was an earlier, withdrawn IPR2023-01221 between the same parties involving the same patent; service papers in IPR2024-00620 reference Samsung Display's counsel "of record in withdrawn IPR2023-01221." I did not confirm a separate petitioner counsel roster there.
• Parallel district court. In Samsung Display's E.D. Tex. action against BOE (e.g., No. 2:25-cv-00430), Orrick attorneys Bas de Blank, Johannes Hsu, Richard F. Martinelli (pro hac vice), Tyler Scott Miller, Will Hussein Melehani, and Xiang Wang have appeared for BOE — overlapping but not identical to the IPR team, and that roster should not be conflated with the IPR counsel of record.

If you need the "clean" PTAB-caption roster only, it is: Martinelli (lead), Herman, Wang, Jensen, Daybell — all Orrick.

I'll research the counsel of record for Samsung Display in this PTAB proceeding.

Good initial results. Let me confirm the Patent Owner's mandatory notices and check for the full Covington team plus the Federal Circuit appeal appearances.

Counsel of Record — Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (Patent Owner / responding party)

Threshold framing note. The matter you've given me, IPR2024-00620, is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement action. Samsung Display is the Patent Owner — i.e., the party in the defensive/respondent posture — while the four panel makers (Mianyang BOE, Wuhan China Star, Tianma, Visionox) are the Petitioners, represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. So "defendant's counsel" here maps to Samsung Display's Patent Owner counsel. (There is a parallel infringement action, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00309, E.D. Tex., and ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, where Samsung Display is the plaintiff/complainant — roles are reversed. Let me know if you want that side.)

Named counsel of record (this IPR)

Per Samsung Display's Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (Paper 7, filed Mar. 27, 2024) and the Board's Scheduling Order (Paper 13, Sept. 13, 2024):

Service address of record: SDC-BOE-IPR@cov.com.

Additional counsel appearing in the proceeding

Caveat: Andros and Frisch were formally added as additional back-up counsel via updated mandatory notices in the sibling IPRs (see Mianyang BOE v. Samsung Display, IPR2023-00941, Updated Mandatory Notices, Aug. 20, 2024). In IPR2024-00620 itself, the § 42.8 notice names only Garr (lead) and Weidenfeller (back-up); Andros's participation is documented by his § 42.10 back-up-counsel declaration and deposition appearances rather than an amended notice I could locate.

Related appellate counsel (Fed. Cir. No. 25-1426)

Petitioners appealed the Final Written Decision. Samsung Display's appellee entry of appearance (Fed. Cir., Feb. 20, 2025) lists:

• Jeffrey H. Lerner — Covington & Burling, Washington, DC (appellate/Federal Circuit and E.D. Tex. Samsung practice)
• Scott C. Weidenfeller — Covington & Burling, Washington, DC
• Richard L. Rainey — Covington & Burling, Washington, DC

What I could not confirm

• No in-house counsel is identified in the public PTAB papers for this IPR.
• No separate "local counsel" — PTAB practice does not require one, and none is listed.
• I did not find any sealed or unlisted counsel appearances; the filings above (papers 7, 13, the § 42.10 declaration, deposition transcripts) are public and consistently show the Covington team. The only counsel names beyond Covington tied to Samsung Display in this dispute are Charles H. Sanders / Latham & Watkins and Morrison & Foerster (for the Petitioners) in other, later BOE-Samsung IPRs — not in IPR2024-00620.

Bottom line: In IPR2024-00620 the counsel of record for Samsung Display are David A. Garr (lead) and Scott C. Weidenfeller (back-up) of Covington & Burling's Washington, DC office, with Derek J. Andros and Jared R. Frisch actively participating.