Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Note upfront: the metadata describes an IPR before the PTAB, not a district court infringement action — so I'll verify both the PTAB proceeding and any parallel district court litigation.

Rich material. Now let me pin down the appeal outcome and whether a global settlement occurred.

Key nuance found: the appeal from this IPR appears to be Fed. Cir. 25-1426, not the 26-1092 appeal (which stems from IPR2024-00620). Let me verify and get the FWD reasoning.

Framing correction up front

The metadata caption describes a "patent infringement litigation," but IPR2023‑00941 is not a district court case — it is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where Mianyang BOE is the petitioner (not plaintiff) and Samsung Display is the patent owner (not defendant). There is no district, division, or Article III judge. The infringement action the metadata is gesturing at is a real but separate case: Samsung Display Co. v. BOE Technology Co., No. 2:23‑cv‑00309 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), where the '599 patent was one of five asserted patents. I've treated the IPR as the anchor and the litigation as context.

Case overview

Parties. Both sides are operating companies — there is no NPE/PAE or university anywhere in this dispute. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (Yongin, Korea) is the world's leading OLED panel maker and owner of the '599 patent (originally assigned to Samsung SDI and later held by Samsung Display). The petitioner side is a coordinated consortium of four Chinese panel makers: Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics (a BOE Technology Group subsidiary), Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology (TCL CSOT), Tianma Microelectronics, and Visionox Technology. That collective structure is the defining fact of the case: rather than a single competitor defending an invalidity theory, four rivals pooled resources to attack one Samsung patent at the Board.

Technology and patents. The single patent at issue is U.S. 7,414,599 B2, "Organic Light Emitting Device Pixel Circuit and Driving Method Therefor" (filed July 6, 2004; KR priority July 7, 2003; issued Aug. 19, 2008; 674 days PTA). In one line: a threshold‑voltage‑compensating AMOLED pixel circuit — a five‑transistor, one‑capacitor cell in which a third transistor diode‑connects the drive TFT to self‑compensate Vth, with separate switching, reset, and light‑emission control transistors, yielding higher grayscale fidelity. All 18 claims were challenged. The accused technology in the parallel litigation was BOE‑supplied OLED panels for mobile devices — the complaint specifically identified an Apple iPhone 12 purchased in Texas — and the ITC investigation covered "active matrix OLED display panels and modules for mobile devices." The '599 was the oldest and most foundational patent in Samsung's asserted set (alongside the '593 stage‑circuit patent, the '803/'683 pixel‑arrangement patents, and the '578 continuation).

Posture. The Board instituted on December 15, 2023 (Paper 12) and issued a Final Written Decision on December 6, 2024 (Paper 68; public version Paper 70, Dec. 13, 2024) holding that petitioners had not proved any of claims 1–18 unpatentable. Panel: Chief/Lead APJ Jameson Lee (author), Terrence W. McMillin, John A. Hudalla. The merits turned largely on the "Kimura" reference — specifically whether the Figure 36 embodiment disclosed the claimed compensation transistor arrangement. A pivotal procedural ruling came earlier: the Board denied petitioners' motion to submit a 35‑page supplemental Foty declaration (Ex. 1019), finding it "changes Petitioner's theory of obviousness" by introducing new opinions about transistor 3612 in Kimura Fig. 36 (Paper 27). Both sides filed motions to exclude (Papers 58–63), and Patent Owner's expert (Dr. Andrew Wolfe) was attacked for relaying hearsay from a Samsung employee through an interpreter. Oral hearing was September 16, 2024. Notice of appeal followed on February 6, 2025, docketed as Fed. Cir. No. 25‑1426, treated as a companion to 25‑1517 through ‑1521 (appeals from IPR2023‑00987, ‑00988, ‑01075) and 25‑1791 (Samsung's ITC appeal). On December 2, 2025, the Federal Circuit granted Mianyang BOE's unopposed motion to withdraw as a party and revised the caption — a direct consequence of the global settlement.

Why it matters. Three reasons. First, portfolio-level stakes: this IPR was one of at least six petitions the Chinese group filed against Samsung Display's asserted patents between 2023 and 2025 (IPR2023‑00941, ‑00987, ‑00988, ‑01075, ‑01221 (terminated pre‑institution), and IPR2024‑00620). Samsung states that every one produced a final written decision confirming at least one challenged claim — a clean sweep for the patent owner and a notable failure for the consortium strategy. Second, the multi‑front war: the IPR ran in parallel with ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1351 (instituted Feb. 3, 2023), where ALJ Moore found BOE infringed several claims including claims 15–16 of the '599 but declined an exclusion order for failure to prove the economic prong of domestic industry (Commission reviewed in part, final determination April 9, 2025); ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1378 (trade secrets, instituted Dec. 6, 2023), where ALJ McNamara found misappropriation and recommended a ~14‑year‑8‑month limited exclusion order in July 2025; E.D. Tex. cases before Judge Gilstrap; an E.D. Va. case stayed under 28 U.S.C. § 1659; and BOE counter‑suits in Texas and Chongqing. Third, the outcome: on November 18–19, 2025 the parties announced a global settlement, the ITC terminated its investigations, and the district court cases were dismissed with prejudice; reporting (Yonhap, KBS, TechCrunch) indicates BOE agreed to pay patent royalties, though terms are undisclosed. Samsung Display declined to confirm the royalty reports.

Timeline

Sourcing caveats

• I could not verify a merits disposition in Fed. Cir. No. 25‑1426 (the appeal from this IPR) as of today. The record I can confirm shows briefing completed, companion-case designation, oral argument scheduled/held, and BOE's withdrawal in December 2025; the April 2026 dismissal order I located expressly covers only 26‑1092/26‑1106, which arise from IPR2024‑00620. The metadata's "on appeal" status is therefore likely stale given the settlement, but treat the precise termination date as unconfirmed.
• The ~May 2026 expiration of the '599 patent (20 years from July 6, 2004 plus 674 days PTA) is my calculation, not a sourced holding.
• Individual attorney names on the PTAB side: petitioner's papers were filed by Orrick (docket email T61PTABDocket@orrick.com); patent owner's by Covington & Burling (David Garr, Scott Weidenfeller, Jeffrey Lerner, Jared Frisch, Derek Andros). I have not independently verified who argued at the September 2024 hearing.

I'll research the parallel district court litigation (the infringement action) and its docket milestones, since the IPR is already covered.

Key finding: the E.D. Tex. case was stayed almost immediately and later voluntarily dismissed — I need to verify that docket and look for the other parallel suits.

Now let me pin down the 2025 wave of suits and the companion IPR mapping.

Scope note and one correction to the earlier sections

The task asks for the litigation chronology. Two things need flagging before the narrative:

1. The "litigation" here is a short, largely inert docket, not a litigated case. The infringement action in which the '599 was asserted — Samsung Display Co. v. BOE Technology Group Co., No. 2:23-cv-00309-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) — never reached an answer, a Markman, discovery, or trial. It had eleven docket entries over 23 months, most of them in its first month and its last. That is itself the most legally significant fact about it: a § 1659 stay converted Samsung's flagship case into a placeholder, and Samsung eventually abandoned it for a different venue rather than litigate it.

2. Correction to the prior "Case overview." The earlier sections state that "the district court cases were dismissed with prejudice" in connection with the November 2025 settlement. That is accurate for the E.D. Va. successor case, but not for the original E.D. Tex. case, which Samsung dismissed without prejudice on 2025-06-02 — roughly five and a half months before the settlement, and for a different reason (forum-shopping a § 1659 stay). The two dismissals have opposite res judicata consequences and should not be conflated. I flag this below and revise the disposition analysis accordingly.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Parties named. The original complaint named "BOE Technology Co., Ltd." and Mianyang BOE; the two-day-later amended complaint named the correct parent, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., plus Mianyang BOE. Samsung was represented by Gregory Blake Thompson (Mann, Tindel & Thompson, Tyler, TX) — a notable contrast with the PTAB side, where Samsung used Covington & Burling and the petitioners used Orrick.

Five patents, not one. The amended complaint asserted the '599 alongside U.S. 9,330,593 ('593), 9,818,803 ('803), 10,854,683 ('683), and 11,594,578 ('578) — the same five-patent set Samsung put into ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1351. (The press variously reported "four" or "five" patents; the operative pleading and the E.D. Va. successor complaint both list five, with the '578 added by ITC amendment on 2023-03-10.) See E.D. Va. stay motion, No. 1:25-cv-00908, Dkt. 5.

Accused products and theories. BOE-supplied OLED panels for mobile devices; the complaint's hook was an Apple iPhone 12 "purchased in Texas" containing an accused BOE display (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 8–9). Samsung sought damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, enhanced damages, and an injunction, pleading irreparable harm specifically as to the '599: "Samsung Display has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm as a result of Defendants' infringement of the '599 Patent" (Reuters via NDTV, 2023-06-30). Jurisdiction over the two foreign defendants rested on § 1391(c)(3); venue on §§ 1391 and 1400(b).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

The only substantive motion was the stay — and it ended the case as a litigation vehicle. On 2023-07-21, twenty-three days after service-track appearance, BOE moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), which makes a stay mandatory (not discretionary) as to a § 337 respondent who requests it within 30 days, until the Commission's determination becomes final. Mianyang BOE was a respondent-intervenor in the 1351 Investigation; the patents overlapped entirely; and the request was timely. Samsung did not oppose. Magistrate Judge Payne granted it in a two-page order on 2023-07-24 (Dkt. 8), staying the action "pending resolution of" Inv. No. 337-TA-1351.

Legal consequence worth stating plainly: § 1659(b) provides that on dissolution of the stay, the entire ITC record is transmitted to the district court and is admissible there. Samsung therefore had a live path to trial on the ITC record once the Commission's determination became final — which is precisely the path it chose not to take.

No other pretrial motions were ever filed: no Rule 12 motion, no § 1404/1406 transfer motion, no Fintiv-style discretionary stay motion, no case-management or scheduling order, no summary-judgment motion, no Daubert motions, and no motion practice on ESI or privilege. Answer and counterclaims were never filed — the answer deadline was extended and then subsumed by the stay, and no counterclaim was ever asserted in this docket.

3. Claim construction

None. No Markman hearing, no joint claim-construction/prehearing statement, no O2 Micro order, no claim-construction opinion in 2:23-cv-00309. The only construction of the '599 claims in the entire dispute occurred at the PTAB in IPR2023-00941, where the Board construed the compensation-transistor limitations against the Kimura reference (already covered above). Practically: the Federal Circuit never had a district-court claim-construction record to review in the companion appeal, which is one reason the appeal was thin ground for the petitioners.

4. Discovery

No discovery occurred. The case was stayed before the Rule 26(f) conference; the docket shows no scheduling order, no initial disclosures, no document production, no depositions, and no expert reports. All document exchange in the dispute happened in the ITC (where the evidentiary hearing record and the ALJ's ID supplied the factual substrate) and at the PTAB. This is strategically important: the ITC record was the only developed factual record anywhere on infringement of the '599, and under § 1659(b) it was free for the taking in the stayed Texas case.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date was ever set; there was no verdict, no JMOL, no Rule 59 motion, no fee motion, no bill of costs, no injunction ruling, no damages determination.

6. Disposition — three separate events that are often conflated

(a) 2025-06-02: voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the E.D. Tex. case. Samsung filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 2025-05-30 (Dkt. 9); Judge Gilstrap signed the order 2025-06-02, entered 2025-06-04 (Dkt. 10), dismissing all claims without prejudice, denying pending relief as moot, and ordering each side to bear its own costs and fees (Dkt. 10 opinion text). Because the dismissal was unilateral and pre-answer, it carries no res judicata or collateral estoppel effect and left the patents' enforceability untouched.

(b) 2025-05-28: Samsung re-files the same five patents in E.D. Va. — Samsung Display Co. v. BOE Technology Group Co., No. 1:25-cv-00908 (E.D. Va., Alexandria Div., Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr.). This is the "why" behind (a): rather than wait out the § 1659 stay and then try the case on the ITC record in Marshall, Samsung abandoned the Texas case and re-filed in the Eastern District of Virginia to get a faster ("rocket docket") track against BOE and seven BOE affiliates (adding Ordos Yuansheng, Chengdu BOE, Chongqing BOE, Wuhan BOE, and Yunnan Invensight). Korean trade press reported the move as an explicit speed play: "삼성디스플레이는 속도전을 위해 텍사스 동부법원에 제소한 소송을 취하하고 버지니아 동부법원으로 옮겼다" (ETNews, 2025-06-02). Note the strategic irony: the new complaint was filed the day after BOE's own counter-suit, and it landed in a court that promptly stayed it for the same § 1659 reason.

(c) 2025-06-25 → 2025-12-02: the E.D. Va. case is stayed, then dismissed with prejudice. On 2025-06-25 Judge Alston granted the unopposed stay pending the 1351 Investigation, extended the answer deadline to 90 days after the stay lifted, and required the parties to advise the court within 14 days of finality (Dkt. 7, Dkt. 8). Following the global settlement, Samsung filed a Stipulation of Dismissal WITH PREJUDICE on 2025-11-19 (Dkt. 9), so ordered 2025-12-02 (Dkt. 10). This — not the Texas dismissal — is the dismissal with prejudice the earlier sections described.

Net outcome of the infringement litigation: no merits adjudication in any Article III court. The '599 infringement dispute was resolved by (i) an ITC finding of infringement without an exclusion order, (ii) a PTAB finding of patentability, and (iii) a commercial settlement — but never by a district court judgment.

7. The parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

The IPR track is covered above; the litigation-facing effects are these:

• The 2023 wave was timed to the ITC. Four Chinese panel makers (BOE/Mianyang, TCL CSOT, Tianma, Visionox) filed in June 2023 — one week after Samsung's Texas complaint — against five Samsung patents. FWDs issued **December 202

I'll research counsel of record for the petitioner side (Mianyang BOE), the "plaintiff" in the metadata caption, across the PTAB docket and related litigation.

Now let me pull the petitioner's power of attorney and the Federal Circuit docket entries listing appellate counsel.

Let me verify the individual Orrick attorneys and their roles, plus the LEAP practitioner and who argued at the hearing.

Answer: "Plaintiff's" counsel in IPR2023‑00941 = Mianyang BOE's petitioner-side team (Orrick)

First, the role caveat again, because it controls the answer. In IPR2023‑00941, Mianyang BOE is the petitioner, not a plaintiff, and Samsung Display is the patent owner, not a defendant. There is no district court docket, no local counsel requirement, and no in-house attorney appearing of record — PTAB practice under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 requires a registered practitioner, and all of record counsel here are outside counsel. The caption order in every paper does list Mianyang BOE first ("Mianyang BOE …, Wuhan China Star …, Tianma …, and Visionox …, Petitioner v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., Patent Owner"), which is presumably why the metadata labeled it the plaintiff. All four petitioners were jointly represented by the same Orrick team.

Counsel of record for Petitioners (Mianyang BOE et al.)

Service/docket addresses used by the Orrick team: T61PTABDocket@orrick.com (Jensen), XWO/PTABDocket@orrick.com (Wang), PTABDocketJ1H1@orrick.com.

Appellate counsel of record, Fed. Cir. No. 25‑1426 (the appeal from this IPR)

• Entry of Appearance filed Feb. 20, 2025 (Dkt. 2) for appellants Mianyang BOE, Tianma, Visionox and Wuhan China Star: Melanie L. Bostwick; Travis Jensen; Richard Martinelli; Bas de Blank; Xiang Wang; Joseph R. Kolker; Jonas Q. Wang (Justia docket; CourtListener 25‑1426). Bostwick, Jensen, de Blank and Wang are Orrick's core BOE-side team; I could not independently confirm the firms of Martinelli, Kolker, or Jonas Q. Wang — do not assume Orrick without checking the entry of appearance itself.
• After Mianyang BOE withdrew as a party (Order of Dec. 2, 2025, revising the caption, Dkt. 13 in 26‑1092), a superseding Amended Entry of Appearance filed Jan. 27, 2026 (Dkt. 25) lists Stephen Smith, Mark Weinstein, Lowell D. Mead, Melanie L. Bostwick, and Elias Kim for the remaining appellants Tianma, Visionox and Wuhan China Star. Firms for Smith, Weinstein, Mead and Kim are unverified; they likely reflect the non-BOE petitioners' separate appellate arrangements rather than BOE's team.

Counterpart counsel — for completeness, since the labels are inverted

• Patent owner Samsung Display at the PTAB: Covington & Burling LLP, One CityCenter, 850 Tenth St. NW, Washington, DC — David A. Garr (Reg. 74,932, lead), Scott C. Weidenfeller (Reg. 54,531, back-up), Jared R. Frisch and Derek J. Andros (both pro hac vice, admitted Aug. 2024 per Paper 51) (Updated Power of Attorney, Aug. 20, 2024).
• Samsung Display on appeal: Covington — Jeffrey H. Lerner, Scott C. Weidenfeller, Richard L. Rainey (Dkt. 9, Feb. 20, 2025).
• In the actual infringement actions Samsung Display is the plaintiff, and its counsel include Covington (Jeffrey H. Lerner; ITC service address SDC‑OLED‑Cov‑337@cov.com) and Quinn Emanuel (S. Alex Lasher, DC) at the ITC, with Timothy Durst filing for Samsung in N.D. Tex. No. 3:25‑cv‑01430. BOE's defense-side district court/local counsel in E.D. Tex. No. 2:23‑cv‑00309 is not verified in my searches and I won't guess at names.
• BOE's ITC team (337‑TA‑1351) is a useful cross-check on the same client relationship: Bas de Blank (Orrick) was designated lead for service of process, with Polsinelli PC (Deanna T. Okun, Daniel F. Smith) added by notice of appearance Nov. 19, 2024.

Explicit sourcing limits

• I worked from Docket Alarm, CourtListener and Justia mirrors plus firm bios; I did not pull the PTAB docket sheet from PTACTS/PACER directly, so the definitive § 42.8(b)(3) mandatory-notice list of petitioner's counsel (Paper 2/3 and any updates) is the document to check if you need a belt-and-suspenders citation.
• Nothing here is sealed; the seal orders in this IPR (Papers 31, 54) covered exhibits and deposition transcripts, not appearances.
• Team composition on the Orrick side changed at least three times (Daybell out; LEAP practitioner added; BOE's appellate exit), so "counsel of record" is date-dependent — the table above states the role and the date for each person.

Framing note (building on the earlier correction)

There is no defendant in IPR2023‑00941. The caption the metadata supplies (Mianyang BOE v. Samsung Display) makes Samsung Display the patent owner / respondent, represented by outside counsel of record under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). The only place a true "defendant" exists in this dispute is the parallel infringement action, Samsung Display Co. v. BOE Technology Co., No. 2:23‑cv‑00309 (E.D. Tex.) — where the roles invert: Samsung Display is plaintiff, and BOE/Mianyang BOE are the defendants. I've therefore listed both sides below, clearly labeled, rather than force the "defendant" label onto the wrong party.

---

A. Samsung Display's counsel of record in IPR2023-00941 (the party opposing petitioner)

Source: Patent Owner Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s Updated Power of Attorney, Aug. 20, 2024 (Paper 56), appointing practitioners under Customer No. 26853; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00941/Mianyang_BOE_Optoelectronics_Technology_Co._Ltd._v._Samsung_Display_Co._Ltd/

Notes on this list:

• No in-house counsel is named in the POA — only outside counsel. The correspondence in the record is copied to an internal alias ("SDC‑BOE‑IPR") and to "Hsu, Johannes," suggesting in-house coordination, but no Samsung in-house attorney has entered an appearance. I am not naming one.
• Samsung's PTAB counsel is not uniform across the portfolio. In later petitions (e.g., IPR2025‑01557 on the '708 patent), Samsung's lead PTAB counsel is Charles H. Sanders of Latham & Watkins (Boston), with Alex Grabowski (Chicago), Inge A. Osman (DC), Raghav Bajaj (Austin), Jacob Vannette (DC), and Morrison & Foerster (Mehran Arjomand, Alex Yap, Jean Nguyen, LA) listed. So Covington was the team for the 2023‑series petitions, not a portfolio-wide appointment.

B. Samsung Display's appellate counsel in Fed. Cir. No. 25-1426

The Federal Circuit docket confirms service on the same Covington team — Garr, Weidenfeller, Frisch, Andros, all at One CityCenter, 850 Tenth St. NW — indicating Covington carried the appeal. See Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor v. Samsung Display Co., No. 25‑1426 (Fed. Cir.), Doc. 1, Att. 2; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69653543/1/2/wuhan-china-star-optoelectronics-semiconductor-v-samsung-display-co-ltd/. (Note the docketed caption reflects Wuhan China Star as first-named appellant, consistent with Mianyang BOE's December 2025 withdrawal described in the earlier section.)

C. The actual defendants' counsel — Samsung Display v. BOE, No. 2:23‑cv‑00309 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Caveats specific to this docket: the case was stayed before any answer was filed and then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on Samsung's notice (Dkt. 9, filed May 30, 2025; dismissal order Dkt. 10, June 2, 2025), so WilmerHale never litigated the merits there. No local E.D. Tex. counsel appeared for BOE on the public docket, and no additional WilmerHale attorneys appear. The commercial databases (Patexia, UniCourt, PatSnap) list only Vreeland as defendant counsel, which is consistent with a stay-and-dismiss posture rather than a robust defense team.

D. For completeness — the petitioner/plaintiff side

• PTAB (this IPR): Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP — service contacts on the power of attorney are Travis Jensen, Donald Daybell, and Xiang Wang (Orrick PTAB docket addresses). https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00941/...
• ITC 337‑TA‑1351: Orrick is publicly credited with the "no violation" outcome for Mianyang BOE against Samsung Display (Chambers USA 2026 firm profile), and Orrick's T. Vann Pearce, Steven Routh and Sten Jensen are ranked for ITC/PTAB patent work.
• Samsung Display's side in the litigation: the E.D. Tex. complaint and amended complaint, and the eventual voluntary dismissal, were filed by G. Blake Thompson of Mann | Tindel | Thompson (112 E. Line St., Suite 304, Tyler, TX; State Bar No. 24042033) — the plaintiff's attorney of record on that docket and typically Samsung's East Texas local counsel. Samsung's ITC trade-secret representation (337‑TA‑1378) was handled by Quinn Emanuel (e.g., James D. Judah, San Francisco, and Kevin Johnson, Silicon Valley, per firm/Legal 500 profiles) — I found no confirmation that Quinn Emanuel entered in 2:23‑cv‑00309 itself.

What I could not verify

• Direct PACER pulls. Everything above comes from CourtListener/Justia/Docket Alarm derivatives of the docket, the PTAB papers themselves, Federal Circuit filings, and firm biographies — not from a live PACER session. Counsel lists on derivative sites can lag.
• Whether any sealed appearances, pro hac vice motions, or protective-order acknowledgments