Paneltouch Technologies LLC v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.

Paneltouch Technologies LLC, a Texas-based patent assertion entity (PAE) formed in July 2023, initiated patent infringement litigation against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., a major Chinese electronic components producer and global leader in display manufacturing. Paneltouch Technologies acquired a portfolio of over 140 U.S. patents from Panasonic in March 2024, and this lawsuit represents an assertion of some of those acquired assets. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleged that BOE infringed on five patents related to display and touch panel technology. Specifically, the accused products included the BOE OLED panel found in the Valve Steam Deck and the BOE display/touch panel incorporated into the Amazon Fire HD10 tablet.

The five patents asserted by Paneltouch Technologies were U.S. Patent Nos. 8,704,762; 8,803,836; 9,250,758; 9,507,477; and 11,126,025. Generally, these patents relate to display devices with integrated touch panels. For instance, the '762 patent describes a "Display device" with a touch panel comprising X and Y electrodes, while the '025 patent is titled "In-cell touch panel," indicating technology where touch functionality is integrated directly into the display structure. The case was filed on February 28, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its "rocket docket" reputation for fast trials and plaintiff-friendly procedures, and was presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The case concluded on April 1, 2026.

This litigation is notable as it features a patent assertion entity, Paneltouch Technologies, asserting patents acquired from a major operating company (Panasonic) against another global manufacturing giant (BOE Technology). This pattern of NPE assertion is common in the display technology sector. BOE Technology itself is a frequent defendant in patent cases, having recently faced a $66.9 million jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas in another display-related patent infringement case (Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd., 2:23-cv-00515), also before Judge Gilstrap. Furthermore, BOE has challenged Paneltouch's standing to sue, and parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have been initiated against some of the asserted patents, such as IPR2025-01267 against the '025 patent.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Paneltouch Technologies LLC v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:25-cv-00245, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and ultimately concluded with a dismissal.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-02-28: Paneltouch Technologies LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• The complaint asserted infringement of five U.S. Patents: 8,704,762, 8,803,836, 9,250,758, 9,507,477, and 11,126,025.
• Paneltouch Technologies alleged that BOE infringed these patents through products such as the BOE OLED panel in the Valve Steam Deck and the BOE display/touch panel in the Amazon Fire HD10 tablet.
• The patents at issue were acquired by Paneltouch Technologies from Panasonic in March 2024.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• No significant pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay, or for summary judgment, were publicly reported or reached a substantive outcome before the case was terminated.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The case did not proceed to the claim construction (Markman) stage before its termination.

Discovery Milestones:

• No strategic discovery milestones were publicly reported, consistent with the swift termination of the case.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case did not reach trial, a verdict, or post-trial motions.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• 2025-08-22: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. initiated multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against Paneltouch Technologies LLC before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for some of the asserted patents. These included IPR2025-01245, IPR2025-01246, IPR2025-01267, and IPR2025-01482.
• Specifically, IPR2025-01267 challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,126,025.
• During the IPR proceedings, there was a dispute regarding the identification of "Real Parties in Interest" (RPI), with Paneltouch Technologies LLC filing supplemental briefs and BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filing an opposition, arguing that its RPI identification was correct.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• 2026-04-01: The case was terminated in the Eastern District of Texas, marking its closure. Although the specific docket entry for the termination reason is not provided in the snippets, the rapid termination of a patent case often indicates a confidential settlement or stipulated dismissal.

Here is the counsel of record representing Paneltouch Technologies LLC in Paneltouch Technologies LLC v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.:

Firm: Russ August & Kabat
Office Location: Los Angeles, CA

• Jefferson Cummings

  • Role: Counsel (identified as "Back-Up Counsel" in related IPR proceedings, implying a key role in the litigation team).
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Russ August & Kabat is noted as frequent plaintiff-side counsel in patent cases for Paneltouch Technologies.

• Benjamin T. Wang

  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice in related IPR proceedings).
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Russ August & Kabat is noted as frequent plaintiff-side counsel in patent cases for Paneltouch Technologies.

• Andrew D. Weiss

  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice in related IPR proceedings).
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Russ August & Kabat is noted as frequent plaintiff-side counsel in patent cases for Paneltouch Technologies.

While the specific roles of "lead counsel" or "of counsel" within the district court case are not explicitly detailed in the provided search snippets, the presence of these attorneys from Russ August & Kabat in related IPR proceedings and the firm's general representation of Paneltouch Technologies in this district court case strongly indicate their roles as counsel. No information about local counsel was explicitly found in the provided search results for the district court case.

In the patent infringement case Paneltouch Technologies LLC v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (2:25-cv-00245) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. was represented by counsel from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. While a direct notice of appearance from the district court docket was not publicly available in the search results, the involvement of these attorneys is strongly indicated by their representation of BOE in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging the patents asserted in the district court case, and one attorney's admission to practice in the Eastern District of Texas.

The following attorneys were involved as counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.:

• Richard F. Martinelli

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from role in related IPR proceedings).
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Martinelli develops comprehensive IP strategies, handling patent litigation, prosecution, and client counseling, with experience litigating patents at trial, before the ITC, and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Will Melehani

  • Role: Counsel (inferred from pro hac vice admission in related IPR proceedings and familiarity with the district court case).
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Melehani is an experienced patent litigation attorney, admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas, and has frequently played a key role in drafting and arguing appellate briefs in patent cases.