Pulsar Display LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Pulsar Display LLC has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas. Pulsar Display LLC appears to operate as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), given that available public information for entities named "Pulsar" points to companies involved in social media intelligence or manufacturing technology, rather than display manufacturing or sales. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a global technology conglomerate and a leading manufacturer of consumer electronics, including various display technologies.

The lawsuit targets Samsung's OLED display technology, which allegedly infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,574,990. This patent is titled "Organic light emitting diode display with curved channel region" and describes an OLED display featuring a substrate, scan and data lines, a driving voltage line, and interconnected switching and driving thin film transistors. A key technical aspect highlighted in the patent is a driving semiconductor layer of the driving thin film transistor that is bent and lies substantially parallel to the substrate, designed to broaden the driving range for displaying more gray levels. While the specific accused products are not detailed in the initial summary, such claims typically encompass a range of Samsung devices utilizing OLED screens, such as smartphones, tablets, and televisions.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs, including NPEs. The district is known for its "rocket docket," offering an accelerated path to trial, patent-specific local rules, and a perceived plaintiff-friendly jury pool. Despite the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017, which restricted patent venue, plaintiffs have continued to file in EDTX by strategically suing foreign corporate parents like Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. directly, thereby circumventing the more stringent venue requirements for domestic entities. The presiding judge for this specific case has not been publicly identified yet.

This litigation is notable as it aligns with a prevalent pattern of NPEs asserting intellectual property rights against major operating companies in the highly competitive display technology sector. The display market, particularly for OLEDs, is a critical area in consumer electronics, frequently leading to high-stakes patent disputes. While there is no immediate public record of parallel inter partes review (IPR) challenges filed against US Patent 11,574,990, such actions are common defensive strategies employed by defendants like Samsung in these types of cases.

Pulsar Display LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas on April 24, 2025, asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,574,990. The case, Pulsar Display LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., case number 2:25-cv-00412, is currently active and appears to be in its early to mid-stages of litigation.

Key Legal Developments and Current Posture:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: Pulsar Display LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement on April 24, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. While no specific docket entry number is publicly available without direct PACER access, the case initiation is confirmed by court tracking services.

• Pre-trial motions of substance:

  • As of May 26, 2026, no significant rulings on pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR have been publicly reported or identified through general web searches for this specific case. Given the filing date, such motions, if filed, would likely be in the early stages of adjudication or not yet ripe.

• Claim construction (Markman) outcomes:

  • The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage, nor have any Markman hearing dates or outcomes been publicly reported. In the Eastern District of Texas, claim construction hearings typically occur around 430 days after the case filing. As the case was filed in April 2025, it is likely still pre-Markman.

• Discovery milestones with strategic significance:

  • No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported for this case.

• Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions:

  • The case has not reached trial, nor have any verdicts or post-trial motions been reported.

• Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal — the final disposition or the present posture if active:

  • The case remains active. There is no public record of a settlement, dismissal, or judgment having been entered in this specific litigation as of May 26, 2026.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings:

  • As of the current date, no parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings have been identified or publicly reported at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for U.S. Patent No. 11,574,990. While Samsung is known to engage in PTAB challenges for patents asserted against it in other litigations, no such challenge for this specific patent has been found in public records.

Counsel Identified for Pulsar Display LLC in Patent Infringement Case

In the patent infringement lawsuit Pulsar Display LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00412) in the Eastern District of Texas, the plaintiff, Pulsar Display LLC, is represented by attorneys from Garteiser Honea, PLLC.

The counsel identified for Pulsar Display LLC include:

• Randall G. Garteiser
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, located in Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Randall Garteiser is a prominent patent litigation attorney known for representing non-practicing entities (NPEs) in the Eastern District of Texas. His firm, Garteiser Honea, frequently appears in patent infringement cases, particularly those involving retail or technology patents.
• Christopher V. Honea
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC, located in Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Christopher Honea is also a key attorney at Garteiser Honea, specializing in patent litigation for patent holders. The firm is recognized for its active role in patent assertion cases, especially in the Eastern District of Texas.

It's important to note that the Eastern District of Texas is a favored venue for patent plaintiffs, including NPEs, due to its procedural rules and history of favorable outcomes for patent holders. Attorneys like Garteiser and Honea have built significant practices around litigating in this district.

The search results indicate that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP frequently represents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Specifically, Sean Pak, a partner at Quinn Emanuel, has been identified as counsel for Samsung in a related EDTX case (Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:25-cv-00608-JRG). Another result notes that Quinn Emanuel partners Sean Pak, Victoria Maroulis, and Kevin Hardy secured a win for Samsung in an EDTX patent infringement dispute. Additionally, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, specifically John C. O'Quinn, has represented Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in other federal circuit appeals involving patents.

While a direct "Notice of Appearance" for 2:25-cv-00412 was not found in the public search results, the consistent representation of Samsung by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and the explicit mention of Sean Pak representing Samsung in a contemporaneous EDTX case from the same year (2025) strongly suggests that Quinn Emanuel and its attorneys, including Sean Pak, are likely counsel of record for Samsung in Pulsar Display LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.. It is common for a major defendant like Samsung to use the same experienced patent litigation firms across multiple cases in a particular venue.

However, without direct PACER access to the docket for 2:25-cv-00412, I cannot definitively state the full list of counsel and their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) in this exact case, nor can I identify potential local counsel for Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas for this specific case, though firms like Gillam & Smith have been noted as local counsel for Samsung with Quinn Emanuel in other EDTX patent cases.

Given the information available, the following attorneys and firms are highly probable to be representing Samsung:

Counsel of Record (Likely):

• Sean Pak (Lead Counsel / Partner)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Experienced in patent litigation, including securing wins for Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas. Has represented Samsung in other EDTX patent cases.

• Victoria Maroulis (Partner)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Silicon Valley
  • Relevant Experience: Partner at Quinn Emanuel involved in securing patent litigation wins for Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Kevin Hardy (Partner)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Partner at Quinn Emanuel involved in securing patent litigation wins for Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas.

It is also highly probable that Samsung employs local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, as is common practice. A firm that has served as local counsel for Samsung in conjunction with Quinn Emanuel in the past is Gillam & Smith.

• Melissa Smith (Local Counsel / Partner)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith
  • Office Location: Marshall, TX (likely, as Gillam & Smith is a prominent EDTX firm)
  • Relevant Experience: Integrated into trial teams as local counsel for Samsung in EDTX, conducting jury selection and examining witnesses.

Without direct PACER access for case 2:25-cv-00412, this is the most accurate assessment based on available public information and common practices in EDTX patent litigation involving Samsung.