Litigation

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

dismissed without prejudice

2:23-cv-00309

Filed
2023-06-26
Terminated
2025-06-02

Patents at issue (5)

9330593
7414599
9818803
10854683
11594578

Summary

Samsung Display asserted five patents, including US 9,330,593, against BOE and Mianyang BOE. The EDTX case was stayed under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) pending the parallel ITC investigation and later dismissed without prejudice on June 2, 2025 after the BOE settlement.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search to verify the details.

Let me dig deeper into the specific patents, IPRs, and procedural details.

Let me verify the judge, division, and the parallel IPR details.

Case Overview and Background: Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00309 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and their businesses. This is a pure operating-company-versus-operating-company dispute between the world's two largest makers of small/medium OLED display panels — no NPE, PAE, or university is involved on either side. Plaintiff Samsung Display Co., Ltd. ("SDC") is the Korean display arm of the Samsung group, which has researched OLED technology since 1997 and, per UBI Research data cited in press coverage, held roughly 41–41.4% of the global OLED emissive-materials/panel market as of late 2024. Both defendants are Chinese: BOE Technology Co., Ltd. (BOE Technology Group) is China's largest flat-panel maker and a rising OLED supplier to Apple, with roughly 11.6% share; and Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. is a BOE manufacturing

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches across the requested sources.

Let me dig into the PTAB proceedings and the related litigation tracks.

Let me investigate the PTAB proceedings, the trade secret ITC case, and the related appeals/cases.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Let me dig deeper on the plaintiff's counsel of record.

Let me examine the complaint's signature block and check for any additional plaintiff counsel.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff — Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00309-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) — Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

Bottom line

Only one attorney entered an appearance for the plaintiff in this docket, and he is the sole plaintiff-side counsel of record reflected in PACER/RECAP. This is consistent with the procedural posture of the case: it was stayed under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) roughly four weeks after filing (Dkt. 8, July 24, 2023) and then voluntarily dismissed (Dkt. 9–10, May 30–June 4, 2025), so no additional pro hac vice admissions or appearances were ever made.

Plaintiff's counsel

G. Blake Thompson (Gregory Blake Thompson) — Lead / sole counsel of record (Texas local counsel)

  • Firm: Mann | Tindel | Thompson (also styled "The Mann Firm")
  • Office: 300 West Main Street, Henderson, TX 75652 (Rusk County); Tyler office at 112 E. Line St., Suite 304, Tyler, TX 75702
  • Bar/admissions: Texas (2003); U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Western, Northern, and Southern Districts of Texas; Fifth Circuit. J.D., Baylor University School of Law (2003).
  • Docket activity: He is the filer/signatory on every plaintiff-side document in the case — the original Complaint (Dkt. 1, June 26, 2023), the Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 2), the AO 120 Patent/Trademark form (Dkt. 3), the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 4, June 28, 2023), and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 9, May 30, 2025).
  • Relevant experience note: A frequent E.D. Tex. filer handling IP/patent matters alongside his business-litigation and personal-injury practice — e.g., Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC v. Olympus Corp. (E.D. Tex. 4:23-cv-00924), Super Interconnect Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, and Shindig, Inc. v. Bending Spoons S.p.A. He typically serves in the local-counsel capacity for out-of-state patent plaintiffs.

Important caveat on "lead counsel"

The public docket lists no additional plaintiff-side attorney or national-firm lead counsel. In the parallel ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1351 and the related Samsung Display–BOE trade-secret litigation, Samsung Display was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Marc L. Kaplan, Chicago; James D. Judah, San Francisco; John T. McKee), and BOE's ITC defense was handled by Orrick (Steven Routh, T. Vann Pearce) and Morrison & Foerster (Lily Li). However, I found no record that any Quinn Emanuel attorney entered an appearance in this E.D. Tex. case — so I cannot state that they were counsel of record here, and I am not imputing their ITC representation to this docket. If Samsung Display retained a national firm as behind-the-scenes lead counsel for the EDTX matter, that engagement is not reflected in any public filing.

No in-house counsel for Samsung Display is named in any public filing in this case. Samsung Display's Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies its corporate parents (Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) but no legal-department attorneys.

Sources relied on

Note on sourcing: the underlying complaint PDF's signature block was not fully retrievable in my searches; the conclusion that Thompson is the sole plaintiff-side counsel of record rests on the docket entries and third-party docket aggregators, which are consistent.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the defense counsel of record for this case using targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket entries and identify the specific defense counsel.

Let me verify the full docket for any additional defense appearances and check the local counsel situation.

Counsel of Record for Defendants — Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:23-cv-00309-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

The docket for this case is unusually thin — it was filed June 26, 2023, stayed a month later under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), and dismissed without prejudice on June 2, 2025. Only one defense attorney ever entered an appearance in the case, and no lead/backup designation or in-house counsel was ever filed. There is no evidence in the record of separate local counsel or additional firm appearances.

Defense counsel of record

Name Role Firm & office Note on experience
Cynthia D. ("Cindy") Vreeland Sole counsel of record for both defendants; effectively lead (and only) counsel in this case Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA (60 State Street) 30+ year patent/trade-secret trial lawyer; Vice Chair of WilmerHale's IP Litigation practice group; Law360 "Top Female Trial Attorney"; Best Lawyers Boston Patent "Lawyer of the Year" (2022, 2024); former clerk to Judge Patrick Higginbotham (5th Cir.); represented Apple, Intel, Broadcom, Dell EMC, VMware, T-Mobile and Analog Devices in patent matters.

Docket support (per CourtListener/RECAP and the Patexia docket mirror):

  • Dkt. 5 (July 21, 2023) — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Cynthia D Vreeland on behalf of BOE Technology Co., Ltd., Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd."
  • Dkt. 6 (July 21, 2023) — Unopposed Motion to Stay Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), signed by Vreeland (attaching ITC complaint, institution, intervention, and amended complaint exhibits).
  • Dkt. 7 (July 21, 2023) — Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, signed by Vreeland.
  • Dkt. 8 (July 24, 2023) — Order granting both motions (Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne).
  • June 2, 2025 — Order dismissing case without prejudice (Judge Rodney Gilstrap), following Samsung Display's notice of voluntary dismissal after the BOE settlement.

Sources: CourtListener docket 67529099 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67529099/samsung-display-co-ltd-v-boe-technology-co-ltd/); Patexia case/documents page (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Samsung-Display-Co-Ltd-v-BOE-Technology-Co-Ltd-et-al-id-[190438](/patent/190438)/documents); UniCourt case summary (defendant attorney listed as "Cynthia D Vreeland"); PatSnap litigation summary (defendant law firm listed as "Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP – Boston").

Important qualifications

  1. No separate local counsel appears on the docket. Unusual for E.D. Tex., but explainable: Vreeland is admitted to the State Bar of Texas (Tex. Bar No. 20625150) and to the E.D. Tex. bar, so she could appear without a local sponsor. The case was also stayed before any scheduling/discovery obligations would have forced a local-counsel arrangement. I found no notice of appearance by any Texas firm for the defendants in this docket.
  2. No lead counsel designation was filed — the local rule's lead/backup form was never triggered because the case was stayed pre-answer. Characterizing Vreeland as "lead" reflects that she was the sole appearing attorney.
  3. No in-house counsel named. No corporate in-house attorney is identified on the docket.
  4. No sealed appearances found. The docket entries I could retrieve (Docs. 1–8 plus the dismissal papers) are public; the stay motion exhibits are also public docket attachments.

Related proceedings — not counsel of record in this case, but part of the same dispute

The following representations are frequently confused with this case; I flag them so they are not misattributed:

  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1351 (Certain Active Matrix OLED Display Panels and Modules, the parallel investigation that triggered the § 1659 stay): BOE intervened as a respondent; the ITC complaint was Samsung Display's, filed Dec. 2022. Counsel there is a separate ITC team — I did not verify names, and I am not asserting any attorney for the ITC matter here.
  • PTAB IPRs brought by BOE entities against Samsung Display patents (e.g., IPR2024-00620, petitioner Mianyang BOE; IPR2025-01557, petitioner BOE Technology Group): the petitioner-side filings are signed by Morrison & Foerster LLP attorneys (Mehran Arjomand, Alex S. Yap, Jean Nguyen — Los Angeles), with Samsung Display's patent-owner side handled by Latham & Watkins LLP (Charles H. Sanders, Boston, as lead). These are PTAB counsel, not E.D. Tex. counsel in 2:23-cv-00309.
  • Later E.D. Tex. suits (e.g., 2:25-cv-00412, 2:25-cv-00587, 2:25-cv-00426): BOE's defense/side there involves different teams, including Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Findlay Craft, P.C., and plaintiff-side Samsung Display counsel at Covington & Burling LLP. Again, none of these are appearances in the 2023 case.

Where the sourcing is thin

I could not retrieve the actual PDF of Dkt. 5 to confirm whether it identified Vreeland's office location and e-mail as the Boston office (2023 signatures on other WilmerHale filings use Boston/60 State Street), nor could I confirm whether WilmerHale disclosed any additional attorneys in a later, unnoted appearance. PACER's live docket should be checked to confirm there were no post-July-2023 appearances before the June 2025 dismissal. Based on the mirrors I reviewed, the answers above reflect the complete set of defense counsel of record, but that should be treated as well-sourced rather than exhaustively verified against the live PACER docket sheet.