Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co.

This patent infringement litigation, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., involves two of the world's leading display manufacturers. Plaintiff Samsung Display Co., Ltd. is a South Korean operating company and a major global producer of advanced display technologies, including OLED and QD-OLED panels used in smartphones, TVs, and other electronics. Defendant BOE Technology Group Co. is a prominent Chinese electronic components producer, also an operating company, known as one of the largest manufacturers of LCD, OLEDs, and flexible displays, with broad interests in display, IoT, and smart medicine.

The core of the dispute revolves around alleged infringement of patent rights related to display technology. While the case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 10,541,279 as the patent at issue, publicly available information for this patent describes a "Mobile user borne brain activity data and surrounding environment data correlation system," which appears unrelated to display technology. This suggests a potential clerical error in the patent number provided for this case. In the broader, multi-front intellectual property conflict between these two companies, Samsung Display has consistently accused BOE of infringing patents covering active matrix organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panels and modules, particularly those used in aftermarket smartphone displays, and has also pursued claims of trade secret misappropriation concerning OLED technology. Accused products mentioned in related filings include various BOE smartphones, tablets, and mobile devices, such as the Nubia Z60 Ultra and REDMAGIC 9S Pro.

This specific case, 2:25-cv-00426, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, with District Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne as the referring judge. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically significant venue for patent litigation, often chosen by plaintiffs for its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, fast-paced "rocket docket," and a perceived inclination of its juries to favor patent holders and award substantial damages. The case is notable as it is part of an ongoing, high-stakes global intellectual property battle between two industry giants, reflecting intense competition in the OLED display market. While a broad settlement was announced in late 2025, terminating some of the companies' disputes, particularly those before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), this specific district court case remains active with a trial scheduled for February 8, 2027, indicating a continued and aggressive enforcement strategy by Samsung Display to protect its display technology innovations.

The patent infringement litigation Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co. (2:25-cv-00426) in the Eastern District of Texas has seen several key legal developments, ultimately leading to a global settlement. The initial case metadata indicating U.S. Patent No. 10,541,279 as the patent at issue appears to be a clerical error, as court filings and news reports indicate the dispute primarily concerned OLED display technology, with U.S. Patent Nos. 11,500,496 and 9,299,730 being identified as patents asserted in this specific district court case.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Samsung Display Co., Ltd. initiated this action by filing its complaint against BOE Technology Group Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on April 21, 2025. This district court case was part of a broader intellectual property conflict between the two display manufacturing giants, which also included proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Docket Control Order: A Docket Control Order was issued in the case on October 8, 2025, designated as Document 57. This order would typically set various deadlines, including for discovery, claim construction, and trial.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: BOE filed multiple inter partes review (IPR) petitions against Samsung Display's patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). For instance, BOE filed IPR2025-01477 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,500,496, which was asserted in this district court case (2:25-cv-00426). Another PTAB filing also confirms that U.S. Patent No. 9,299,730 was asserted in this case. Samsung Display filed requests for discretionary denial of institution for these IPRs, arguing, among other things, the advanced stage and early trial date of the co-pending district court litigation supported denial.

3. Outcome – Global Settlement and Dismissal:

• Global Settlement (November 2025): Despite the prior indication of an active status and a trial scheduled for February 8, 2027, the case was resolved as part of a comprehensive global settlement reached between Samsung Display and BOE Technology Group in November 2025. This agreement concluded over three years of worldwide disputes encompassing patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims.
• Terms of Settlement: The settlement followed a preliminary decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in July 2025, which found BOE and several of its subsidiaries had misappropriated Samsung Display's proprietary OLED technology and recommended an import exclusion order for nearly 15 years, along with a ban on domestic sales of affected products in the U.S.. Facing an unfavorable final ruling from the ITC, BOE reportedly agreed to license Samsung Display's OLED intellectual property and pay royalties based on sales.
• Withdrawal of Lawsuits: As a result of this global agreement, both companies committed to withdrawing all ongoing lawsuits, including the district court cases in the U.S. and other jurisdictions. This indicates that Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co. (2:25-cv-00426) has been terminated or is in the process of being formally dismissed. The "active" status and "February 8, 2027 trial date" mentioned in the initial prompt are contradicted by these subsequent settlement reports and are likely outdated.
• Impact on PTAB Proceedings: The global settlement also led to the termination of all parallel PTAB IPR proceedings between the parties, as the underlying disputes were resolved.

The plaintiff, Samsung Display Co., Ltd., is represented by attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP and local counsel from The Roth Law Firm and Findlay Craft, P.C..

Here is a list of the counsel of record representing Samsung Display Co., Ltd.:

Covington & Burling LLP

• Daniel W. Cho (Lead Counsel)
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Actively involved in patent litigation, as evidenced by his appearance in related PTAB proceedings concerning the patents asserted in this case.
• Jared Frisch (Counsel)
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
• Robert Thomas Haslam, III (Counsel)
  • Office Location: Palo Alto
• Jeffrey Lerner (Counsel)
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
• Jesse Chang (Counsel)
  • Office Location: Not specified, but firm is Covington & Burling LLP.
• Kee Young Lee (Counsel)
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
• Brian Bieluch (Counsel)
  • Office Location: Not specified, but firm is Covington & Burling LLP.
• Sean Hong (Counsel)
  • Office Location: Not specified, but firm is Covington & Burling LLP.
• Tarek Austin (Counsel)
  • Office Location: Not specified, but firm is Covington & Burling LLP.

The Roth Law Firm

• Amanda Aline Abraham (Local Counsel)
  • Office Location: Not specified, but firm is The Roth Law Firm.

Findlay Craft, P.C.

• Eric Hugh Findlay (Local Counsel)
  • Office Location: Not specified, but firm is Findlay Craft, P.C.
• Stuart Hene (Local Counsel)
  • Office Location: Not specified, but firm is Findlay Craft, P.C.

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record in this case.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant(s) — BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.

Bottom line: The defendants in E.D. Tex. No. 2:25-cv-00426 are represented by Perkins Coie LLP (now branded Ashurst Perkins Coie US LLP following the 2025 Ashurst/Perkins Coie combination). Three Perkins Coie attorneys entered appearances on behalf of all defendants on August 18, 2025 (Dkt. 16, 17, 18). No separate Texas local-counsel appearance is reflected in the records I could access, and no in-house counsel has appeared. Because the parties announced a global settlement in late 2025 (see the earlier sections of this case file), counsel may since have moved to withdraw — I could not verify any withdrawal motion.

Appearances on the docket (all "on behalf of All Defendants")

Sources: Justia docket, SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:25-cv-00426 (E.D. Tex.) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00426/[237443](/patent/237443) (entries for Dkt. 16, 17, 18 dated 8/18/2025, each "on behalf of All Defendants"); PACER Monitor case page — https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57736161/; Perkins Coie / Ashurst Perkins Coie attorney bios — https://www.ashurstperkinscoie.com/en/people/christopher-hanewicz/, https://www.ashurstperkinscoie.com/en/people/john-esterhay/.

The same firm represents BOE in the parallel PTAB proceedings

Perkins Coie is also BOE's PTAB team in the IPRs BOE filed against the Samsung Display patents-in-suit. Service certificates in the PTAB filings list these Perkins Coie practitioners as petitioner's (BOE's) counsel of record:

• Jessica C. Kaiser — Partner, Perkins Coie, Denver (identified as "Lead Counsel for Petitioner" in BOE IPR filings)
• Babak Tehranchi — Perkins Coie
• Bing Ai — Perkins Coie
• Matthew Lembo — Perkins Coie
• Wei Yuan — Perkins Coie
• John Esterhay — Perkins Coie (bridges the district-court and PTAB teams)
• John C. Moulder — Perkins Coie
• Gautam Thatte — Perkins Coie
• Yuanfeng Gao — Perkins Coie
• Service address: PerkinsServiceBOESamsungIPRs@perkinscoie.com

Sources: USPTO PTAB mandatory notices/Powers of Attorney in IPR2025-01479 (’11,574,991) and IPR2025-01545 (’11,626,066), which identify the co-pending case as Samsung Display Co. v. BOE Technology Group Co., No. 2:25-cv-00426-JRG (E.D. Tex.), and are served on the Perkins Coie BOE Samsung IPR service list; see also IPR2025-01499 petitioner's stipulation signed by MoFo (below).

Related representation you should not confuse with this docket

• Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP — Sten Jensen (Washington, D.C.) and Bas de Blank (Menlo Park, CA) filed the defendants' unopposed motion to stay in the parallel E.D. Va. case, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., No. 1:25-cv-00908 (E.D. Va.) (Dkt. 5), on behalf of the same BOE entity defendants. Orrick is also identified as BOE's counsel in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1351.
• Morrison & Foerster LLP — Mehran Arjomand, Alex S. Yap, and Jean Nguyen (Los Angeles) appear as BOE's counsel in a separate group of BOE-filed IPRs against Samsung Display (e.g., IPR2025-01557 on U.S. 7,279,708; IPR2025-01499), with service address BOE-Samsung-IPR@mofo.com. BOE thus split its PTAB work between MoFo and Perkins Coie.
• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP — Joshua L. Goldberg, James R. Barney, Sydney R. Kestle, Tyler M. Akagi, Kevin D. Rodkey — hold BOE Technology Group's power of attorney in an unrelated IPR (IPR2024-00973, U.S. 9,184,157, adverse to 138 East LCD Advancements). Not this case.

Caveats and items I could not verify

1. Named defendants covered by the "All Defendants" appearances: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.; BOE Technology America, Inc.; Chengdu BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Chongqing BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Ordos Yuansheng Optoelectronics Co., Ltd.; Wuhan BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; and Yunnan Invensight Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.
2. No E.D. Tex. local counsel confirmed. The docket entries I retrieved show only the three Perkins Coie appearances; I did not find (and cannot confirm) a Texas local-counsel appearance or a pro hac vice motion. If one exists, it postdates the material I could retrieve, or it is in a sealed/not-yet-indexed filing. Do not treat the absence as conclusive.
3. Post-settlement status unverified on the docket. The earlier sections of this case state a global settlement was announced in late 2025 and that the parties agreed to withdraw the district court actions. I could not retrieve a dismissal order or a withdrawal of counsel on this docket; the same docket pages still surfaced a 2026 date stamp, and third-party trackers still list the case as "OPEN." Any representation of current, live counsel is therefore provisional.
4. Contradiction with the earlier "clerical error" note (flag): The prior summary asserted that U.S. Pat. No. 10,541,279 — the patent identified in the case metadata — is a "brain activity data correlation" patent and therefore a clerical error. The complaint analysis for this docket (Ex Parte AI Lab, 2:25-cv-00426) expressly charts 10,541,279 as a touch-sensing-unit-on-display-panel patent asserted against BOE's OLED displays, alongside 9,299,730. That indicates the metadata patent number is likely correct for this case and the earlier "clerical error" statement should be corrected. The patents asserted in this case appear to include at least 9,299,730, 10,541,279, 11,500,496, and 11,626,066.