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

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB, and trade press before drafting.

Good initial haul. Now let me verify the ITC/PTAB linkage and the complaint's specifics.

Excellent — the docket and PTAB records are rich. Let me check appeals, the parallel Texas action, and any '593-related IPR.

Case overview and background

Parties and the accused technology. This is a straight operating-company-versus-operating-company fight, not an NPE assertion. Plaintiff Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (SDC) is the Korean flat-panel maker that is the largest supplier of OLED panels for smartphones and the principal OLED rival to LG Display; defendant BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. is China's largest display manufacturer and the fastest-growing entrant into premium OLED. The May 28, 2025 complaint names seven BOE entities — the Beijing parent plus Mianyang BOE, Chengdu BOE, Chongqing BOE, Wuhan BOE, Ordos Yuansheng, and Yunnan Invensight (f/k/a BMOT/Kunming BOE Display) Dkt. 1. The accused products are BOE-supplied AMOLED display panels and modules for mobile devices — "OLED displays incorporated into smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices" — with the complaint specifically identifying a Nubia Z60 Ultra handset (allegedly purchased in Virginia to anchor venue and personal jurisdiction) and REDMAGIC 9S Pro devices. Notably, the case does not accuse BOE's Apple-bound iPhone panel business directly; it targets BOE's merchant panel sales into third-party Android devices, which is where the two companies compete most directly.

Patents asserted. The metadata's three patents are a subset of five actually pleaded: the complaint asserts the '578, '599, and '593 patents plus the '803 and '683 patents (Compl. ¶ 12), which resolves the open question in the earlier summary — the '578 was added to the ITC investigation by amendment in April 2023 and is separately asserted here. One-line sketches: U.S. 9,818,803 (Pixel arrangement structure for organic light emitting display device) — the sub-pixel geometry of Samsung's diamond/PenTile-style layout, in which larger blue emitters are shared across neighboring pixels to raise aperture ratio and extend OLED lifetime; U.S. 10,854,683 — a same-family continuation on pixel arrangement (all asserted claims were dropped from the ITC case); U.S. 11,594,578 — the newest member of that pixel-arrangement family, granted Feb. 2023 with 2012 priority; U.S. 7,414,599 (Organic light emitting device pixel circuit and driving method therefor) — a threshold-voltage self-compensating pixel circuit using an extra transistor to diode-connect the drive TFT, Samsung's early LTPS/AMOLED work with 2003 priority and a term now at or near expiry; and U.S. 9,330,593 (Stage circuit and organic light emitting display using the same) — the shift-register stage in the gate/scan driver that cascades scan pulses row by row.

Posture, venue, and significance. Filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria division, before District Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. with Magistrate Judge Lindsey R. Vaala; jury demand by SDC. On June 25, 2025 Judge Alston granted the defendants' motion and stayed the case "until further order" pending ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1351, ordering the parties to advise the Court within 14 days of a final determination and setting the answer deadline at 90 days after the stay lifted (Dkts. 5–8) — the § 1659 track. The case is now closed: SDC filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on Nov. 19, 2025 (Dkt. 9), so ordered Dec. 2, 2025. The venue choice is the analytically interesting move. SDC had first sued on these patents in E.D. Tex. (No. 2:23-cv-00309) and dismissed that case without prejudice in

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and any coverage of the filing.

The docket core is clear. Now let me dig into the ITC investigation that drove the stay, the PTAB IPRs, and the settlement.

Now let me pin down the PTAB IPRs and the ITC investigation details.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Let me dig into the docket and the complaint's counsel block.

Let me pull the full docket parties section and the complaint's signature block.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Samsung Display Co., Ltd. — Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., No. 1:25-cv-00908 (E.D. Va.)

Bottom line: The RECAP/PACER docket for this case shows exactly one attorney appearing for Samsung Display: Craig Crandall Reilly, an Alexandria, Virginia sole practitioner who is local counsel. Because the case was stayed on June 25, 2025 — five weeks after filing and before any defendant answered — and then dismissed with prejudice on December 2, 2025, no pro hac vice motions or additional notices of appearance were ever filed on the plaintiff's side. Any Covington & Burling or in-house Samsung Display lawyers who worked the matter behind the scenes are not counsel of record on this docket.

1. Counsel of record (verified on docket)

Docket record confirming his role: CourtListener docket for No. 1:25-cv-00908 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70497017/samsung-display-co-ltd-v-boe-technology-group-co-ltd/) and the Justia docket (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/1:2025cv00908/[574882](/patent/574882)), both showing the complaint filed by "(Reilly, Craig)" and the plaintiff's Rule 7.1 financial disclosure filed the same day.

2. Presumed national/lead counsel — NOT of record in this case (unverified for this docket)

Samsung Display's national patent-enforcement team in the parallel BOE matters appears to be Covington & Burling LLP, and reporters covering this filing have referenced Covington as plaintiff's counsel:

• Daniel W. Cho, Jeffrey H. Lerner, Jared R. Frisch, David A. Garr — Covington & Burling LLP, One CityCenter, 850 Tenth St. NW, Washington, D.C.; Robert T. Haslam III — Covington, Palo Alto, CA. These attorneys have represented Samsung Display in the ITC § 337-TA-1351 OLED investigation and in the E.D. Tex. actions against BOE (e.g., No. 2:25-cv-00412, where they appear for Samsung Display, per PACER Monitor).
• The Roth Law Firm (Amanda Aline Abraham) also appears alongside Covington for Samsung Display in the parallel E.D. Tex. suits.

⚠️ Caveat: I could not retrieve the complaint's signature block to confirm which Covington attorneys, if any, were named on the pleading, and no notice of appearance or § 83.1 pro hac vice application by any Covington attorney appears on the E.D. Va. docket. They should therefore be described as likely lead counsel on the matter generally, not as counsel of record in No. 1:25-cv-00908.

3. In-house counsel

No Samsung Display in-house attorney (e.g., from Samsung Display's IP/Legal group in Yongin, Korea, or Samsung Display America) appears on the docket or is identified in any public filing I located. Unknown / not of record.

Why the roster is so thin

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint filed 5/28/2025 (asserting the '803, '683, '578, '599 and '593 patents; the present case summary's doubt about the '578 patent is resolved — it was asserted, per ¶12 of the complaint).
• Dkt. 7 — 6/25/2025 order granting the parties' agreed motion to stay pending the ITC's final determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-1351.
• Dkt. 8 — 6/25/2025 order extending defendants' answer deadline to 90 days after the stay lifts.
• Dkt. 9 — 11/19/2025 stipulation of dismissal with prejudice by Samsung Display (consistent with the November 2025 global BOE settlement).
• Dkt. 10 — 12/2/2025 order so ordering dismissal; case closed.

Nothing in the docket is sealed, and there are no pending appearances to be made — the case is terminated, so the plaintiff's counsel of record is final as listed above.

Sources: CourtListener RECAP docket No. 70497017; Justia Dockets No. 1:2025cv00908; PACER Monitor docket for Samsung Display v. BOE, No. 2:25-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex.) for Covington's role in the parallel litigation; Samsung Display Patent Owner Power of Attorney in IPR2025-01557 (Latham & Watkins) — note that Latham, not Covington, is Samsung Display's PTAB counsel, a separate team from the district-court/ITC team.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Bottom line

The docket for this case is short (nine entries, Complaint → dismissal) and only one defense-side attorney is identifiable as counsel of record in the E.D. Va. docket: Sten A. Jensen of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Washington, D.C. office). No notice of appearance by a Virginia "local counsel" firm, and no in-house counsel entry, appears in the accessible docket record. I could not verify any additional BOE appearances, so I am flagging that gap rather than filling it with names from the parallel Texas/ITC matters.

Counsel of record for Defendants

Docket grounding: Dkt. 6 (June 24, 2025), the "Agreed Motion to Extend Time for Defendants to Answer or Otherwise Respond," is recorded in the PACER/RECAP docket as filed by all seven BOE entities and attributed to "(Jensen, Sten)." The Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure (Dkt. 2) was filed by Plaintiff, not Defendants, so no separate defense-side disclosure counsel is listed. CourtListener docket · Justia docket

Work product attributable to defense counsel: Dkt. 5, the Motion to Stay (June 24, 2025), is the substantive defense brief. It invoked the mandatory stay of 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) as to Mianyang BOE (a respondent in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1351) and a Landis/Murata discretionary stay as to the remaining six entities, noting Plaintiff did not oppose. Judge Alston granted the stay the next day (Dkt. 7) and set the answer deadline at 90 days after the stay lifted (Dkt. 8). Dkt. 5 PDF

Likely additional defense counsel — NOT verified in this docket

• Mehran Arjomand (Orrick, Los Angeles/Irvine) — Orrick's IP partner who has handled the Samsung Display–BOE relationship on the patent office side; he is listed as BOE's petitioner counsel in BOE Technology Group v. Samsung Display, IPR2025-01557 (filed Sept. 19, 2025; terminated as settled Dec. 30, 2025). It is plausible he was part of the defense team here, but I found no filing in 1:25-cv-00908 bearing his name, so do not cite him as counsel of record without pulling the Dkt. 5 signature block.
• Findlay Craft, P.C. (Tyler, Texas) / Orrick (Irvine) — appeared for BOE affiliates as plaintiffs in the mirror-image E.D. Tex. action, BOE Technology Group v. Samsung Display, No. 2:25-cv-00587 (D. Gilstrap dismissed with prejudice Nov. 20, 2025). Different case, different posture; no evidence of an E.D. Va. appearance.

Caveats you should carry forward

1. No local-counsel entry located. E.D. Va. practice ordinarily pairs an out-of-district firm with counsel maintaining a district office. Jensen himself is Virginia-bar-admitted and E.D. Va.-admitted (Martindale), which may explain the absence of a separate local firm — but I could not confirm whether an additional E.D. Va. attorney entered an appearance. The RECAP docket I retrieved appears to summarize only the docketed orders/motions and may omit a bare Notice of Appearance.
2. Nothing appears sealed on the face of the docket as retrieved; the confidentiality is in the parallel ITC/PTAB record (settlement agreement filed confidentially in IPR2025-01557), not here.
3. This also closes two open items in the existing summary: (a) the Complaint does assert the '578 patent — Dkt. 1 ¶ 12 recites the '803, '683, '578, '599 and '593 patents (five, not four); and (b) the case is not merely "likely mooted" — Plaintiff filed a Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice on Nov. 19, 2025 (Dkt. 9), so ordered by Judge Alston on Dec. 2, 2025, consistent with the global BOE settlement that also terminated the PTAB proceedings. Status should read closed — dismissed with prejudice.

If you need certainty on the full appearance list, the reliable next step is a PACER docket-sheet pull for the "Notice of Appearance" entries and the signature page of Dkt. 5, which I could not open in full here.