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

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the patents, the final determination, and parallel PTAB/IPR proceedings.

Now let me nail down the PTAB/IPR linkage, the ALJ, and the parallel trade-secret investigation.

Case Overview and Background — Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Group et al., Inv. No. 337-TA-1351

The parties: two competing display manufacturers, plus a long tail of U.S. aftermarket wholesalers. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. ("SDC") is the Korean display-panel manufacturing subsidiary of Samsung Electronics and the world's largest OLED panel maker (roughly 41% of the OLED market per UBI Research data cited in trade-press coverage); it is a pure operating company, not an NPE/PAE, and it sued in its capacity as patent owner and U.S. market participant. The principal respondent, Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. ("BOE"), is the manufacturing affiliate of BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., China's state-linked display champion (the world's largest LCD producer and, at the time, roughly 12% of the OLED market). BOE moved to intervene as a respondent and the Commission granted that motion on March 22, 2023 (Order No. 7, unreviewed). The remaining respondents were 15–17 named U.S. entities — largely independent cellphone-repair and replacement-parts wholesalers rather than panel makers — including Apt-Ability LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix, Mobile Defenders, Injured Gadgets, Wholesale Gadget Parts, Phone LCD Parts (together "the BLF Respondents"), Group Vertical, Electronics Universe (Fixez.com/Repairs Universe), LCTech (SEGMobile.com), Sourcely Plus, eTech Parts Plus, Parts4Cells, Captain Mobile Parts, DFW Imports, Mengtor, and Gadgetfix. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations ("OUII") was also a party. So the structure is a classic operating-company-vs-operating-company competition fight in which the U.S. distributor tier is named to capture downstream importation and aftermarket sales — not an NPE assertion pattern, though the naming of small repair-parts sellers is a familiar § 337 enforcement tactic. (88 FR 7463-64; 90 FR 13624)

The accused technology: active-matrix OLED display panels and modules for mobile devices — including third-party replacement screens. SDC's complaint, filed December 28, 2022 and supplemented January 17, 2023, alleged that imported AMOLED panels/modules for mobile devices (and components thereof) infringe its patents, and it sought a general exclusion order that would have barred importation of essentially all non-Samsung OLED smartphone replacement screens into the United States. The investigation was instituted on February 3, 2023 (88 FR 7463-64). In the parallel district-court track, SDC identified accused OLED displays as those incorporated into smartphones such as the Nubia Z60 Ultra and REDMAGIC 9S Pro, manufactured at BOE facilities in China including Mianyang. The commercial stakes were heightened because BOE supplies OLED panels to Apple, so an exclusion order would have reached U.S. customer supply chains, not just the named wholesalers.

Patents asserted — and a one-line technical sketch of each. As instituted, SDC asserted four patents; a fifth was added by amendment in April 2023 (Order No. 8, unreviewed, permitting claims 1-6, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21-23, 40-47 and 51-52 of the '578 patent to be added because it issued February 28, 2023, after the complaint was filed). The asserted family, with the technical gist of each, is:

• U.S. 9,818,803 ('803) — "pixel arrangement structure of an OLED display": the RGBG/"Diamond"-type sub-pixel layout geometry (interleaved first/second/third pixels sized differently in a virtual-square pattern). Originally claims 1-5 and 19

I'll research this ITC Section 337 investigation thoroughly. Let me start with several searches.

I have solid background. Now let me dig into the PTAB proceedings, the '593 patent specifics, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Let me pin down the Commission final determination, the appeal, and the PTAB decisions.

I'll research the counsel of record for Samsung Display in this ITC Section 337 investigation.

Let me dig deeper into the EDIS docket and specific counsel appearances.

Counsel of Record for Complainant Samsung Display Co., Ltd. — Inv. No. 337-TA-1351

A note on sourcing: ITC investigations don't run through PACER — appearances are filed on the Commission's EDIS docket and served on the parties' service list. I was able to confirm the core complainant team from a served service list attached to a respondent's Notice of Appearance (filed Nov. 19, 2024) and from firm bios, but I could not retrieve the complainant's own complete Notice(s) of Appearance from EDIS in this session, so the roster below may be incomplete. Everything listed is source-grounded; I have not inferred any attorney who did not appear in a document I found.

Confirmed counsel for Complainant Samsung Display

Related/parallel representations (not confirmed as 1351 appearances)

• Craig Reilly signed the complaint and later filings for Samsung Display 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.), which was stayed pending the 1351 investigation (Dkt. 7, Jun. 25, 2025) and dismissed with prejudice Nov. 19, 2025 (Dkt. 9–10). His firm in the 1351 ITC docket is not confirmed from the documents I retrieved — treat his 1351 role as unverified.
• Kevin P.B. Johnson (Silicon Valley) and Kevin Chu (D.C.) of Quinn Emanuel are the firm's lead Samsung Display ITC counsel, but the public record tying them to Samsung Display is for the companion 337-TA-1378 (OLED trade-secret case against BOE), where Quinn Emanuel served as retained counsel and won a complete Commission victory. I did not find a document placing either by name in 337-TA-1351, so I list them as likely-team members only.

In-house counsel

No Samsung Display in-house attorney appears on the service list or in any document I retrieved for this investigation. I could not verify any named in-house counsel.

Practical read

Samsung Display ran 1351 with a two-firm team: Covington & Burling (lead — Lerner) and Quinn Emanuel (Lasher), both in Washington, D.C., consistent with SDC's pattern of splitting its ITC matters between Covington and Quinn Emanuel across the 1351 and 1378 investigations. If you need the definitive Rule 210.7(b) designations (lead attorney for service of process), that detail sits in the complainant's initial Notice of Appearance on EDIS (https://edis.usitc.gov) under Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, which I was unable to pull directly — that filing would confirm any additional attorneys I could not surface.

I'll research defense counsel for the BOE respondents in Inv. No. 337-TA-1351.

Key lead identified: Bas de Blank (Orrick) as BOE's lead. Let me now pin down the full BOE team, the U.S. wholesaler respondents' counsel, and the parallel Orrick/PACER record.

Rich yield. Now let me nail down the remaining respondent counsel — the U.S. wholesaler groups (BLF respondents, MobileSentrix, Group Vertical, etc.) — and verify the Orrick/Polsinelli team.

Counsel of Record for Respondents — Inv. No. 337-TA-1351

Sourcing caveat (same as the plaintiff-side section): This is an ITC Section 337 investigation, so appearances are filed on the Commission's EDIS docket, not PACER. I reconstructed the defense roster from (a) a served Notice of Appearance for Respondent Mianyang BOE filed Nov. 19, 2024 (EDIS Doc. ID 837544, available via Docket Alarm), which carries its own certificate of service listing the full respondent-side service list; (b) the Commission's Jan. 23, 2025 review notice, 90 FR 8034, which identifies respondent groups; and (c) firm bios and parallel PTAB/district-court filings. Firm bios are cited where they independently name the 1351 investigation; I have not inferred any attorney who did not appear in a document I found.

1. Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (the principal respondent) — ORRICK

Late-stage addition — POLSINELLI PC (Nov. 2024):

Unverified: Robert E. Rude signed the certificate of service on that Polsinelli notice. I could not confirm his firm from the documents retrieved — do not treat his affiliation as established.

2. MobileSentrix respondents — Apt-Ability LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix and Mobile Defenders, LLC

Unverified: a parallel service address on the domain raklaw.com (e.g., mobilesentrix@raklaw.com, maichele@raklaw.com) appears next to Kilpatrick's; I could not confirm which firm that is, so I have not named it.

3. The "BLF Respondents" — Injured Gadgets, LLC; Phone LCD Parts LLC; Parts4LCD; Wholesale Gadget Parts, Inc.

4. Respondents who defaulted — no counsel of record

ALJ Moore issued initial determinations finding the following respondents in default, so no defense counsel appeared for them (Order Nos. 16, 23, and an Aug. 8, 2023 order; see Order No. 28, Sept. 11, 2023, reciting the defaults):

• Captain Mobile Parts, Inc. (Order No. 16, May 10, 2023)
• Group Vertical, LLC; Sourcely Plus, LLC; Mengtor Inc. (Order No. 23, Jun. 27, 2023)
• Parts4Cells Inc.; DFW Imports LLC d/b/a DFW Cellphone and Parts; Gadgetfix Corp.; eTech Parts Plus, LLC (Aug. 8, 2023)
• Electronics Universe, Inc. (Fixez.com / Repairs Universe) and LCTech International Inc. (SEGMobile.com) were named respondents; I did not retrieve an appearance for them in this session — treat their representation as unconfirmed, not as "no counsel."

5. Not defense counsel (for completeness)

Commission Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) appeared as an investigatory party: Michael Maas and Anne Goalwin (USITC). They are a party to the investigation but do not "represent" any respondent.

---

Cross-checks and flags

• Consistency with the plaintiff-side section: the Nov. 19, 2024 notice's certificate of service independently confirms the same SDC team listed there — Jeffrey H. Lerner (Covington) and S. Alex Lasher (Quinn Emanuel) — so the two sections are mutually corroborating on the complainant side.
• No contradiction with the case metadata. One nuance worth flagging: the metadata lists defendant(s) simply as "BOE Technology Group; U.S. component wholesalers." In the ITC docket the BOE respondent of record is Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (BOE Technology Group is the parent named in the parallel district-court cases). Bas de Blank appears for BOE Technology Group in the district courts but his 1351 designation is for Mianyang BOE.
• Orrick's role is BOE-wide, not just 1351: Orrick is simultaneously BOE's counsel in the co-pending IPRs (IPR2023-00941, -00987, -01075, -01221) and in the stayed district-court actions (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00309; E.D. Va. 1:25-cv-00908), which is why the same names recur. Note that by 2025 BOE appears to have shifted some newer IPRs to Perkins Coie (service list on SDC's Oct. 1, 2025 mandatory notices in IPR2025-01481/01544) — a change in outside-counsel mix after the ITC matter ended, not a change in the 1351 record.

Practical read

The defense was asymmetric: a single Chinese panel maker (Mianyang BOE) ran the real defense with a two-firm team — Orrick (de Blank/Jensen, with Martinelli on the PTAB side) as lead, joined late by Polsinelli (Okun/Smith) — while the ~15 U.S. wholesaler respondents either settled early (MobileSentrix/Mobile Defenders via consent order) or defaulted outright, leaving only the Blakeslee Law Firm group (Injured Gadgets, Phone LCD Parts, Wholesale Gadget Parts) actively litigating alongside BOE. That structure explains why the Commission level appeal/violation fight in 1351 was effectively Samsung Display's two-firm team vs. Orrick + Blakeslee. For the authoritative Rule 210.7(b) designations and any appearances I could not surface, the definitive source is the complainant's and respondents' Notices of Appearance on EDIS (https://edis.usitc.gov) under Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, which I was unable to pull directly in this session.