Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.

I'll research this case across the sources you named before drafting.

Now let me dig into the patents themselves, the judge assignment, and the IPR counter-offensive.

Case Overview: Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:26-cv-00228 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., filed Mar. 19, 2026)

The parties. The plaintiff, Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. ("Wuhan CSOT"), is a Chinese display-panel manufacturer — an operating company, not an NPE, PAE, or university. Per Samsung Display's own pleading in the parallel Northern District of Texas action, Wuhan CSOT is majority-owned by TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. ("TCL CSOT"), which in turn sits within the TCL Technology Group; Samsung's complaint describes both as "display compan[ies]" and refers to them collectively as "Wuhan CSOT" (Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd., No. 3:25-cv-01430-S (N.D. Tex.), Compl. ¶¶ 2–3). CSOT is a major supplier of LCD and OLED panels across mobile, TV, and IT segments and has publicly positioned itself as a global leader in Mini-/Micro-LED and OLED. On the other side, defendant Samsung Display Co., Ltd. is the Korean OLED market leader and the world's dominant supplier of small- and medium-size OLED panels for premium smartphones, tablets, and wearables. Walmart Inc. and Best Buy Co., Inc. are named purely as downstream retailers of products containing the accused panels — a distribution-chain joinder that industry coverage reads as pressure on the retail channel rather than a standalone claim against the retailers (EET-China/SemiDisplayView, Mar. 20, 2026; ipverse/GreyB litigation note, Mar. 21, 2026).

The accused technology. CSOT alleges that Samsung Display's OLED panels and modules — and finished devices incorporating them — infringe three CSOT-owned U.S. patents. The complaint identifies the accused downstream products as Google Pixel 8, Pixel 9, and Pixel 10-series smartphones, with Korean-language reporting adding related tablets and wearables (GDNet Korea via Yuanta Securities news feed, Mar. 23, 2026; EET-China, Sept. 20, 2026). Walmart and Best Buy are accused of selling, offering for sale, and importing those goods in the U.S. The three asserted patents are: US 12,133,429 ("Display panel and display device," issued Oct. 29, 2024; inventor Xing Wu) — directed to a shielding layer under the pixel driving circuit layer with a power supply line connected through vias in the shielding layer, i.e., blocking in-panel electromagnetic interference while optimizing wiring routing for high-resolution OLED; US 11,957,031 — reported to concern durability of the bending region in flexible/foldable displays, including a polarizer-free OLED stack with a protective-layer/UV-cure adhesive approach to prevent delamination or cracking of thin-film layers at the fold; and US 11,257,891 — reported to concern the stacked structure of a high-performance panel, specifically the connection structure between the pixel-driving TFT layer and the organic light-emitting element, to improve signal transmission while lowering process defect rates (EET-China, Mar. 20, 2026; fpdisplay, Sept. 20, 2026; ipverse/GreyB, Mar. 21, 2026). The technical sketches for the '031 and '891 patents rest on Chinese- and English-language trade-press summaries rather than on the complaint text itself, which I was not able to retrieve; treat those one-liners as reported characterizations.

Procedural posture, venue, and why this matters. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division — a district with local patent rules, a deep patent bench, and a historical reputation for speed and plaintiff outcomes, and the same district where CSOT's adversary Samsung Display litigated against BOE. Notably, CSOT filed in Marshall rather than in N.D. Texas Dallas, where Samsung Display had already sued CSOT in June 2025 on three of Samsung's own OLED patents (US 11,594,578, 7,414,599, 9,330,593) before Judge Karen Gren Scholer — a case now on an amended schedule with claim construction set for Sept. 29, 2026 (Docket Nos. 99–101) and a three-week jury docket beginning Oct. 5, 2027, with defendant Ultimate Eshop already dismissed by settlement in March 2026 (Docket Nos. 85–86). The two cases are plainly reciprocal: Korean and Chinese trade coverage uniformly frames CSOT's E.D. Tex. complaint as retaliation for Samsung Display's N.D. Tex. suit, itself a follow-on to Samsung Display's ITC Section 337 action (Certain Active Matrix OLED Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1351) and its earlier campaign against BOE, which settled in late 2025 with Samsung Display reportedly receiving substantial royalties. The validity contest has also run the other way once already: CSOT, BOE, Tianma, and Visionox jointly petitioned for IPR against Samsung Display's '599, '578, and '593 patents (IPR2023-00941, IPR2023-01075, IPR2024-00620), and the PTAB upheld the challenged claims in final written decisions in 2024–2025; the resulting Federal Circuit appeals (Nos. 2026-1092, 2026-1106) remain live, with Samsung Display's cross-appeal dismissed by order dated April 7, 2026. The most consequential recent development is that Samsung Display struck back at the PTAB on Sept. 17, 2026, filing IPR petitions against all three CSOT patents asserted here — US 11,257,891, US 11,957,031, and US 12,133,429 — arguing they are obvious combinations or minor modifications of the prior art (USPTO filings reported Sept. 17–20, 2026 by Korean and Chinese trade press). That creates the signature dynamic of this dispute: a Chinese panel maker using its own portfolio offensively in Texas while a Korean incumbent attacks those patents at the PTAB and defends its own patents on appeal — an IPR–district court linkage likely to drive any stay motion and to shape settlement leverage. The case is also notable as a rare instance of a Chinese display manufacturer asserting patents against the global OLED leader on U.S. soil over panels going into Google's flagship Pixel line, a supply chain CSOT has been trying to penetrate.

Sourcing caveats / open items: I could not confirm from available sources the specific district judge assigned to 2:26-cv-00228, the full text of the E.D. Tex. complaint, any scheduling order in that case, or CSOT's precise damages/injunction demands beyond the relief described in the case summary; the docket is indexed under NOS 830 (patent) and is listed on Justia/PACER mirrors without an opinion or substantive order. A companion filing, No. 2:26-cv-00227, was docketed the same day by the same plaintiff and may be related, but I could not verify its contents or defendants. The assigned PTAB case numbers for Samsung Display's Sept. 2026 petitions were not yet retrievable, so those should be confirmed against PTAB docketing before being cited as fixed.

Bottom line

This case is still in its earliest phase — roughly six months after filing. There is no Markman order, no discovery order, no summary-judgment practice, no trial, and no disposition. The single most consequential development since the complaint is Samsung Display's filing of IPR petitions against all three asserted patents on 2026-09-17, which signals that Samsung is running a validity-attack playbook before the Texas case develops traction. Everything else on the docket is still either (a) background from the companion N.D. Tex. case Samsung filed first, or (b) the earlier PTAB/Federal Circuit history on Samsung's patents (the mirror-image front).

I was not able to confirm answers, counterclaims, Rule 12 motions, or a scheduling order in this case from the sources available to me; I flag those gaps explicitly below rather than infer them.

---

1. Background: the two-front OLED dispute (2022–2025)

The E.D. Tex. suit sits inside a longer Samsung Display–vs.–Chinese-panel-maker campaign:

Sources: The Elec (thelec.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=36758); Fed. Cir. docket 26‑1092 (dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/26-1092); IPRDaily (iprdaily.cn/news_43164.html).

---

2. Chronology of this case — 2:26‑cv‑00228 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

2026-03-19 — Complaint filed. Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. ("CSOT," a TCL subsidiary) sues Samsung Display Co., Ltd., Walmart Inc., and Best Buy Co., Inc. in the Marshall Division. Three asserted patents:

• US 12,133,429 — "Display Panel and Display Device," issued 2024‑10‑29, filed 2022‑03‑22 (shield layer / converging-wire routing to suppress ESD and interference)
• US 11,957,031 — "Display Device," issued 2024‑04‑09, filed 2021‑05‑31 (flexible/foldable bending-area structure: color filter + protective layer + coverplate with a defined overlap spacing)
• US 11,257,891 — "Display Panel," issued 2022‑02‑22, filed 2018‑09‑28 (power-trace routing through the bend to narrow the bottom bezel)

Accused instrumentalities: Samsung Display's "Accused OLED Display Panels," and downstream "Accused Products" — Google Pixel 8, Pixel 9, and Pixel 10 series (including foldables), plus tablets and wearables. Venue as to the retailers is pleaded on their brick-and-mortar presence in the district (e.g., Walmart at 1701 East End Blvd. N., Marshall, TX; Best Buy at 422 W Loop 281, Longview, TX). Relief sought: declaratory judgment of infringement, permanent injunction against importation/sale, damages, enhanced (willful) damages, and attorney's fees.

Sources: dockets.justia listing (2:2026cv00228); complaint text reproduced at ai‑lab complaint analysis, docs 8 (ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00228/doc/analysis/8); ZDNet Korea (zdnet.co.kr/view/?no=20260323210003); scalejuris.com/news/10591.

2026-03-19/20 — Collateral dismissal in the companion N.D. Tex. case. Samsung and Ultimate Eshop, LLC file a joint motion to dismiss (N.D. Tex. ECF 85), granted 2026‑03‑20 (ECF 86). This removes one downstream reseller from Samsung's 2025 case but does not touch CSOT or Vican. Source: CourtListener docket 70468030 (N.D. Tex. 3:25‑cv‑01430).

2026-03-23 — First press wave. Korean and Chinese trade press frame the E.D. Tex. complaint as CSOT's retaliation for the June 2025 N.D. Tex. suit.

2026-03/04 — Responsive pleadings (not confirmed). I could not locate docket entries for Samsung Display's, Walmart's, or Best Buy's answers, Rule 12 motions, or Samsung counterclaims in 2:26‑cv‑00228. Given the 2026‑03‑19 filing, answers would ordinarily be due in the April–May 2026 window once service was effected. Treat the absence of reported answers/counterclaims as a reporting gap, not as a finding that none were filed. Notably, a Samsung counterclaim asserting its own OLED patents in E.D. Tex. would be a natural move (and would trigger § 315(a)(1) waiver considerations for any IPR on those patents).

2026-04-03 — Federal Circuit activity in the Samsung-patent appeal. Appellants (Wuhan China Star, Tianma, Visionox, and Mianyang BOE) file their opening brief in No. 26‑1092 (appeal from PTAB IPR2024‑00620); Samsung Display moves to dismiss its cross‑appeal (No. 26‑1106) under FRAP 42(b).

2026-04-07 — Fed. Cir. order. In a nonprecedential order, the court dismisses the cross-appeal (26‑1106), issues the mandate as to that appeal, and directs each side to bear its own costs. Appeal No. 26‑1092 remains pending. Sources: cafc.uscourts.gov opinion PDF 26‑1092 (04‑07‑2026); law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/26-1092/26-1092-2026-04-07.html.

2026-04-16 / 2026-04-23 / 2026-06-08 — N.D. Tex. scheduling activity (companion case). Technology tutorials lodged (ECF 88/89); Samsung's opening claim-construction brief filed (ECF 90); amended scheduling order set a claim construction hearing for 2026‑09‑16, mediation deadline 2027‑04‑20, fact discovery to early 2028, and a jury trial on a three-week docket beginning 2027‑10‑05. A 2026‑06‑08 order applies Third Amended Misc. Order No. 62 sealing procedures. These are the N.D. Tex. dates — no equivalent scheduling order has been reported in E.D. Tex. 2:26‑cv‑00228. Source: CourtListener docket 70468030; archive.org copy of ECF 103.

2026-09-17 — Samsung Display files IPR petitions against all three CSOT patents. Samsung Display petitions the PTAB for inter partes review of US 12,133,429, US 11,957,031, and US 11,257,891 — i.e., the complete set of asserted patents. Samsung's stated theory is that the claims are "a simple combination or modification of the prior art" lacking inventive step. This is the first substantive validity challenge to the asserted patents. The PTAB has not issued institution decisions; the petition numbers are not yet reflected in the sources I could reach. Sources: ZDNet Korea, via meeco.kr/ITplus/42100633 and fpdisplay.com/mobile/news/show-213421.html (both 2026‑09‑19/20); eet-china.com/mp/a526331.html; sammyfans.com/2026/09/18; sammyguru.com (2026‑09‑21).

2026-09-18 through 2026-09-21 — Press confirmation. Reports confirm the petitions target exactly the three patents in the E.D. Tex. complaint and note that no institution decision has issued.

2026-09-26 (today) — Present posture: open, pre-Markman, no trial date set.

---

3. Procedural categories you asked about — status

Filing & initial pleadings. Complaint confirmed (2026‑03‑19). Answers and counterclaims: not verified in any source I could retrieve. The complaint itself pleads jurisdiction/venue in unusual detail for the retailers, which is consistent with an anticipated § 1400(b)/§ 1391 venue fight or a Rule 12(b)(3) motion from Walmart and/or Best Buy — but I have no docket evidence such a motion was filed.

Motions to dismiss / transfer / stay pending IPR. None reported. Three things worth watching, all unsourced as of today:

1. A § 1406 transfer motion from Samsung Display would face an uphill fight given its own choice of Texas fora (and parallel E.D. Tex. suits against BOE).
2. A stay pending IPR motion is now the obvious next defense move, but it is premature — no institution decision exists, and E.D. Tex. judges generally resist staying before institution.
3. § 315(b) timing: if Samsung Display was served in late March 2026, its one-year window to petition runs to roughly late March 2027; the 2026‑09‑17 filings are comfortably inside that window. Conversely, any Samsung counterclaim in this case would raise § 315(a)(1) concerns for future Samsung-side IPRs.

Markman. Not reached in E.D. Tex. The complaint analysis identifies the terms likely to be contested: "shielding block" and "disposed according to a shortest distance" ('429 patent), and "greater than or equal to a default value" / "default value is greater than 0" ('031 patent). Those constructions will matter enormously, because the infringement theories pivot on measurable physical geometry (through-hole spacing; overlap gap) that will require reverse-engineering and microscopy evidence.

Discovery milestones. None reported in this case. No scheduling order, no discovery limits order, no protective order has surfaced in my sources.

Trial / verdict / post-trial motions. None. No trial date has been set in 2:26‑cv‑00228. By contrast, the N.D. Tex. companion case is docketed for October 2027.

Settlement / dismissal / judgment / appeal. No settlement, no dismissal, no judgment, no appeal in this case. The only dismissal in the family of disputes is Ultimate Eshop from the N.D. Tex. case (2026‑03‑20), the BOE global settlement (2025‑11), and the Fed. Cir. cross-appeal dismissal (2026‑04‑07).

---

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

(a) Samsung's new IPRs (the ones that matter here). Filed 2026‑09‑17 against '429, '031, and '891. Effect on the litigation: prospective, not yet actual. Until institution (expected roughly March 2027 on a six-month statutory track), these petitions give Samsung leverage in settlement talks and a § 315(b)-safe fallback, but they do not automatically stay the district court case. If the Board institutes on all three, expect a stay motion within weeks of the institution decisions; if the Board denies institution, Samsung loses its cheapest validity vehicle and the case reverts to the district court's clear-and-convincing standard.

(b) The earlier IPRs on Samsung's patents. IPR2023‑00941 ('599), IPR2023‑01221 ('593), and IPR2024‑00620 ('578) were decided 2024–2025 in Samsung's favor — all challenged claims of the '578 and '599 patents survived, and the '593 patent survived in part. The Federal Circuit appeal (No. 26‑1092) remains pending after Samsung's cross-appeal was dismissed on 2026‑04‑07. Why this matters here: Samsung's N.D. Tex. complaint against CSOT is built on patents that have already run the PTAB gauntlet, giving Samsung a rhetorical and evidentiary advantage in the companion case (validity presumed, prior art already litigated). CSOT's counter-move — filing in E.D. Tex. on its own patents — flips the burden onto Samsung, which now must defend validity against a fresh prior-art record. That symmetry is the strategic core of this dispute.

(c) Related non-PTAB proceedings. ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1351 (Samsung v. BOE, terminated 2025‑11‑18 after settlement); Samsung v. BOE, E.D. Tex. No. 2:23‑cv‑00309 (resolved via the November 2025 global settlement); and a still-live parallel Chinese invalidation appeal (BOE v. CNIPA, Supreme People's Court hearing 2026‑09‑16) showing that Chinese-side validity fights outlived the commercial settlement.

---

5. What is not confirmed (do not rely on these as facts)

• Identity of plaintiff's or defendants' counsel in 2:26‑cv‑00228. (In the companion N.D. Tex. case, Samsung Display is represented by Covington & Burling and local counsel, with Kurt Fredrickson, Jordan Raphael, Tim Byron, Rebekah Guajardo, and Timothy Durst appearing; CSOT/TCL have used Bradford Cangro as local counsel. Do not import these into the E.D. Tex. docket without verification.)
• Whether answers, counterclaims, or any Rule 12 motion have been filed.
• Whether a scheduling order or discovery order has entered.
• The PTAB petition numbers for the 2026‑09‑17 IPRs.
• Any § 1406 transfer or § 315(b)-driven stay activity.
• Whether Samsung's N.D. Tex. suit was filed 2025‑06‑05 (The Elec) — one secondary aggregator (sammyguru) misstates this as "June 2026," which conflicts with the 3:25‑cv‑01430 docket number and is almost certainly an error. I treat 2025‑06‑05 as correct.

---

6. Forward-looking posture

Realistic next milestones: (1) any Samsung/Walmart/Best Buy Rule 12 or transfer motions; (2) a scheduling order setting a Markman hearing for this case; (3) PTAB institution decisions on the 2026‑09‑17 petitions (roughly Q1–Q2 2027); (4) a stay motion if institution issues; (5) settlement pressure, given the parties' demonstrated willingness to settle globally (BOE/Samsung, November 2025) and given that CSOT's parent TCL is simultaneously a commercial customer/supplier relationship counterparty in the display market. A trial in this case is unlikely before 2028.

I'll research this case aggressively. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig into the docket and complaint documents.

Let me look at the docket page and the complaint itself for the signature block.

Bottom line

I could not verify a counsel-of-record entry for the plaintiff in 2:26-cv-00228 from the sources I was able to reach. The public signals I found confirm the case exists and identify the parties, but they do not surface a complaint signature block, a notice of appearance, or a docket "Attorneys" panel for this specific case. I am therefore not going to name anyone as counsel of record here — doing so would be fabrication. Below I set out exactly what is and isn't sourced, plus the verified representation trail for the same plaintiff in related OLED matters that is the best available starting point.

What the docket record confirms (and doesn't)

• Case exists as docketed. Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co. Ltd. et al, No. 2:26-cv-00228 (E.D. Tex.), Nature of Suit 830 (Patent), cause of action listed as "15 U.S.C. § 1126 Patent Infringement," filed 03/19/2026, status Open. Source: Dockets.Justia E.D. Tex. patent browse listings and the case page at ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00228/....
• Party alignment: Plaintiff = Wuhan CSOT (a TCL subsidiary); Defendants = Samsung Display Co., Ltd.; Walmart Inc.; Best Buy Co., Inc. Accused products include Google Pixel 8/9/10 series plus tablets and wearables (complaint ¶¶ 9–16, 22–29). Complaint references claim charts as exhibits (Compl. ¶ 104).
• No counsel data located. The docket aggregator pages I retrieved for this case contain empty "Plaintiff / Party / Attorney / Defendant" fields — i.e., the attorney field is not populated in the sources I could reach. I did not find a Dkt. 1 signature block, a "Notice of Appearance," or a Law360/Reuters item naming plaintiff-side counsel for 2:26-cv-00228. Treat plaintiff's counsel as unverified in this case. It is also possible appearances simply hadn't been filed at the time these aggregators last synced (the case was only filed 3/19/2026 and the complaint is the only substantive document the analysis page reflects).

Verified representation trail for the same plaintiff (related matters — not this docket)

These are confirmed from primary documents, but they are PTAB and Federal Circuit appearances, not district-court appearances in 2:26-cv-00228. I flag the distinction because it matters: a firm that handled CSOT's IPRs is a strong candidate for the district-court team, but that is an inference, not a docket fact.

1) Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP — PTAB counsel for Wuhan CSOT (and co-petitioners)
From the Petitioner Power of Attorney filed in the Samsung Display OLED IPRs (e.g., IPR2023-00941, IPR2023-01221; POA dated 2023.5.22, signed by Liao Junya for Wuhan CSOT, Customer No. 34313):

• Richard Martinelli (Reg. No. 52,003) — lead counsel; Orrick, New York, NY.
• Donald Daybell (Reg. No. 50,877) — backup counsel; Orrick, Irvine, CA.
• Travis Jensen (Reg. No. 60,087) — backup counsel; Orrick, Menlo Park, CA.
• H. Patrick Herman (Reg. No. 75,018) — backup counsel.
• Xiang Wang (Reg. No. 45,547) — backup counsel; Orrick, Beijing.

2) Federal Circuit Appeal No. 26-1092 (Wuhan CSOT + Tianma + Visionox v. Samsung Display; from IPR2024-00620)

• Nov. 7, 2025 (Filing 4): Entry of appearance for Melanie L. Bostwick; Jonas Q. Wang; Gavin McGimpsey as counsel for appellants (Wuhan CSOT et al.).
• Jan. 23, 2026 (Filing 18): Notice withdrawing Bostwick, Jensen, Martinelli, Bas de Blank, Xiang Wang, Jonas Q. Wang, and Gavin McGimpsey.
• Apr. 3, 2026 (Filing 22): Opening brief filed by Stephen Smith (docket credit line), later flagged non-compliant (Filing 25); cross-appeal dismissed 4/7/2026. Source: CAFC 26-1092 docket.

Read-through: Orrick is the only firm with documented, repeated representation of Wuhan CSOT in this OLED patent fight. If CSOT's district-court team mirrors its PTAB team, expect Orrick (likely Martinelli/Jensen) as lead, plus a local E.D. Tex. firm to satisfy the court's local-counsel practice. I could not confirm which local firm was retained.

What I could not source (explicit gaps)

• No confirmed lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel, or in-house counsel of record in 2:26-cv-00228.
• No confirmation of whether plaintiff filed a pro hac vice motion, a corporate disclosure statement, or a notice of appearance yet.
• No confirmation of the assigned judge in this division from the sources reached.

How to close the gap (highest-yield pulls)

1. PACER / CM-ECF, Dkt. 1 (Complaint) — read the signature block at the end; it names lead and local counsel.
2. Docket entries after 3/19/2026 — look for "Notice of Appearance," "Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice," and the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement (which often lists counsel).
3. Docket "Attorneys" tab on the live PACER docket (aggregators like Dockets.Justia/Unicourt were not populated for this case as of my search).
4. CSOT/TCL litigation press and Orrick's "News" page for a March–April 2026 announcement naming the district-court team.

If you can supply the Dkt. 1 signature block or the live PACER attorney panel, I'll convert this into a fully sourced counsel roster with roles and office locations.

I'll search for docket and counsel information on this case.

Let me dig into the docket itself and look for appearances of counsel.

Bottom line up front

*I could not retrieve a verified list of counsel of record for the defendants in Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:26-cv-00228 (E.D. Tex.).* The case is indexed on the public docket aggregators, but the docket sheets I was able to reach do not expose attorney-appearance entries, and no opinion, news report, or firm announcement I found names defense counsel in this specific action.

Rather than guess, I'm flagging that gap explicitly and then giving you sourced, related-matter counsel information that is the best available proxy — clearly labeled as not confirmed for this docket.

---

1. What the record does and does not show

Interpretation: With a March 19, 2026 filing date and a Sept. 2026 research date, answers/appearances were almost certainly filed and are likely under seal or simply not mirrored on the free aggregators. The absence of information here is an access problem on my end, not evidence that counsel has failed to appear. Do not read this as "no counsel has appeared."

---

2. Related-matter counsel — the most probable defense teams (⚠️ NOT confirmed in 2:26-cv-00228)

These names come from the mirror-image and predecessor litigations involving the same parties. Treat each as a hypothesis to verify against the docket, not as a finding.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

In E.D. Tex. patent litigation (appellate/PTAB track):

• Jeffrey H. Lerner, Scott C. Weidenfeller, Richard L. Rainey — Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC. Entered appearance as counsel for cross-appellant Samsung Display in the Federal Circuit appeal from IPR2024-00620 (Fed. Cir. Nos. 26-1092, 26-1106) — CAFC docket, No. 26-1092. Covington & Burling has been Samsung Display's lead IP appellate/PTAB shop across the BOE/CSOT disputes (e.g., J. Lerner listed as Patent Owner's counsel of record in IPR2023-01221). Note: in that filing Lerner's firm affiliation was not shown; his Fed. Cir. entry of appearance shows Covington & Burling.

In E.D. Tex. district court patent cases (trial track):

• Melissa Richards Smith — Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX. Repeatedly appears as EDTX local counsel for Samsung entities, including Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (e.g., Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. Samsung Electronics and related consolidated EDTX patent dockets; see the docketalarm EDTX DCO compilation).
• Marc J. Pensabene, Nicholas J. Whilt, Ryan K. Yagura — O'Melveny & Myers LLP, listed as counsel for Samsung Display Co., Ltd. in EDTX patent matters (same docket compilation; also Yagura on Samsung Display filings in D. Del./EDTX docket excerpts). O'Melveny has been Samsung Display's principal outside trial counsel in the U.S. OLED patent wars.

Adjacent signal: Samsung Display filed IPRs against all three CSOT patents-in-suit — 12,133,429; 11,957,031; and 11,257,891 — at the PTAB on Sept. 17, 2026, i.e., a direct counterattack to this complaint (HEA/CCID reporting; see also the ZDNet Korea coverage). The Power of Attorney filings in those three IPRs will be the single most reliable, immediately available source for Samsung Display's U.S. patent litigation counsel. I was not able to pull those POA documents.

Walmart Inc.

Walmart appears as a defendant in numerous EDTX patent suits (e.g., RavenWhite Licensing LLC v. Home Depot/Walmart, cited in the same compilation). Attorneys appearing for Walmart/Wal-Mart Stores Texas there included Roger Brian Craft and Eric Hugh Findlay (Findlay Craft PC, Tyler, TX) and Leisa Talbert Peschel, Blake Thomas Dietrich, Andrea Leigh Fair, Abigail A. Lahvis, Nathaniel St. Clair, Katharine L. Carmona. I cannot state which of these (if any) represent Walmart in 2:26-cv-00228 — Walmart uses rotating regional/local counsel, and some listed names may be in-house Walmart legal.

Best Buy Co., Inc.

No Best Buy counsel of record surfaced for this action, and Best Buy is not prominently represented in the EDTX patent dockets I was able to review. Best Buy typically retains retailer-side local counsel in EDTX and a national firm for merits work; I found no sourced name for this case and will not speculate.

---

3. Recommended verification steps (all publicly available)

1. PACER docket for 2:26-cv-00228 — pull the Docket Report and filter for "Notice of Appearance," "Notice of Attorney Appearance," and Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statements. In EDTX, defense appearances typically post within 30–60 days of service.
2. Complaint signature block (Dkt. 1) — gives plaintiff's counsel only, but local-rule pro hac vice motions often follow within weeks and name the defense teams.
3. PTAB PTOA filings for the three Samsung-initiated IPRs against 12,133,429 / 11,957,031 / 11,257,891 (filed Sept. 17, 2026), retrievable via PTAB E2E / PTActs by patent number. These list lead and back-up counsel with firm and address.
4. EDTX pro hac vice motions — filed on the docket and public; they identify the non-local trial team.
5. Firm press rooms (Covington, O'Melveny, Gillam & Smith) — new-matter announcements.

---

Caveat

Everything in Section 2 is drawn from other dockets and is not a counsel-of-record determination for 2:26-cv-00228. I have deliberately not fabricated names, firms, or entry numbers for this case. If you need a certified counsel list, it must come from the PACER docket sheet for 2:26-cv-00228 or the PTAB POA filings identified above.