Infringement action filed 23 Jul 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 31 Mar 2026, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
An organic light emitting display (OLED) includes a voltage adjustment unit for adjusting a preliminary control voltage according to a second reference voltage, a couple unit for coupling a change of the preliminary control voltage to adjust a control voltage, a driving unit for providing a driving current and a driving voltage according to the control voltage, a first reset unit for resetting the driving voltage according to a first reference voltage, a second reset unit for resetting the control voltage according to the driving voltage, an organic light emitting diode for generating output light according to the driving current, and an emission enable unit for providing a control of furnishing the driving current to the organic light emitting diode. Through the circuit operation of the reset units and the voltage adjustment unit, occurrences of image retention phenomenon and pixel brightness distortion on the OLED screen can be avoided.
An array substrate having a display region and a peripheral circuit region adjacent to the display region is provided. The array substrate includes a pixel array, a plurality of test shorting bars and a plurality of wires. The pixel array is disposed in the display region. The test shorting bars are disposed in the peripheral circuit region. The wires electrically connected with the pixel array are disposed in the peripheral circuit region. Specially, at least one wire and the test shorting bar share a part for connecting each other and the part forms a common trace.
The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Adam S. Hoffman · Alexandra Figari Easley · Andrew D. Weiss · Benjamin T. Wang · Christian W. Conkle · Elizabeth L. DeRieux · Jefferson Cummings · Minna Jay · Paul Anthony Kroeger · Sarah Wenxuan Wang
Firm
Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Russ August & Kabat LLP, Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles)
Benjamin T. Wang · Brent K. Yamashita · Brian K. Erickson · Chris Katsantonis · Edward H. Sikorski · James Travis Underwood · John M. Guaragna · Matthew Ganas · Melissa Richards Smith · Michael Saulnier · Nan Lan
Firm
DLA Piper LLP, DLA Piper LLP (US), Gillam & Smith LLP, Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles), Vedder Price (CA) LLP
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"Before the Court is the Joint Motion and Stipulation to Dismiss With Prejudice Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (the “Stipulation”) filed by Plaintiff Optronic Sciences LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant BOE Technology Group Co. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 99.) In the Stipulation, the Parties jointly move to dismiss all claims in this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case between Plaintiff and Defendant not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain."
Case 2:24-cv-00577 · E.D. Tex. · closed 31 March 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
2:24-cv-00577 is a patent infringement action brought by Optronic Sciences, LLC against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., filed on 23 Jul 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 31 March 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:24-cv-00577?
US8502757B2 (“Organic light emitting display having threshold voltage compensation mechanism and driving method thereof”), assigned to OPTRONIC SCIENCES LLC, currently active; US8208084B2 (“Array substrate with test shorting bar and display panel thereof”), assigned to OPTRONIC SCIENCES LLC, currently active; US8604471B2 (“Semiconductor structure and organic electroluminescence device”), assigned to OPTRONIC SCIENCES LLC; US7688934B2 (“Shift register and shift register unit for diminishing clock coupling effect”), assigned to OPTRONIC SCIENCES LLC. The record also lists BOE OLED panel supplied to Apple and included in the iPhone 14.
How was case 2:24-cv-00577 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: "Before the Court is the Joint Motion and Stipulation to Dismiss With Prejudice Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (the “Stipulation”) filed by Plaintiff Optronic Sciences LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant BOE Technology Group Co. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 99.) In the Stipulation, the Parties jointly move to dismiss all claims in this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in the above-captioned case are
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:24-cv-00577 take?
616 calendar days, from filing on 23 Jul 2024 to closure on 31 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:24-cv-00577?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Adam S. Hoffman, Alexandra Figari Easley, Andrew D. Weiss, Benjamin T. Wang, Christian W. Conkle, Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Jefferson Cummings, Minna Jay, Paul Anthony Kroeger and Sarah Wenxuan Wang are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Optronic Sciences. Benjamin T. Wang, Brent K. Yamashita, Brian K. Erickson, Chris Katsantonis, Edward H. Sikorski, James Travis Underwood, John M. Guaragna, Matthew Ganas, Melissa Richards Smith, Michael Saulnier and Nan Lan appear for defendant BOE Technology Group.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:24-cv-00577 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:24-cv-00577 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
