Samsung Display v. BOE Technology: OLED Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Samsung Display filed suit against BOE Technology and six affiliated entities in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four OLED display patents against products including the Nubia Z60 Ultra and REDMAGIC 9S Pro. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after 218 days, with each side bearing its own costs — a resolution that extinguishes all asserted claims permanently.
Samsung and BOE reach negotiated end to high-stakes OLED patent battle
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. filed suit on April 21, 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. and six BOE-affiliated optoelectronics subsidiaries — spanning facilities in Mianyang, Ordos, Chengdu, Chongqing, Wuhan, and Yunnan. Samsung asserted four U.S. patents: US11626066B2, US9299730B2, US10541279B2, and US11500496B2, all directed to OLED display technology as implemented in consumer devices including the Nubia Z60 Ultra and REDMAGIC 9S Pro smartphones.
The case closed on November 25, 2025, via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted the stipulation and dismissed all claims and causes of action with prejudice. Critically, each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice means Samsung is permanently barred from reasserting these four patents against BOE on the same accused products in future litigation.
At 218 days, the case resolved before any publicly docketed claim construction or merits ruling, suggesting the parties reached a private resolution — potentially a license, cross-license, or commercial settlement — without adjudication. The breadth of defendant entities named (seven BOE subsidiaries) and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a negotiated business settlement rather than a capitulation by either side. The precise commercial terms, if any, remain undisclosed on the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 218 days
218 days — resolved before claim construction, faster than the E.D. Texas median for multi-patent OLED disputes
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice ends the litigation permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — filed by joint stipulation — is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law. Samsung cannot re-file suit asserting these four patents against BOE or its subsidiaries on the same accused products. The court’s role was purely ministerial: it accepted the stipulation and directed the clerk to close the case. No judicial finding of infringement or validity was made.
Permanent bar on re-filingSamsung surrenders further enforcement on these patents against BOE
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Samsung permanently forecloses reasserting US11626066B2, US9299730B2, US10541279B2, and US11500496B2 against the named BOE entities for the accused conduct. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties. The mutual cost-bearing clause suggests neither party emerged as a clear winner — and a confidential license or commercial arrangement likely underlies the resolution.
Patents intact for third-party useBOE avoids merits ruling but accepts permanent closure of this dispute
BOE and its six subsidiaries avoided any judicial finding of infringement or damages. Dismissal with prejudice, however, is a two-way bar — BOE also cannot use this proceeding as a platform to seek declaratory judgment of invalidity on these patents in the future within the same dispute. The outcome is consistent with BOE having negotiated resolution terms it found commercially acceptable, particularly given the breadth of the subsidiary entities originally named.
No invalidity finding on recordOLED display patent enforcement remains active — BOE’s other customers at risk
The resolution between Samsung and BOE leaves Samsung’s four OLED patents fully enforceable against other panel manufacturers, device OEMs, and downstream customers. Companies integrating BOE OLED panels into products not covered by any negotiated arrangement should treat these patents as live enforcement risks. The E.D. Texas venue and Samsung’s multi-subsidiary targeting strategy signals willingness to pursue complex, coordinated litigation campaigns in this technology space.
Live risk for third-party OLED makersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Samsung Group | Company | Samsung Display Co., Ltd. — global OLED display manufacturer, holder of US11626066B2 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. | Company | BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. and six affiliated optoelectronics subsidiaries — Chinese OLED/LCD panel manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amanda Aline Abraham | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Bieluch | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel W. Cho | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jared Frisch | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Lerner | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jesse Chang | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kee Young Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Thomas Haslam , III | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sean Hong | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tarek Austin | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Covington & Burling LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Covington & Burling, LLP (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Covington & Burling, LLP (Washington DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Roth & Abraham, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Abigail Ann Gardner | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bita Rahebi | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Christopher Nash | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher G Hanewicz | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Yu | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Dudley Esterhay | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle Ryan Canavera | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard S. J. Hung | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stuart Hene | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yue Li | Attorney | Counsel for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morrison & Foerster LLP | Law Firm | Representing BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morrison & Foerster LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morrison & Foerster LLP (San Francisco) | Law Firm | Representing BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Law Firm | Representing BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie, LLP (San Diego) | Law Firm | Representing BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP (San Diego) | Law Firm | Representing BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a purely procedural acceptance of the parties’ joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — the court made no finding on infringement, validity, or damages. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring Samsung from reasserting these four patents against the named BOE entities for the same accused products. The mutual cost-bearing clause is notable in that it removes any fee-shifting signal, suggesting neither side secured a position strong enough to extract cost recovery from the other.
US11626066B2 — OLED display architecture for mobile devices
The four asserted patents — US11626066B2, US9299730B2, US10541279B2, and US11500496B2 — cover distinct but overlapping aspects of OLED display technology as deployed in consumer mobile devices. Application filing dates spanning from the US13/801937 series through US17/808982 reflect a multi-generational portfolio strategy, with innovations progressing from foundational OLED panel architectures to more recent implementations. The patents target display structures directly implicated in high-end Android smartphone displays, as evidenced by the specific accused products — the Nubia Z60 Ultra and REDMAGIC 9S Pro.
Samsung Display is one of the world’s largest OLED panel producers and holds an extensive patent portfolio covering OLED manufacturing, panel design, and integration techniques. Asserting four patents simultaneously against BOE — Samsung’s primary Chinese competitor in the OLED panel supply chain — signals that Samsung is actively defending technology differentiation at the panel architecture level. For third-party OLED manufacturers, device OEMs, and component integrators sourcing BOE panels, these patents represent ongoing freedom-to-operate considerations that extend well beyond the dismissed case.
Should you run an FTO search against US11626066B2 and the Samsung OLED portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling products incorporating OLED display panels — particularly those sourced from BOE or competing Chinese panel makers — should treat these four Samsung patents as active FTO flags. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only Samsung’s claims against the specific named BOE entities; it creates no license, estoppel, or safe harbour for third parties, downstream device OEMs, or other panel suppliers using similar OLED display architectures.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across US11626066B2, US9299730B2, US10541279B2, and US11500496B2 against specific product architectures in minutes. Eureka cross-references file history, claim language, and prosecution disclaimers to identify design-around opportunities and flag overlap with your OLED panel or device specifications — delivering structured FTO analysis without the multi-week turnaround of traditional searches.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11626066B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →OLED display patent cases in E.D. Texas: comparable litigation and outcomes
Explore patent infringement cases involving OLED and display technology asserted in the Eastern District of Texas against Asian panel manufacturers and device OEMs.
What this case signals for the OLED display patent enforcement landscape
Samsung’s coordinated four-patent, seven-entity filing against BOE reflects an escalating IP enforcement posture in the global OLED display supply chain.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for cross-border OLED patent campaigns
Samsung’s choice of Eastern District of Texas to sue seven BOE entities simultaneously is consistent with that court’s track record for large-scale patent assertion. IP teams at display manufacturers and device OEMs should monitor filings in this district closely — it remains the most active U.S. venue for OLED-related patent disputes involving Asian panel suppliers.
Multi-subsidiary naming strategy increases settlement leverage significantly
By naming six BOE production subsidiaries alongside the parent, Samsung created litigation exposure across BOE’s entire OLED manufacturing footprint. This tactic raises the cost and complexity of defense and is a common precursor to licensing negotiations. Companies with multi-entity supply chains should assess consolidated patent risk at the subsidiary level, not just the parent entity.
Samsung v BOE — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on November 25, 2025, after 218 days. Each party bore its own costs. No judicial finding on infringement or patent validity was made. The dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Samsung from reasserting the four patents against the named BOE entities for the accused products.
Samsung Display asserted four U.S. patents: US11626066B2, US9299730B2, US10541279B2, and US11500496B2 — all directed to OLED display technology. The accused products included OLED displays incorporated into the Nubia Z60 Ultra and REDMAGIC 9S Pro smartphones and other mobile devices.
No. The dismissal with prejudice resolves claims only between Samsung Display and the seven named BOE entities. It does not create a license, waiver, or estoppel for any third party. Samsung’s four asserted patents remain fully enforceable against other OLED panel manufacturers, device OEMs, or importers of products incorporating similar display architectures.
Samsung named six BOE production subsidiaries — including entities in Mianyang, Ordos, Chengdu, Chongqing, Wuhan, and Yunnan — alongside the parent, likely to capture the full scope of BOE’s OLED manufacturing operations. This multi-entity strategy is consistent with maximising litigation exposure across a supply chain and increasing settlement leverage in licensing negotiations.
A ‘each party bears its own costs’ provision typically indicates that neither side secured sufficient litigation advantage to demand cost recovery from the other. In patent cases, this is often consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution — such as a cross-license or settlement — rather than one party conceding. It does not, however, reveal the financial terms of any underlying arrangement, which remain confidential.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.