Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Pictiva Displays International Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00495 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2025)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00495, Dkt. No. 503
Decided
October 2, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting 473 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL §

LTD. and KEY PATENT INNOVATIONS § LIMITED, §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00495-JRG-RSP

§

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. § and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS § AMERICA, INC., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) previously filed a Renewed Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Constitutional Standing (“Motion”) (Dkt. No. 252.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 473), recommending denial of Samsung’s Motion. Samsung has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 486), with Plaintiffs Pictiva Displays International Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Limited (“Plaintiffs”) filing a Response (Dkt. No. 494.)

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Samsung’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Samsung’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion (Dkt. No. 252) is DENIED.

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2025.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Pictiva Displays International Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00495 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00495-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00495-1

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.