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. 26, 2025)

Adopted in Part Report and recommendation adopted with modification
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00495, Dkt. No. 553
Decided
October 26, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 502505506
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. (“Samsung”) previously filed several case-dispositive motions in the above-captioned case: a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Certain Accused Products (“Products Motion”) (Dkt. No. 236); a Motion for Summary Judgment of Failure to Mark Under 35 U.S.C. § 287 and No Pre-Notice Damages (“Marking Motion”) (Dkt. No. 242); and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement of Plaintiffs’ Asserted Patents (“Willfulness Motion”) (Dkt. No. 246.)

Magistrate Judge Payne entered Report and Recommendations (“R&R”) on the Products Motion (Dkt. No. 502) recommending grant as to the non-OLED products and denial otherwise, the Marking Motion (Dkt. No. 505) recommending denial, and the Willfulness Motion (Dkt. No. 506) recommending grant as to no pre-suit willful infringement of the ‘547 and ‘425 Patents and denial otherwise. To R&R on the Products Motion, Samsung filed Objections (Dkt. No. 509), and so did Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 510.) To the R&R on the Marking Motion, Samsung filed Objections2 (Dkt. No. 523.) To the R&R on the Willfulness Motion, Plaintiffs filed Objections (Dkt. No. 529), and so did Samsung (Dkt. No. 536.)

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Products Motion, Marking Motion, and Willfulness Motion, the relevant R&Rs, and the briefing on Samsung and Plaintiffs’ Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the R&Rs and concludes that the . Objections fail to show that the R&Rs were erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Samsung and Plaintiffs’ Objections and ADOPTS the R&Rs and orders that: the Products Motion (Dkt. No. 236) is GRANTED as to the non-OLED products and is DENIED otherwise; the Marking Motion (Dkt. No. 242) is DENIED; and the Willfulness Motion (Dkt. No. 246) is GRANTED as to no pre-suit willful infringement of the ‘547 and ‘425 Patents and is DENIED otherwise.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th 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. 26, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00495-12
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00495-12

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.