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
Plaintiffs Pictiva Displays International Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Limited (“Plaintiffs”) previously filed several dispositive motions in the above-captioned case: a Motion for Summary Judgment that Pagano is Not Prior Art (“Pagano Motion”) (Dkt. No. 245); a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Samsung’s Marking Defense (“Marking Motion”) (Dkt. No. 248); a Motion for Summary Judgment on Samsung’s Affirmative Defenses (“Defenses Motion”) (Dkt. No. 241); and a Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Clix2 (“Clix2 Motion”) (Dkt. No. 251).
Magistrate Judge Payne entered Report and Recommendations (“R&Rs”) on the Pagano Motion (Dkt. No. 501) recommending denial; on the Marking Motion (Dkt. No. 504) recommending granting a finding that § 287(a) does not apply to the asserted claims of the ‘389 Patent and denying otherwise; on the Defenses Motion (Dkt. No. 512) recommending grant with respect to Samsung’s defenses of inventorship of the ‘389 Patent, patent misuse, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, waiver, acquiescence, prosecution history disclaimer, and laches, and2 denial otherwise; and on the Clix2 Motion (Dkt. No. 518) recommending denial. To the R&R on the Pagano Motion, Plaintiffs have filed Objections (Dkt. No. 511.) To the R&R on the Marking Motion, Plaintiffs have filed Objections (Dkt. No. 513) and so has Samsung (Dkt. No. 520.) To the R&R on the Defenses Motion, Samsung has filed Objections (Dkt. No. 539) and so have Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 541.) To the R&R on the Clix2 Motion, Plaintiffs have filed Objections (Dkt. No. 547.)
After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Pagano Motion, the Marking Motion, the Defenses Motion, and the Clix2 Motion, and the briefing on Samsung’s 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 Plaintiffs’ and Samsung’s Objections and ADOPTS the R&Rs and orders the following: the . Pagano Motion (Dkt. No. 245) is DENIED; the Marking Motion (Dkt. No. 248) is GRANTED as to § 287(a) not applying to the asserted claims of the ‘389 Patent and is DENIED otherwise; the Defenses Motion (Dkt. No. 241) is GRANTED with respect to Samsung’s defenses of inventorship of the ‘389 Patent, patent misuse, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, waiver, acquiescence, prosecution history disclaimer, and laches, and is DENIED otherwise; and the Clix2 Motion (Dkt. No. 251) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of October, 2025.