Samsung Hit With $191M Verdict in OLED Patent Case

Case Background

This legal dispute revolved around claims that two Samsung corporate entities, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), unlawfully used patented technology held by the Plaintiffs, Pictiva Displays International, Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Limited.

The Plaintiffs referred to collectively as Pictiva filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, arguing that Samsung's products incorporated inventions protected by their patents. Pictiva, an Irish corporation, stated that it owned all rights to the patents at the center of the case. The core of the complaint, which Pictiva lodged in late 2023, was to stop Samsung's continued unauthorized use of the patented technology and to recover financial compensation for the damage that use had already caused. The Plaintiffs demanded a trial by jury to decide the facts of the case.

Cause

The central cause of action was patent infringement. The Plaintiffs asserted that Samsung had violated their rights to several specific United States Patents. While the initial complaint filed in October 2023 focused on U.S. Patent Nos. 6,949,389 (the '389 Patent) and 8,314,547 (the '547 Patent), the case eventually involved several asserted patents, which the jury ultimately considered for infringement and damages. The patents in question generally related to OLED (Organic Light-Emitting Diode) display technology.

Injury

The alleged injury to Pictiva was financial. By using the patented technology without permission, Samsung had essentially deprived Pictiva of the licensing fees or royalties it should have received. This unauthorized use caused significant economic damage to the Plaintiffs.

Damages Sought

Pictiva sought to recover monetary damages. The primary demand was for a payment structure known as a reasonable royalty. This figure represented the amount Samsung hypothetically should have paid to license the technology legally. Pictiva also sought a judgment that would declare Samsung’s infringement willful and intentional, which could lead to enhanced, or tripled, damages under patent law.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The Defendants, Samsung, strongly denied all allegations. In their formal answer to the complaint, they laid out a comprehensive defense, insisting that their products did not violate any valid claim of the patents.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Pictiva Displays International, Ltd | Key Patent Innovations Limited.

Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Aviel Menter | Hong Annita Zhong | Jason G Sheasby | Jeffrey Linxwiler | Jie Gao | Michael William Tezyan | Philip J Warrick | Rebecca L. Carson | Jamie H McDole | Phillip Brett Philbin | Jennifer Leigh Truelove | Samuel Franklin Baxter

Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd | Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

• Counsel for Defendant(s): Lance Lin Yang | Austin Buscher | Claire Hausman | D. James Pak | Daniel Benjamin Myerson | Derek Huish | Eva N Edmonds | Gavin Kenneth Snyder | George William MacCabe | Homin Ban | Jeremy Baldoni | John Franklin Bash , III | John Thomas McKee | Melissa J Baily | Olga Slobodyanyuk | Patrick Thomas Schmidt | Patrick James Stafford | Roy Jung | Scott Liscom Watson | Sean S. Pak | Valerie Anne Lozano , I | Yujung Iris Ryu

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Pictiva's lawyers built their case on the idea that Samsung had directly infringed, and also indirectly infringed (through inducing others to infringe), the patents in question by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing certain electronic products. They argued that Samsung had full knowledge of the patents and chose to infringe anyway, making the violation willful.

Defense

Samsung’s defense counsel advanced several arguments to counter the claims. Their main points included:

1. No Infringement: Samsung argued its products did not contain the technology described by the patent claims. The lawyers contended that the way Samsung’s products functioned or were constructed fell outside the legal scope of Pictiva's patents.

2. Patent Invalidity: A crucial defense was the claim that Pictiva's asserted patents were invalid from the start. Samsung maintained that the patents did not meet the legal requirements for patentability, perhaps because the inventions were already known or obvious at the time of filing. If a patent is invalid, it cannot be infringed.

3. Exhaustion/Laches/Estoppel: Samsung also raised various "affirmative defenses" which asserted that the Plaintiffs were legally barred from suing for a variety of reasons, such as delaying their lawsuit too long (laches) or having already sold the right to use the technology (patent exhaustion).

Jury Verdict

The jury, following the lengthy trial and after careful deliberation, returned a verdict on November 3, 2025. The jury's answers on the Verdict Form determined the outcome of this complex case. The jury was required to be unanimous in their findings.

Infringement Findings

The jury addressed the issue of infringement for each of the patents that remained in the case. For a product to infringe, the jury had to find that the product contained all the elements of a patent claim.

The jury found that Samsung had indeed infringed certain claims of some of Pictiva's asserted patents. Specifically, in the questions addressing direct infringement, the jury answered "Yes" for certain claims related to patents like the '547, '223, '164, and '425 Patents, indicating that Samsung's products illegally incorporated the patented technology.

Patent Validity Findings

Equally critical was the jury's decision on the validity of the patents. Samsung’s defense had argued that the patents were invalid.

The jury rejected Samsung's invalidity claims for at least some of the patents. By finding that the patents were valid and enforceable, the jury allowed the infringement findings to stand and opened the door to awarding damages.

Willful Infringement

The Plaintiffs argued that Samsung's infringement was intentional and reckless, a finding known as willful infringement that can lead to enhanced penalties.

The jury found that Samsung's infringement was willful, a finding that grants the presiding judge the discretion to enhance the awarded damages, potentially tripling the amount.

Damages Award

The most significant outcome of the verdict was the financial award. Based on their findings of infringement and validity, the jury determined the amount of reasonable royalty damages owed to Pictiva. The jury awarded damages based on the unauthorized use of the patented technology related to OLED display technology.

The jury awarded a total of $191.4 million in reasonable royalty damages to Pictiva for the infringement of the asserted patents. For each patent where damages were awarded (including the '547, '223, '164, and '425 Patents), the jury indicated that the total amount of $191.4 million was a Lump Sum Royalty. This means the compensation is a single, one-time payment intended to cover past (and potentially future) infringement.

The jury verdict form served as the formal declaration that the Plaintiffs, Pictiva Displays International, Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Limited, prevailed on the core issues of infringement, validity, and willful infringement for certain patents, and were entitled to a specified amount of compensation from the Defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Post-Verdict Activity

Following the verdict, Samsung has publicly indicated its intention to appeal the jury's findings and the associated damages award. An appeal will be filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com