Texas Jury Awards $66.8M in LCD Patent Case Against BOE Tech

Case Background

Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, both Irish-registered licensing entities, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Chinese display manufacturer BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The case was assigned to United States District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with a jury trial commencing on January 9.

Cause

The Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint on November 8, 2023, alleging that BOE Technology infringed six patents covering various aspects of LCD technology. The patents at issue stemmed from innovations developed by Japanese inventors and were later assigned to the Irish-registered licensing entities. By the time the case went to trial, the dispute focused on three specific patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,705,948 titled "Liquid Crystal Display Device," U.S. Patent No. 8,223,093 titled "Electro-Optical Device, Electronic Apparatus, and Projection Display," and U.S. Patent No. 10,181,462 titled "Semiconductor Device, Display Device and Electronic Apparatus."

Injury

The Plaintiffs claimed that BOE Technology manufactured and sold LCD panels and modules that incorporated their patented technology without obtaining proper licenses. The accused products included display components supplied to major electronics companies including HP Inc. and LG Electronics Inc. for use in monitors and televisions sold in the United States. The Plaintiffs argued that BOE Technology continued its infringing conduct despite receiving multiple notices about the patents beginning in January 2020.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiffs sought monetary damages in the form of reasonable royalties for the unauthorized use of their patented technology. They initially sought a permanent injunction against BOE Technology's continued infringement but later withdrew that request following the jury verdict.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiffs: Longitude Licensing Limited | 138 East LCD Advancements Limited

Defendant: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The Plaintiffs presented evidence that licensing discussions between the parties began in January 2020 when 138 East sent BOE Technology a letter identifying the patents. Technical presentations followed in April 2021, and additional correspondence occurred in September and November 2023. The Plaintiffs argued that BOE Technology's continued sales despite this knowledge demonstrated willful infringement.

Claims

Infringement of the '948 Patent: The Plaintiffs alleged that BOE Technology's LCD panels infringed claim 1 of this patent, which covered specific liquid crystal display device configurations.

Infringement of the '093 Patent: The Plaintiffs claimed that the accused products incorporated technology protected by claim 1 of this patent relating to electro-optical devices.

Infringement of the '462 Patent: The Plaintiffs asserted that BOE Technology violated claims 1 and 2 of this patent covering semiconductor device technology used in display devices.

Defense

BOE Technology denied all infringement allegations and filed counterclaims seeking declarations that the asserted patents were invalid and not infringed. The company argued that the asserted patent claims failed to comply with various requirements under Title 35 of the United States Code, including sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. BOE Technology also raised defenses based on marking requirements, damages limitations, and equitable doctrines including waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel. The company contested venue in the Eastern District of Texas and challenged whether the Plaintiffs had provided proper notice of infringement.

Jury Verdict

The jury trial commenced on January 9, 2026, and concluded with the unanimous verdict on January 15, 2026. The jury found that the Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that BOE Technology infringed all asserted claims. The jury rejected BOE Technology's invalidity defenses, finding that the Defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims were invalid.

The jury awarded the Plaintiffs $29,717,789 for infringement of the '948 Patent, $7,429,449 for infringement of the '093 Patent, and $29,717,789 for infringement of the '462 Patent. The total award reached $66,865,027. The jury also found that BOE Technology's infringement of all three patents was willful.

Judge Gilstrap entered final judgment on January 27, 2026. Although the jury found willful infringement, the Court elected not to enhance the damages award. The Plaintiffs withdrew their request for a permanent injunction following the verdict. The Court declared the Plaintiffs the prevailing party and entitled to recover costs from the Defendant.

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