Patent Cases

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01498

BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01498 concerning U.S. Patent 10,720,483 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01499

BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01499 concerning U.S. Patent 9,299,730. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing that the Board has not decided the merits and that settlement serves public policy interests.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01476

BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01476 concerning patent 10,541,279 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the IPR before any merits are decided.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01479

BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,991 covering OLED pixel circuits and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy and saves resources.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01477

BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,500,496 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

Ciena Corporation seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR on patent 8,782,282, alleging violations of statutory and procedural requirements.

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

Ciena’s request for Director Review of a denied inter‑partes review is opposed by K.Mizra, which argues that the Director’s decision is discretionary and non‑reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The response cites Supreme Court precedent to show the petition lacks merit.

patent denied · Aug 31, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01498

Court decision.

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

The USPTO Director denied Ciena's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01362, leaving the denial of institution in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01479

BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑circuit patent (US 11,574,991). The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TFT layouts, capacitor structures, and pixel designs. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided to support unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC

Ciena Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate 22 claims of K. Mizra’s U.S. Patent 8,782,282, asserting they are obvious over prior‑art network‑management systems. The petition relies on Secer and Dinker as the combined teaching.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01499

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's 9,299,730 OLED display patent. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01498

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Samsung Display's OLED‑related patent (US 10,720,483), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under §325(d) or Fintiv.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01476

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Samsung Display’s 10,541,279 B2 OLED touch‑screen patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and lists eight ground combinations covering the entire claim set.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 30, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01477

BOE Technology Group petitions to invalidate Samsung Display’s 11,500,496 OLED touchscreen patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious combinations of prior‑art OLED and touch‑sensor technologies.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01478

BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,990, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 30, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01478

BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,990 covering OLED pixel circuits and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.

patent · Aug 30, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01478

BOE Technology filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s OLED display patent (US 11,574,990). The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.

patent · Aug 30, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2025-01413

BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000398

Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Blankenhorn GmbH

The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court addressed the allocation of costs in provisional measures proceedings under Article 62 EPGÜ concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835, after the matter became moot between the applicant Faro Technologies and the second respondent Blankenhorn GmbH. Both parties agreed the proceedings were resolved, but disputed who should bear the costs. The court declared the proceedings terminated under Rule 360 RoP and ordered Blankenhorn GmbH to bear the costs, finding that the applicant had reasonable grounds to seek court intervention and that Blankenhorn's cease-and-desist undertaking was insufficient.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000397

Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH

Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC (part of the Johnson & Johnson group) sought provisional measures against RiVOLUTiON GmbH, a German distributor of medical products, alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 689 262 relating to staple cartridges for surgical stapling devices. Cilag argued that Rivolution's distribution of infringing products from Bluesail Medical and David Medical, as well as its planned Bariatric Study using these products, constituted patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague, dismissed the application for provisional measures and ordered Cilag to pay EUR 80,000 in interim costs to Rivolution.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000396

City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V., Maars Projecten B.V., Maars Partitioning Systems B.V., Maars France

City Glass and Glazing Private Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 1 651 838 relating to a self-locking glazing system, sued the Maars group of companies for allegedly infringing the patent with their 'Horizon Products' (demountable glass walls). Maars counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) dismissed both the infringement claims and the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered City Glass to pay EUR 24,500 in legal costs and court fees to Maars.