US PTAB IP Litigation

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC

patent terminated or settled · Dec 7, 2024

BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential.

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC

patent denied · Dec 7, 2024

BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading to withdrawal of Director Review requests for three proceedings.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC

The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences’ request to revisit the institution of its IPR against BOE Technology Group, finding no extraordinary circumstances and that the new Director’s guidance did not apply.

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC

BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that BOE is the sole real party in interest and that the patent owner's RPI arguments are untimely and unsupported.

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC

patent denied · Dec 7, 2024

Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of an IPR against its patent, arguing that BOE’s state‑linked controller Beijing Electronics Holdings was not disclosed as a real party in interest. The patent owner cites recent Director decisions that tighten RPI requirements and seeks vacatur of the Board’s decision and termination of the IPR.

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC

patent terminated or settled · Dec 7, 2024

The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences LLC’s request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01132. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and applied the new Director’s Memorandum, leaving the institution in place.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC

patent terminated or settled · Dec 7, 2024

BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion, citing good cause and confidentiality considerations.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC

Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation into OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board is asked to grant termination under settlement‑friendly policy.

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC

BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences filed a joint notice confirming that the IPR oral hearing transcript and final written decision will be made fully public, and that specific exhibits will not remain sealed.

patent null · Dec 7, 2024

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-01165

Arashi Vision Inc. (Insta360) has challenged GoPro's video stabilization patent via an IPR petition, arguing that the claims are obvious.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-01164

Arashi Vision (Insta360) challenged GoPro's '840 patent in the PTAB, arguing that numerous claims related to video stabilization are obvious. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references—including Bell and Shi—teach how to improve motion blur reduction and utilize temporal horizons. This petition challenges 21 specific claims based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).

patent null · Dec 7, 2024

Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.

· IPR2024-01163

Tommy John, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,834,974 held by Pakage Apparel, Inc., asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Kitsch and Brocks. The petitioner argues that combining elements from these references in the men's underwear/genital support garment field renders all challenged claims unpatentable.

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD initiated an IPR challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's OLED display patent (7,586,121). The petitioner asserts that the claimed structural and manufacturing elements are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Anzai and Yamazaki.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC

BOE challenged Optronic Sciences' LCD sealant patents under anticipation and obviousness grounds (102/103). The PTAB found the petition met compelling merits standards, resulting in institution of the IPR.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-01165

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Arashi Vision against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood that the '840 patent claims are obvious in light of prior art references Zhou and Cai.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-01164

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Arashi Vision against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood that the '840 patent claims are obvious in view of Bell and Shi. The Board adopted a functional construction of the key parameter.

Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.

· IPR2024-01163

Tommy John, Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Pakage Apparel's '974 patent based on obviousness over prior art combinations (Kitsch/Brocks). The PTAB declined discretionary denial because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and failed to demonstrate material error in prosecution history.

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Optronic Sciences LLC's patent 7586121, challenging its validity based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for the Petitioner across all challenged claims (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 2, 6).

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC

patent Final Written Decision · Dec 7, 2024

BOE Technology Group successfully initiated an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's LCD sealant patterns patent, securing institution based on favorable claim construction. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of key terms like 'predetermined material layer,' significantly advancing the petitioner's position in this complex display technology dispute.

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-01165

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,840 because the Petitioner failed to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board specifically rejected obviousness arguments related to 'stickiness parameter' and 'low-light high-pass parameter.'

patent final · Dec 7, 2024

Tommy John, Inc. v.Pakage Apparel, Inc.

· IPR2024-01163

The PTAB found that the challenged claims (1-13, 15, 16) were unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Board accepted Petitioner's argument that Kitsch satisfied key limitations like 'stretch panel,' and broadly construed material requirements to favor the petitioner.

patent final · Dec 7, 2024

Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.

· IPR2024-01164

The PTAB issued a final decision rejecting the Petitioner's arguments of obviousness against 21 claims related to video stabilization and motion blur compensation. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'low-light high-pass parameter,' finding that the prior art did not disclose this specific functional element.

patent Final Written Decision · Dec 7, 2024

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC