US PTAB IP Litigation

Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC

· IPR2024-01150

Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,632,815 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01154

Reolink Digital Technology withdrew its petition to challenge KT Imaging's U.S. Patent No. 8,314,481, ending the inter partes review before any substantive proceedings began.

Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01155

Reolink Digital Technology filed a motion to withdraw its petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,004,602. The patent owner, KT Imaging, did not oppose, and the Board was asked to terminate the proceeding at its early stage.

Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC

· IPR2024-01150

Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations during an IPR.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

Samsung Display requests Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found Pictiva’s OLED claim unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored a jury verdict that upheld the claim and presented inconsistent claim‑construction arguments.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

Samsung Display argues that the Board’s obviousness findings for Pictiva’s OLED patent are sound and that no claim‑construction inconsistency exists, seeking denial of Pictiva’s Director review request.

PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.

· IPR2024-01100

PrimeSource Building Products and National Nail settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,378,218 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

Samsung Display has been given five business days to respond to Pictiva's Director Review request in IPR2024-01095, with a strict 15‑page limit and no new evidence allowed.

PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.

· IPR2024-01100

Court decision.

patent null · Mar 7, 2024

Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.

· PGR2024-00042

Catalyst OrthoScience seeks a PTAB post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of the term “central channel.” The petition also asserts that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01155

Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging KT IMAGING US, LLC's patent (8004602) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims related to integrated lens modules and image sensor structures are anticipated by combinations of prior art references like Imaoka/Seo and Ma/Wood.

Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--

· IPR2024-01154

Reolink Digital challenges KT Imaging's '481 image sensor patent in IPR, arguing the claims are anticipated by Hsu and Chen, or obvious over Chou and Hsu.

Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC

· IPR2024-01150

Curtis Industries filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,632,815 regarding air-conditioned lawn mower cabs. The petition asserts obviousness based on combining prior art references like Toro Video and Judice to show that repositioning the A/C unit was a predictable design improvement.

patent null · Mar 7, 2024

PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.

· IPR2024-01100

PrimeSource Building Products filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,378,218 owned by National Nail, Corp. The Petitioner asserts that the claim is unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness).

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

patent denied · Mar 7, 2024

Samsung Display challenges 19 claims of Pictiva Displays' OLED patent (11828425) based on anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The petitioner argues that key features, such as specialized doping and flexible encapsulation, were already disclosed in prior art references.

Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.

· PGR2024-00042

Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.'s Post-Grant Review petition against Shoulder Innovations, Inc. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a 'compelling merits' showing for either obviousness (103) or indefiniteness (112).

patent instituted · Mar 7, 2024

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

patent Final Written Decision · Mar 7, 2024

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s patent, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board focused on Ground IX, finding a reasonable likelihood that Claim 9 is unpatentable over Suzuki and Caldwell regarding OLED technology combined with touch sensing functionality.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.

patent final · Mar 7, 2024

The Board found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining known OLED elements, such as specific dopants or encapsulation layers, would have been routine and predictable to a skilled artisan.

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.