Display Technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
33 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 33 total
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Patent No. 9,330,593 B2 in the OLED circuitry space. The Board found sufficient showing for institution based on Petitioner's analysis of Tobita as prior art under §102(b).
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,079 regarding Active-Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays (AMLCD). The petitioner asserts that all three claimed elements are obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This filing initiates a formal PTAB proceeding against the patent owner.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. initiated an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,557,606 related to LCD manufacturing methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). BOE argues that combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied the Petitioner's request for rehearing regarding an institution decision. The Board upheld its claim construction of a micro-mirror array patent, finding that each set of mirrors must have a differing cone angle offset.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully challenged five claims of Optronic Sciences LLC's '9406733 patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds. The Board issued an institution decision after construing the key term 'auxiliary electrode' to include bus lines and wires.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,949,389 unpatentable. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on Kijima and Suzuki, emphasizing that the prior art did not meet the agreed-upon definition of 'planarization layer' which requires suppressing underlying topography.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over multiple combinations of prior art references for several claims related to OLED encapsulation methods. The Board adopted the parties' agreed-upon construction for 'planarization layer,' which focused on interrupting defect propagation. Claims 34–37 and 40–46 were ultimately found unpatentable.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 13 claims unpatentable by preponderance of the evidence. The Board found that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Weaver combined with Lee ’053 and Song.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 5 and 6 of patent 7168842 unpatentable based on anticipation (Uekusa) and obviousness (Uekusa/Isoda). Claims 7-9 were not proven unpatentable due to claim clarity issues.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
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.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The decision centered on the combination of prior art references in Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) technology, specifically regarding dopants and encapsulation methods.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found that the majority of claims (1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18) were unpatentable over Reiner and Takahara based on obviousness. However, Claims 2, 8, and 14 survived the challenge, indicating a mixed outcome for the Petitioner.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence for grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Fujikawa, Kang, and Ikeguchi.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against the LCD display patent was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient rationale for combining prior art references. The Board determined the obviousness arguments were conclusory and lacked objective support.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group successfully navigated the initial hurdles in its IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, leading to the Board instituting the challenge. The Board found sufficient preliminary evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (102 and 103) concerning liquid crystal display protective circuits.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Optronic Sciences LLC's patent, leading to a trial decision. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding at least one challenged claim (5-9).
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
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Optronic Sciences, LLC regarding display technology patents. The Board granted institution after a favorable claim construction of 'auxiliary electrode,' finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key grounds.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully navigated a discretionary denial challenge in the IPR, leading to the institution of claims 34-46. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success based on Yamazaki/Fujimori combinations for OLED encapsulation technology.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully challenged Pictiva Displays' patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combinations of prior art references were sufficient to invalidate several key display technology claims.
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
The PTAB denied Innolux Corporation's IPR petition against Phenix Longhorn LLC, citing the proximity of a parallel district court trial date to the statutory deadline.
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Innolux Corporation against Phenix Longhorn, LLC regarding LCD Gamma Correction technology. The denial was based primarily on Petitioner's failure to properly construct 'means-plus-function' limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB denied TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s request to institute IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s display apparatus patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and the petitioner's relative lateness in filing.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The Petitioner challenges claims of the '9330593 patent using multiple obviousness grounds against various prior art references, including Kimura and Shin/Sasaki. The petition requests institution, arguing that co-pending litigation does not warrant discretionary denial.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,558,223 held by Pictiva Displays International Ltd. The challenge asserts that the patent claims relating to organic electronic components are obvious over prior art references Werner and Ma. This action targets core technology in the high-value Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) market.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging Optronic Sciences LLC's LED backlighting patents (7168842) based on anticipation and obviousness. The challenge targets claims 3-9, arguing that combinations of prior art references like Uekusa and Isoda render the claimed technology unpatentable.
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.
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 Technology Group Co., LTD filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,263,509 held by Optronic Sciences, LLC. The petition asserts that the patent claims related to OLED pixel structure are anticipated (102) or obvious (103) over various combinations of prior art references. This challenges the validity of key display technology patents.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.