Display technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
132 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 5 · 132 total
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,991 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled IPR2025-01477 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claim validity was decided.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display jointly settled eight IPR challenges to Patent 10,541,279, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
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.
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.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
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.
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.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
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.
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,990, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,081,503 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung jointly filed a request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent record.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Samsung Display’s ’503 patent covering inclined pads and bumps for LCD displays, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 23 claims of U.S. Patent 7,636,146, asserting that the LCD‑panel features are obvious in view of Kitawada and multiple secondary references.
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate ten claims of Bishop Display Tech’s OLED driver patent, asserting that prior art references Baek, Date, Inomoto, and Sasaki anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition argues the examiner overlooked these references and that no secondary considerations support patentability.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic’s IPR petition covering claims 1,3,4,7,9 of its display‑technology patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution inefficient and prejudicial.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic and Optoma's IPR on its expired projector patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution wasteful and duplicative.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 7, and 8 of Maxell’s 7,159,988 projection‑optics patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of Sinotechnix’s ’952 patent covering LCD backlight panels. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Hong and Lee publications, and over its own admitted prior art, and seeks institution of the review.
Caihong Display Devices, Co., Ltd v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Corning's 9,512,025 patent covering a glass‑ribbon heating cartridge for LCD displays, alleging obviousness over three prior‑art references.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning's 8,642,491 glass‑substrate patent. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue that all 24 claims are either anticipated or obvious. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Maxell’s projector patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art projector documents and manuals.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,391,020, asserting that the claimed LCD wiring configurations were already known in Takenaka, Ito, and Takemura publications, making the claims obvious under §103.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled the IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR record.
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.