Display technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
132 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 5 · 132 total
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 11,126,025 patent covering in‑cell LCD touch panels, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Kim, Kim II and Yoshida.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its 8,593,580 projection‑type display patent. The owner contends the prior‑art references do not disclose key claim elements and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,593,580 covering a projection-type display apparatus. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds combining prior art such as Ishino, Erchak, Li ’415, Uchiyama, and Bakker, and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Display’s IPR petition against Mullen Industries’ 8,314,547 B2 patent was denied. The Board found insufficient merit and exercised discretion under § 314(a), leaving the patent intact.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Display sought an IPR of Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 B2 display patent. The PTAB denied institution, and the Director affirmed the denial, leaving the patent intact.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate a key display patent was denied by the PTAB. The Director affirmed the Board’s discretion under § 314(a), finding no compelling merits and correcting the Board’s interpretation of pre‑AIA prior‑art rules.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director reviewed the PTAB's denial of institution for Samsung's IPR against Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 patent and affirmed the denial. The Director corrected the Board’s statutory interpretation of pre‑AIA §102(b) but upheld the discretionary denial under §314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its discretionary denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits. The decision upholds the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for rehearing of its IPR petition against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, upholding the Director’s discretionary denial. The Board cited a parallel Samsung district‑court case and the petition’s weak merits as reasons for denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Display’s IPR petition was denied by the PTAB after a Director Review affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial, despite correcting the Board’s statutory analysis of the prior art.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display challenges a patent related to OLED encapsulation claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that combining known prior art references—such as Kijima and Suzuki—renders the claimed methods obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition targets 11 specific claims across four grounds.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389 related to OLED encapsulation technology. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references involving selective deposition and barrier layer methods.
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.
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.
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
Samsung Display and BOE have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes in the ITC investigation of OLED display modules, prompting a joint motion to terminate the case. The parties argue that termination aligns with public interest and statutory authority.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
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
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
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 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.
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).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,224,359 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing overlapping district‑court litigation and weak petition merits. The Director’s discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) was upheld.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Display’s petition to review Pictiva’s ‘547 patent, finding no compelling unpatentability arguments and applying pre‑AIA §102(b) to deem the Igarashi reference prior art.
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC
Innolux files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 5‑6 of the ‘788 LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues no denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
Innolux has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of 12 claims of U.S. Patent 7,233,305 covering gamma‑correction ICs for LCDs, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that earlier procedural deficiencies have been remedied.
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.