Display technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
132 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 5 · 132 total
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.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all issues. The Board is asked to dismiss the case under statutory provisions for settlement.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Pictiva’s request for Director Review. The petitioner emphasizes that the Sotera stipulation and prior guidance make a discretionary denial inappropriate.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung Display’s ‘164 patent, arguing the Board ignored a full Fintiv analysis after a guidance memo was rescinded.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google’s IPR against a 7,454,056 LCD patent was terminated after the Patent Owner disclaimed all remaining claims, prompting the Board to enter an adverse judgment against the owner.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB denied BOE Technology Group’s request for rehearing of its denied institution of an IPR on claims 7‑13 and 15‑20 of U.S. Patent 9,557,606. The Board held that the petitioner failed to define “wiring line” and did not show a reasonable likelihood of success.
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.
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.
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.
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.Optronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes in an ITC investigation concerning OLED display modules, prompting a joint motion to terminate the case.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of a PTAB decision, contending that BOE’s undisclosed state‑linked controller violates RPI requirements. The petition cites recent Director policy that makes such omissions fatal. The request seeks vacatur of the 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 end the case under statutory settlement provisions.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Optronic Sciences LLC seeks Director Review to vacate the Board’s decision in IPR2024-01130, arguing that BOE’s disclosed controller, BEH, makes the RPI issue unresolved. The petition cites recent Director memoranda that shift the burden to the petitioner to identify all RPIs.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation over OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to challenge Optronic Sciences LLC's '733 patent, leading to its institution at the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that claims related to OLED/AMOLED pixel structures are invalid under 102 (anticipation) and 103 (obviousness). This moves the dispute into a detailed examination of prior art combinations in display technology.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,650,780 covering a display apparatus that uses USB and wireless LAN. The petition relies on the Lawther prior‑art reference to argue obviousness of claims 1‑11, 13, and 15‑20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness law on two grounds involving Kurashina/Sato and Murade‑109/Murade‑125 references. The petitioner contends that universal motivations and known techniques provide sufficient motivation to combine the references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The USPTO denied BOE Technology’s request for a Director Review of the institution denial of its challenge to U.S. Patent 7,502,079, keeping the original denial in place.
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.