Electronic displays — US PTAB Patent Cases
18 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 18 total
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s Institution Decision in an IPR against Samsung Display. The request argues that the Board improperly relied on a now‑rescinded Guidance Memo and over‑emphasized a Sand Revolution stipulation, while under‑considering the imminent district‑court trial.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Hisense USA Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Phenix Longhorn’s LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display’s IPR petition challenging Pictiva’s display patent was denied after the Director affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial of institution, leaving the patent intact.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB held that six of the challenged claims of Samsung Display’s ’593 OLED driver patent are obvious over the Tobita reference, while the remaining claims were upheld.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display contests Pictiva’s request for Director Review, asserting the PTAB correctly found the ’223 patent claims obvious over the Ma reference. The petitioner maintains no inconsistency with district‑court findings and seeks denial of the review.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an inter partes review petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,586,121. The petition relies on the Anzai and Yamazaki OLED display patents to argue anticipation and obviousness of the 121 patent’s claims. A declaration by expert Dean Neikirk supports the statutory grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing discretionary authority and the existence of a parallel district‑court case. The decision rests on the Fintiv factors and statutory discretion.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,500,496 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,991 covering OLED pixel circuits and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy and saves resources.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01476 concerning patent 10,541,279 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the IPR before any merits are decided.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, seeking to store it separately from the patent file and limit access.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled eight related IPRs before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings on the parties' joint motion.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Optronic Sciences' OLED pixel‑driving patent. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Kim406, Kim730, and Senda—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s 7,279,708 OLED display patent. The petition argues that all asserted claims are obvious over four prior‑art references and urges the PTAB to institute the review.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and affiliates filed a joint notice that a redacted version of the PTAB’s final written decision in Samsung Display’s OLED display patent case has been prepared. The redactions protect confidential material while allowing the decision to be filed.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of its display‑panel patent claims after the Board relied on a rescinded Guidance Memo. The owner argues the Board should have applied a full Fintiv analysis given the parallel district‑court trial schedule.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
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.