BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

IPR2025-01545

The PTAB held that Samsung Display’s OLED pixel‑arrangement patent claims 1,4‑10,13 and 15 are obvious over prior art, while claim 2 remains patentable.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01545
Judge(s)
Jameson Lee, Terrence W. McMILLIN, John A. HUDALLA
Decision Date
23 September 2025

Detailed Summary

In IPR2023‑00988, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reviewed Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent No. 10,854,683 B2 covering a pixel arrangement structure for OLED displays. Petitioners BOE entities argued that the claims were obvious in view of prior‑art references such as Phan, Matthies, Murai and Yamada. The Board found Phan’s disclosure to fairly suggest applicability to OLEDs and concluded that the combination of Phan with Yamada did not render claim 2 obvious. Patent Owner’s secondary‑consideration evidence was deemed of little weight. Ultimately, the Board declared claims 1,4‑10,13 and 15 unpatentable, leaving claim 2 intact, and granted the petitioner’s first motion to strike in part.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. vs Samsung Display Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00854

Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,478,030. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.

patentIPR2025-01331

BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.vsBishop Display Tech LLC

BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Bishop Display Tech’s LED driver patent (U.S. 8,093,830). The petition asserts that prior art references Ghanem, Nishimura, and Tripathi render all five claims obvious under §103. The Board is asked to institute the review and find the claims unpatentable.

patentIPR2026-00221

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsPogona, LLC

Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,058,757, alleging that the pneumococcal vaccine claims are anticipated or obvious in view of Porro, Mekalanos, and Siber. The petition argues examiner error and seeks cancellation of the claims.

patentIPR2025-01391

Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation

Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on §§ 102 and 103 and requests that the PTAB institute the review.

patentIPR2025-01349

Google LLCvsTelcom Ventures LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call