Executive Summary
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.
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
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding a patent on immunotherapy methods. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both 102 and 103, primarily based on the MSI-H Study Record.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Cellco Partnership and other major carriers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation's ’931 patent covering MTC uplink control channel resource allocation, asserting obviousness over standard 3GPP references. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
Wiz, Inc.vsOrca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,775,326, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent, proving that the Eagle prior art anticipates and renders obvious all asserted claims. The PTAB declared every challenged claim unpatentable.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.vsST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,589,329 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
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.
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.