Short Summary
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings initiated by Caihong Display Devices against Corning regarding patent 8627684.
Detailed Summary
In this Institution Decision, the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property issued a notice denying the institution of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01137. The denial was made under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), meaning no trial will be held on the challenged claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. vs Corning Incorporated is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLC et al.vsWithrow Networks Inc.
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00775, leaving Withrow Networks’ patent 10,771,849 B2 instituted.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the validity of Inari Medical's '691 patent covering intravascular aspiration systems used for thrombectomy. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
3D Systems Corporation et al.vsIntrepid Automation, Inc.
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Intrepid Automation’s ’301 patent covering multi‑projector DLP additive manufacturing. The petition relies on three grounds of anticipation and obviousness using prior art from Shkolnik, Sekine, and Greene.
Texas Instruments IncorporatedvsGreenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments petitioned to challenge Greenthread’s semiconductor patent and sought joinder with a related IPR. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and granted both institution and joinder, merging the proceeding into IPR2023-01242.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al.vsMasaba, Inc.
Masaba seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that upheld an obviousness finding on its aggregate transferring system patent. The patent owner contends the Board ignored critical real‑world evidence and mis‑qualified the petitioner’s expert.
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.