Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01477 concerning Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent No. 11,500,496, which covers thin‑film transistor OLED display technologies, BOE Technology Group and Samsung reached a comprehensive settlement that resolves every issue raised in the proceeding. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, citing compliance with 35 U.S.C. §§317(a) and (b) and emphasizing public‑policy benefits of settlement. The motion includes a confidential settlement agreement (Ex. 1056) and requests the Board to dismiss the case before any merits are decided, thereby conserving resources and encouraging future settlements in similar patent disputes.
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. et al. vs Samsung Display Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TikTok Inc. et al.vsNTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving NTECH’s patent 9,923,947. The Board limited the Patent Owner’s response to five pages and a five‑day deadline, prohibiting new evidence.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech jointly moved to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreements separate from the public patent file.
Meta Platform Inc.vsSterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers' ’217 patent covering email relevance scoring. The petition relies on five obviousness grounds using Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston references. No secondary considerations are asserted.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied a petition for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00611, which upheld Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent. The denial applies to three related IPRs as well.
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.