Executive 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.
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
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al.vsStellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera patents against a Director Review request. The company argues that the PTAB must honor prior USPTO guidance and a Sotera stipulation, rejecting any discretionary denial.
AT&T Corp et al.vsDaingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies defends its 5G random‑access patent against an IPR petition by AT&T and partners, arguing that the cited Lee1 and Lee2 references do not disclose the claimed power‑control features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
Under Armour, Inc.vsAthalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully secured institution of IPR against Athalonz's patent (11,013,291) for athletic footwear. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over prior art reference Kim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 9,064,764 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, also requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al.vsForas Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, ZF Active Safety, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, filing a joint motion to withdraw the IPR. The Board terminated the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
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.