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
Dyson Technology Limited et al.vsOmachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,776,120 covering a cyclonic vacuum cleaner with a moveable divider plate. The petition alleges lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. Discretionary factors are cited to favor institution.
Dentsply Sirona Inc.vsOsseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent after finding a reasonable likelihood that Kavo Dental Technologies (as represented by Dentsply Sirona) would prevail on at least one claim.
FreightCar America, Inc.vsNational Steel Car Limited
National Steel Car seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its freight‑car patent, arguing the petitioner lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that continuing would waste Board resources.
Micron Technology Inc. et al.vsPalisade Technologies, LLP
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01008, leaving the original denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCM HK LIMITED
The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.
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.