Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.

IPR2024-00855

Samsung Display’s IPR petition challenging Pictiva’s display patent was denied after the Director affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial of institution, leaving the patent intact.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00855
Decision Date
5 July 2024
Filing Date
5 July 2024

Detailed Summary

In IPR2024-00855, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. sought inter partes review of claims 1‑5 and 8‑14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,314,547 B2, asserting that the Igarashi publication constituted prior art under pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The PTAB Board denied institution, invoking discretionary factors from the Fintiv precedent. The Director conducted a sua sponte review, correcting the Board’s statutory interpretation of § 102(b) and § 363 but ultimately upheld the Board’s denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). No claims were instituted or found unpatentable, and the petition was dismissed.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. vs Pictiva Displays International Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00283

Ajinomoto Co., Inc.vsAbTis Co., Ltd.

Ajinomoto has filed an IPR petition challenging AbTis’s U.S. Patent 11,896,675 covering site‑specific antibody‑drug conjugates. The petitioner alleges lack of written description, improper priority, and that all 13 claims are anticipated or obvious over several pre‑grant publications and conference disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of every claim.

patentIPR2024-00616

Teladoc Health, Inc.vsData Health Partners, Inc.

Teladoc Health, Inc. challenges the validity of Data Health Partners' patent (11144554) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the goal-tracking system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Douglas, Wager, Chitiveli, Klotsche, and Koh, to invalidate numerous claims related to client/patient progress tracking in healthcare.

patentIPR2025-00661

Liberty Energy Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC et al.

Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,459,863 covering electric‑powered multi‑plunger fracturing pump systems. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references, chiefly Fischer, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patentIPR2025-00806

Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC

Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB discretionary denial that allowed review of its expired CDN patent. The petition argues the decision conflicts with settled‑expectations precedent and improperly weighed Fintiv factors. Google seeks reversal and denial of institution.

patentIPR2025-01251

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent resulted in the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call