Executive Summary
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.
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
CommScope Technologies LLC et al.vsBelden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Belden Canada ULC et al., challenging claims 1-30 of patent 11740423. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based primarily on the Fukui prior art, focusing on modular cassette configurations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs filed by Samsung, leaving the institution orders in place.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc.vs10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Nanostring Technologies challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,542,554 in a PTAB Petition, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Zhuang, Cai, and Shen. The petitioner asserts the core technology for 3D positional information in nucleic acid imaging was already well-known in biological imaging.
Vicor CorporationvsDelta Electronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Vicor Corporation's IPR against Delta Electronics, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the argument that Petitioner relied on impermissible hindsight bias when combining prior art references for obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
A 2024 study of PTAB final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs often have extensive prior‑art citations and that most unpatentability grounds depend on new prior art introduced during the proceeding, with expert testimony frequently influencing outcomes.
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.