Short Summary
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung Display’s ‘164 patent, arguing the Board ignored a full Fintiv analysis after a guidance memo was rescinded.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for Director Review, Pictiva Displays International Ltd. challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute an Inter Partes Review of claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,723,164 B2. The Patent Owner contends that the Board relied on a now‑rescinded Sotera Stipulation Guidance Memo to bypass a comprehensive discretionary‑denial analysis under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and the six‑factor Fintiv framework. Citing the early district‑court trial date, substantial parallel‑court investment, and recent USPTO policy changes, Pictiva argues that all factors favor denial of institution and seeks Director Review to vacate the Institution Decision.
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. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al.vsLithiumHub Technologies, LLC
LithiumHub Technologies and two Shenzhen firms settled IPR2025‑00822 concerning a solid‑state lithium battery patent, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.
Zaxcom submitted a corrected response in IPR2025‑00231, fixing a misquoted exhibit reference and asking the Board to remove the earlier filing. No substantive changes were made to the arguments.
The Integration Group of America, Inc.vsSitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,342,078. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a final written decision.
Qorvo, Inc.vsCornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy favoring settlements.
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.