Short Summary
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,391,020, asserting that the claimed LCD wiring configurations were already known in Takenaka, Ito, and Takemura publications, making the claims obvious under §103.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. challenges claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,020, which cover an electro‑optical device with specific LCD panel wiring arrangements for testing electrical connections. BOE contends that the claimed configurations were disclosed in the Takenaka (U.S. patent application 2008/0291379), Ito (Japanese publication 2009168877A), and Takemura (Japanese publication H0643473A) references well before the patent’s priority date, rendering the claims obvious under pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition includes an expert declaration by Dr. Patrick Murphy and argues that the examiner’s failure to cite these references during prosecution warrants cancellation of the entire claim set.
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. vs 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Micron's request for rehearing of its petition to institute an IPR against Netlist's memory‑controller patent, finding that Micron introduced arguments not present in the original petition.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printer force‑detection patent (US 9,168,698) on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Warren, Eshed, Calderon, RepRap forum disclosures, and Napadensky. The petition also addresses discretionary issues under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in the Netlist IPRs, making the Board's decision final.
Bose CorporationvsIngenioSpec, LLC
Court decision.
Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation
Haemonetics Corp. seeks Director review to vacate the institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The Owner argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions and failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) warrant denial. The request cites recent Director precedents to support vacatur.
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.