Short Summary
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑circuit patent (US 11,574,991). The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TFT layouts, capacitor structures, and pixel designs. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided to support unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025‑01479, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. seeks inter‑partes review of Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s U.S. Patent No. 11,574,991, which claims an organic light‑emitting diode (OLED) display with a complex arrangement of thin‑film transistors, voltage lines, scan lines, data lines, and storage capacitors. The petitioner contends that each of the thirty claims is obvious in view of a combination of prior‑art references—including Liu, Udagawa, Nakayama, Chung, Murade, Noguchi‑I, Kim, Noguchi‑II, and Jeong—by demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the claimed structures. The petition provides exhaustive claim‑by‑claim mappings, motivation‑to‑combine arguments, and references to the petitioner’s expert declaration, aiming to render the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim constructions are asserted, and the proceeding is currently at the petition stage.
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
LG Electronics, Inc. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,421,188. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
MediaTek Inc. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,854,077, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on Headwater’s patent 11,096,055. Headwater’s response argues the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper, that discretionary denial is statutorily authorized, and that no notice‑and‑comment rulemaking was required.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review of six IPRs targeting its audio‑pod patent. The PTAB will decide whether a limited review is permitted, with the patent owner allowed a brief response but no new evidence.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,985,943, which covers FPGA‑based programmable logic devices for data‑flow processing in servers. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
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.