Short Summary
BOE Technology filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touchscreen display patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. challenges every claim of U.S. Patent No. 9,507,477, which covers a display device with a coordinate input substrate, protective plate, light‑shielding material, and peripheral interconnects. The petitioner contends that the claimed features are obvious when combining well‑known touchscreen and display patents such as Kotera, Miyagawa, Lee, Kida, Sung, Nishihara, and Kim, and that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make these combinations to achieve predictable results. Relying on an expert declaration, BOE requests that the PTAB institute the IPR and cancel all challenged claims.
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 Paneltouch Technologies, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution in the IPR against Immersion Corporation's haptics patent (10627907). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art references, particularly Goldenberg.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,668,430 and jointly request the PTAB keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsPaneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touch‑panel display patent, arguing obviousness over the Nakamura and Hinata ’741 publications.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering smartphone‑based financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over earlier NFC and biometric systems disclosed in Jain and Dua. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s ’656 patent covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description and enablement and that US‑275 anticipates all claims.
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.