Short Summary
Court 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
Visa, Inc.vsCortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP requests Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled 17 claims of its token‑payment patent. The owner contends the Board introduced a new obviousness theory not present in the petition, violating procedural rules and the APA.
Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Office granted institution for IPR2025-01391 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a confidential settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering Apex Beam’s patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al.vsAtossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals successfully secured the institution of IPR against Atossa Therapeutics over a drug polymorph patent (11,261,151), challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness using prior art Liu.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR petition challenges Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.
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.