IPR2023-00987

I'll start by researching this IPR and the '803 patent.

Case Overview — IPR2023-00987 (U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803)

Important framing correction first. Despite the "patent infringement litigation" framing in the request, the case metadata for this matter is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — an administrative validity proceeding, not a district court infringement action. There is therefore no district/division assignment or Article III judge; the panel is composed of Administrative Patent Judges, and the "venue" question is instead one of PTAB discretionary-denial practice (§ 314(a), Fintiv) and its interaction with any co-pending district court or ITC case. The PTAB's own docketing (P-TACTS) is the authoritative source for the panel composition, and I was not able to retrieve that record in this session, so I will not name judges.

The patent and the technology. U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803 is titled, per foreign counterpart/family listings, a "pixel arrangement structure for an organic light-emitting display device" — i.e., a display-panel architecture patent claiming how the red, green, and blue (and possibly white) sub-pixels of an OLED/active-matrix OLED panel are geometrically arranged and driven. This is a panel-manufacturing patent, not a handset- or software-level patent, which is significant: the natural defendants are display-panel makers (and, secondarily, the device OEMs and retailers who incorporate their panels), and the natural accused products are OLED panels and the phones/monitors/TVs containing them. The Chinese trade press coverage that surfaced in my search lists US 9,818,803 among the patents in the Samsung Display ↔ BOE U.S. enforcement dispute (EET-China, "三星、京东方在美国激烈互诉"), which is consistent with the patent being a Samsung Display asset directed to OLED sub-pixel layout. I could not, however, retrieve a primary source (the face of the patent, Google Patents, or USPTO assignment records) confirming the current assignee of record, so the ownership attribution should be treated as strongly indicated but not verified.

Parties, posture, and why it matters. The docket-number range places IPR2023-00987 among petitions filed in roughly mid-2023, which fits the pattern of defensive/counter-assertion IPRs filed by BOE against Samsung Display's U.S. OLED portfolio after Samsung Display opened U.S. fronts against BOE — a Section 337 ITC investigation plus parallel district court suits — and BOE responded both in Chinese courts and at the PTAB. If that alignment is correct, the posture is a classic two-front war: an operating-company-vs-operating-company (not NPE) dispute between the two largest AMOLED panel suppliers, where the IPR track runs in parallel with the ITC and district court tracks and where the petitioner's incentive is to knock out the asserted panel-layout claims before the ITC issues a limited exclusion order. That makes the case notable for supply-chain reasons — an exclusion order or injunction touching OLED panels would ripple through every handset, tablet, and monitor OEM sourcing those panels — and for the strategic use of IPRs as a counterweight to Section 337 proceedings. However, I cannot confirm from a primary record that BOE (or any specific entity) is the petitioner in IPR2023-00987, nor that the '803 patent is the challenged patent in that proceeding. The prior case summary reached the same conclusion, and my searches did not close that gap: the number appears only in aggregated Google Patents litigation metadata, and the PTAB petition documents that would name the real parties in interest did not surface.

Verification gaps and next steps. To convert the above from well-sourced context plus inference into a verified case profile, the following should be pulled directly: (1) the P-TACTS petition and institution documents for IPR2023-00987 (real parties in interest, § 102/103 grounds, challenged claims, panel); (2) the '803 patent's USPTO assignment history to confirm assignee of record; (3) the ITC docket (the Samsung Display AMOLED complaint against BOE and downstream retailers) and the corresponding E.D. Tex. district court docket to identify the co-pending litigation and any § 314(a)/Fintiv stipulation; and (4) any Federal Circuit appeal if a final written decision issued. Until (1) and (2) are confirmed against USPTO records, the petitioner identity, the challenged-claim set, and the outcome should be reported as unverified — the "Final Written Decision" status in the metadata is itself unexplained, since a final written decision can reflect claims upheld, claims cancelled, or a proceeding terminated after institution.

I'll research this. Note upfront: the metadata frames this as IPR2023-00987 (a PTAB proceeding), not a district court case — so I'll verify what that IPR actually is, and whether there's an underlying district court litigation to trace.

Bottom line

I was not able to verify this case, and I will not reconstruct a timeline I cannot source. After two rounds of searching, nothing in the public web record I could reach confirms that IPR2023-00987 exists as captioned, identifies a petitioner, or ties it to U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803. The tool budget for this session is exhausted, so the honest answer is a scoped "not established" rather than a synthesized narrative.

There is also a framing problem worth flagging before the timeline: IPR2023-00987 is a PTAB proceeding, not a patent infringement litigation. An IPR has no complaint, answer, counterclaims, Markman order, JMOL, or verdict. If you want a litigation timeline, the IPR is at most a parallel proceeding to some district court case — and that case has not been identified.

What is actually verified

Search results returned only unrelated matters with superficially similar numbers — e.g., Mullen Industries v. Apple (N.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-00437, IPRs 2023-00087/-00098/-00117/-00149) and ASSA ABLOY v. Urban Intel (IPR2023-00815/-00816/-00817) — none of which concern the '803 patent. Those are noise, not evidence.

One unverified lead worth chasing

A single Chinese-language industry article (EET-China) discussing the Samsung–BOE U.S. patent war refers to US9818803 as an "organic light-emitting display device pixel arrangement structure" (有机发光显示装置的像素排列结构) patent:

• https://www.eet-china.com/mp/a409163.html

If that identification is right, the '803 patent is a Samsung Display OLED pixel-arrangement patent, and the plausible parallel district court litigation would be the Samsung Display v. BOE dispute filed in 2023 (E.D. Tex./D. Del.), with BOE (or Samsung, depending on posture) as petitioner. I am treating this as a hypothesis requiring confirmation, not a finding. I have not verified the assignee, the title, the petitioner, or that any IPR on the '803 patent reached a Final Written Decision. Do not put this in a client memo without pulling the patent front page and the PTAB docket.

Why the requested timeline can't be populated

For an IPR, the correct procedural skeleton is statutory, not case-specific (35 U.S.C. §§ 314(b), 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.107):

1. Petition filed + PO preliminary response (due 3 months after notice of filing date accorded).
2. Institution decision (statutory deadline 6 months from petition filing).
3. Patent Owner Response → Petitioner Reply → PO Sur-reply.
4. Oral hearing (if requested).
5. Final Written Decision (statutory deadline 12 months from institution, extendable by 6 months for good cause).

Mapping FWD timing back from your metadata: an IPR numbered 2023-00987 (petitions in that serial range were generally filed mid-2023) would typically institute around late 2023/early 2024 and reach FWD around late 2024 into 2025. That arithmetic is generic and must not be reported as this case's dates. Which claims were instituted, which were found unpatentable, and whether a § 315(e) estoppel attached are all unknown — and those are the only facts that give the IPR any bearing on a district court case.

Verification roadmap (in order of yield)

1. PTAB P-TACTS / PTAB Center — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ — search the proceeding number directly. This is the authoritative source and will settle petitioner, patent, institution date, and FWD in one pass.
2. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board API / Developer Hub — developer.uspto.gov — bulk endpoint for petition and decision metadata; best for confirming whether the FWD actually issued.
3. USPTO Patent Center for the '803 patent — confirms assignee, title, and every paper in the patent's file wrapper, including any certificate cancelling claims (a cancelled-claims certificate is the tell that a FWD invalidated claims and no appeal followed).
4. Google Patents → "Also published as"/legal events for US9818803 — trace back to the source of the association flagged in the prior summary.
5. CourtListener/RECAP and Docket Alarm — search "9,818,803" across district courts to identify the actual infringement case, if any; then pull the docket for the stay/estoppel history.
6. Federal Circuit docket — if a FWD issued, check for a notice of appeal within 63 days; a Rule 36 affirmance or dismissal would be the final disposition.
7. Lex Machina / Darts-IP — to catch any settlement that ended the district case before judgment, which PACER alone often won't characterize.

Recommendation

Before any further analysis, resolve two threshold questions: (1) does IPR2023-00987 exist and name the '803 patent, and (2) is there an underlying infringement action? If the answer to (1) turns out to be "no" — i.e., Google Patents mis-linked the proceeding — then the entire premise of this entry collapses and should be corrected at the source rather than written up. I'd rather hand you an accurate blank than a plausible fabrication.

I'll research this. Note up front: IPR2023-00987 is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement case — so "plaintiff" maps to the petitioner (and the patent owner is the respondent). Let me verify the parties and counsel of record.

Threshold correction: this is an IPR, not an infringement case

IPR2023‑00987 is an inter partes review at the PTAB, so there is no "plaintiff." The party in the plaintiff-side (challenger) role is the petitioner, and the "defendant-side" party is the patent owner. I therefore read your request as: who represents the petitioner, Mianyang BOE, in IPR2023‑00987? I flag below where that differs from the question you may actually have meant (counsel for Samsung Display as plaintiff in the parallel district court case).

Verified party alignment:

Sources: 90 Fed. Reg. 8034, 8036 (Jan. 23, 2025) (citing Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., IPR2023‑00987, FWD (Jan. 6, 2025)); SDC's E.D. Tex. complaint ¶ 42 (noting BOE filed the '803 petition June 21, 2023 and that the Board "uph[e]ld the validity of claim 5"); Fed. Cir. Nos. 25‑1517 through 25‑1521 (appeals of IPR2023‑00987/00988/01075).

Counsel of record for the petitioner (BOE)

Bottom line: I could not verify individual attorney names from the IPR2023‑00987 docket with the access available to me, and I will not guess at them. What the public record does support:

• Entity/firm level (well supported): BOE's PTAB filings in the BOE–Samsung Display IPR family list service on BOE's behalf at BOE‑Samsung‑IPR@mofo.com, i.e., Morrison & Foerster LLP acts for the BOE petitioners. See BOE's mandatory notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 in the related BOE petition (IPR2025‑01545 family), stating: "Petitioner consents to electronic service by email to BOE‑Samsung‑IPR@mofo.com," and identifying BOE Technology Group as RPI with related E.D. Tex. actions Nos. 2:25‑cv‑00412, ‑00426, ‑00430. A retained expert's disclosure in a separate PTAB matter likewise records engagement by "Morrison & Foerster LLP on behalf of BOE (vs. Plaintiff SDC)" in the E.D. Tex. Samsung Display v. BOE actions.
• Individual attorneys (NOT verified): The § 42.8(b)(3) mandatory notices in the IPR2023‑00987 petition (Paper 2) and the parties' updated § 42.8 notices are where lead counsel and back‑up counsel are named, along with pro hac vice admissions. I was unable to retrieve those specific papers, so I cannot responsibly give you names, firm office locations, or experience notes. Any names I produced would be invention, which your instructions forbid.
• In-house: BOE would also have in-house IP counsel of record or supporting, but PTAB practice generally requires a registered practitioner as lead counsel; I found no public identification of BOE in-house counsel for this matter.

Verification path (fast, and definitive):

1. PTAB E2E / PTAB Center docket for IPR2023‑00987 — open the Petition (Paper 2), Patent Owner's Preliminary Response, and any "Updated Mandatory Notices" (papers filed under § 42.8) to read the lead/backup counsel block.
2. Counsel is also listed on the Federal Circuit appeal docket (Nos. 25‑1517/25‑1518/25‑1519/25‑1520/25‑1521), which is public on the CAFC CM/ECF and usually shows full appearances for the BOE appellants.
3. MoFo's PTAB practice page and its press/announcements on the BOE–Samsung Display OLED disputes.

If you actually meant the infringement plaintiff (Samsung Display)

There is a true patent-infringement plaintiff in the related litigation — Samsung Display Co., Ltd., as complainant in ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1351 and plaintiff in Samsung Display Co. v. BOE Technology Group Co. (E.D. Tex. Nos. 2:25‑cv‑00412/‑00426/‑00430; earlier 2:23‑cv‑00426). In the IPR, SDC is the patent owner, not the plaintiff. I likewise did not verify SDC's counsel of record in those matters from the dockets, so I am not naming attorneys there either; the ITC EDIS docket and the E.D. Tex. dockets (via PACER/CourtListener) would supply the appearances. (One tangentially relevant E.D. Tex. filing I saw lists Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and Findlay Craft for BOE Technology Group in an unrelated Panellouch suit — that is a different case and should not be carried over to the SDC–BOE litigation.)

What I would need to complete the table

If you can confirm access to PTAB E2E (or want me to pull the CAFC docket appearances), I can return a full attorney-by-attorney table — name, lead/backup role, firm office, registration number, pro hac vice status, and experience notes (e.g., prior BOE–SDC IPRs, ITC 337‑TA‑1351, and the E.D. Tex. OLED campaign) — with each entry tied to a specific paper or docket entry.

Disclosure: Party identities, the FWD date, and the claim-level outcome above are well sourced. Firm-level attribution of MoFo to BOE rests on BOE's own § 42.8 service designation in the related IPR family and a retained expert's disclosure, not on a document I retrieved from the IPR2023‑00987 docket itself. No individual attorney is named here because I could not verify one.

I'll research counsel in this proceeding. Note up front: IPR2023-00987 is a PTAB inter partes review, so there is no "defendant" — the parties are petitioner and patent owner. I'll identify counsel for both sides, and flag that any label like "defendant's counsel" would be a category error here.

Nothing directly on point yet. Let me try more targeted queries tying the IPR number to the patent, the parties, and PTAB docket aggregators.

Confirmed the proceeding. Now let me pin down the parties' counsel — searching P-TACTS documents, the ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1351 counsel lists, and Federal Circuit appeal dockets.

Counsel of Record — IPR2023-00987: what the record actually supports

Bottom line up front: I was not able to retrieve a verified counsel-of-record list for IPR2023-00987. I found strong, primary-source confirmation of who the parties are and what happened, but the P-TACTS petition documents (mandatory notices, powers of attorney, the FWD) that carry the attorney names did not surface in my searches, and I will not name attorneys I cannot source. Below is (1) a correction to the premise, (2) the verified party alignment that determines whose counsel to look for, (3) the only firm-level attribution I can support, flagged as such, and (4) the exact retrieval path.

---

1. The premise needs correcting: there is no "defendant"

This is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement action. The parties are Petitioner and Patent Owner. There is no defendant, no local counsel, no pro hac vice appearance in a district court, and no PACER docket sheet in the Article III sense. I note also the metadata for this matter lists no adversary — consistent with the prior sections' finding.

2. Verified: the real party alignment (this is the key new finding)

The prior sections flagged that petitioner identity and the '803 linkage were unverified. That gap is now substantially closed:

• IPR2023-00987 is an IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803. Google Patents' citation record for the '803 family quotes the actual papers: "Declaration of P. Morgan Pattison, Exhibit 1003 in Petition for Inter Partes Review for U.S. Pat. No. 9,818,803, Case No. IPR 2023-00987, dated Jun. 21, 2023" and "Patent Owner's Preliminary Response … Case No. IPR2023-00987, dated Oct. 10, 2023." (Google Patents US11980077B2) Petition filed June 21, 2023; POPR October 10, 2023.
• Patent Owner is Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Confirmed by Samsung Display's own mandatory notices filed in a later IPR, which state that the '803 patent "w[as] also the subject of inter partes reviews, Nos. IPR2023-00987, IPR2023-00988, and IPR2023-01075, which are on appeal to the Federal Circuit, Nos. 25-1517, 25-1518, 25-1519, 25-1520, 25-1521." (P-TACTS, IPR2025-01545, Paper 2)
• Petitioner is Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., and the petitions were filed jointly with other Chinese panel makers. The Docket Alarm caption for the parallel '599 patent IPR — same filing wave, same day — reads: "Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd.; [Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Tianma%20Microelectronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., Case IPR2023-00941, U.S. Patent No. 7,414,599." (Docket Alarm) Chinese trade press reports BOE, TCL CSOT, Tianma and Visionox filed simultaneously on June 9, 2023. Caveat: I verified the joint-petitioner caption directly only for -00941, not for -00987; the -00987 caption is a strong inference from the identical filing cluster, not a document I read.

Outcome (also now verified, correcting the "unexplained" FWD status): The Board's Final Written Decision issued January 6, 2025, holding claims 1–4 and 19–21 unpatentable as obvious while claim 5 survived. (企业专利观察, via bdipp.cn; corroborated by SDC's Jan. 8, 2025 notice of supplemental authority to the ITC referencing "the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's final written decisions," 90 FR / Fed. Reg. Jan. 23, 2025.) Appeals are pending at the Federal Circuit, Nos. 25-1517–25-1521.

3. Counsel — what I can and cannot support

I want to be explicit: I am not naming lead counsel, backup counsel, or any individual attorney for IPR2023-00987, because I did not retrieve a single document — mandatory notice, power of attorney, or the face of an FWD — that names one. Naming Covington as "counsel" without the PTAB filing would overstate the record, and guessing the BOE side would be fabrication.

One incidental, verified name worth logging: P. Morgan Pattison is Petitioner's declarant (Ex. 1003). He is an expert witness, not counsel.

4. Where the names are, and how to get them in one step

The attorney names are on the public record; my search just didn't reach them:

1. P-TACTS → ptacts.uspto.gov → search "IPR2023-00987" → Petition tab → download the Petition (Paper 2) and Patent Owner's Power of Attorney / Mandatory Notices. The § 42.10(b) power of attorney page lists lead and backup counsel with registration numbers and firm addresses — exactly the format visible in the analogous documents my search did retrieve.
2. FWD, Paper ~40 (Jan. 6, 2025) — the caption block and signature block give the trial counsel who argued.
3. Fed. Cir. Nos. 25-1517–25-1521 — docket via PACER/CM/ECF; the docketing notice and entry of appearance list appellate counsel (likely different from PTAB counsel).
4. ITC EDIS, Inv. No. 337-TA-1351 — for the parallel-track counsel, which the -00941 discovery motion shows was actively coordinated with IPR counsel ("Samsung Display's IPR counsel work with Samsung Display's litigation counsel").

Recommended handling: report counsel as "not yet verified" in the case profile, with the firm-level Covington indication labeled as ITC counsel only. Note also the two-front coordination point already in the case summary — the -00941 motion for additional discovery confirms the Board itself treated the ITC and IPR teams as distinct but coordinated, so ITC counsel names should not be carried over to the PTAB caption without the P-TACTS confirmation.

One flag on the metadata: the prior summary said the FWD status was "unexplained." It is now explained — a merits FWD on Jan. 6, 2025, mixed outcome (claims 1–4, 19–21 cancelled; claim 5 upheld), with appeals pending. That materially changes the case posture: the '803 patent is not dead, and claim 5 remains a live ITC/discrict-court exposure, which is presumably why the E.D. Va. case was dismissed with prejudice only in November 2025 after the ITC track resolved.