PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD. et al.

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) involves PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD. as the Patent Owner and SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. as the Petitioners. Pictiva Displays International Ltd. appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) that asserts intellectual property rights related to display technology. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. is a leading global manufacturer of display panels, including OLED and LCD technologies, while [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are well-known global electronics companies that produce a wide array of consumer and industrial electronics, including devices with advanced displays. This IPR was initiated by Samsung to challenge the patentability of claims in U.S. Patent No. 8,723,164, which generally relates to organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display devices. Specifically, the patent describes an OLED display device having a thin-film transistor and methods of fabricating such devices, focusing on improvements in display performance and manufacturing efficiency.

The case, IPR2024-01093, was filed on June 28, 2024, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and concluded with a Final Written Decision on July 8, 2026. The PTAB is a specialized administrative court within the USPTO known for its expertise in patent law and technology, offering a faster and often less expensive alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity. IPRs are a significant procedural tool, particularly for operating companies like Samsung, to challenge patents asserted against them in district court infringement lawsuits, aiming to invalidate patent claims and thus neutralize infringement allegations. The underlying district court litigation that prompted this IPR likely involved Samsung's display products or devices incorporating OLED technology.

This case is notable as it represents a common strategy by major technology companies like Samsung to leverage the PTAB process to defend against patent assertions, particularly from NPEs like Pictiva, in the highly competitive and valuable display technology sector. The outcome of such IPRs can have significant implications for ongoing or potential patent infringement disputes, influencing licensing negotiations and the overall landscape of intellectual property rights in display technologies. The fact that an IPR proceeded to a Final Written Decision underscores the importance of the challenged patent claims to both the patent owner and the petitioners.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2024-01093, "PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD. et al.," challenged U.S. Patent 8,723,164. This IPR was initiated by SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. (Petitioners) against PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD. (Patent Owner). The proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision on July 8, 2026.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

• Filing of IPR Petition: On June 28, 2024, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. filed the petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,723,164.
• Institution Decision: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR on January 23, 2025.
• Parallel District Court Litigation and Jury Verdict: In a parallel district court case, Pictiva Displays International, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (C.A. No. 2:23-CV-00495-JRG) in the Eastern District of Texas, a jury on November 3, 2025, found claim 2 of a related patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,828,425) infringed and not invalid, awarding Pictiva $191 million. While this verdict was for a different patent, the context highlights ongoing litigation between the parties concerning OLED display technology. Another related district court case, Pictiva Displays International, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00532), filed on July 12, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas, involved several patents including 8,723,164. This case was consolidated for all pretrial purposes with a lead case (Pictiva I) on May 29, 2025.
• Director Review Policy Change: In October 2025, USPTO Director John Squires announced that he would personally decide on all IPR and PGR institution decisions, a change intended to address concerns about the PTAB "filling its own docket" and enhance impartiality.
• Final Written Decision (FWD): The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision for IPR2024-01093 on January 22, 2026. The case was terminated on July 8, 2026, indicating the finality of the decision, potentially after any Director Review process. While the specific findings for IPR2024-01093 are not detailed in the provided snippets, the "Final Written Decision" status indicates a conclusive ruling on the patentability of the challenged claims.

No details regarding specific claim construction outcomes, detailed discovery milestones, or trial events are applicable to this IPR proceeding, as these are features of district court litigation. Similarly, specific pre-trial motions like motions to dismiss or transfer are not typical for IPRs, though motions to deny institution are. The outcome is a Final Written Decision by the PTAB. There is no information in the provided snippets about an appeal to the Federal Circuit for this specific IPR.

Here's an identification of the counsel of record representing PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD. in IPR2024-01093:

Hong Annita Zhong

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Irell & Manella LLP
• Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the search results for Annita Zhong, Irell & Manella has offices in Los Angeles, Newport Beach, and Washington, D.C..
• Relevant Experience: Hong Annita Zhong was part of the Irell & Manella team that secured a $191 million patent infringement verdict for Pictiva Displays International against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas in November 2025, a related case involving OLED technology patents.

Blair Silver

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Irell & Manella LLP
• Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the search results, Irell & Manella has offices in Los Angeles, Newport Beach, and Washington, D.C..
• Relevant Experience: Blair Silver is noted as representing Pictiva Displays International in IPR2024-01093. (Further specific patent litigation experience for Blair Silver beyond this IPR was not detailed in the provided search results).

This case, IPR2024-01093, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement case in a district court. In this IPR, SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. are the Petitioners (the parties challenging the patent, referred to as "defendant(s)" in the prompt), and PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD. is the Patent Owner.

Counsel representing the Petitioners (SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., et al.) in IPR2024-01093 are from Morrison & Foerster LLP.

• Mehran Arjomand
  • Role: Lead Counsel (identified as "Petitioner's lead counsel" in a related IPR)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Arjomand is a partner at Morrison & Foerster specializing in intellectual property litigation, particularly patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, for technology companies.
• Alex S. Yap
  • Role: Backup Counsel (identified as "Petitioner's backup counsel" in a related IPR)
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Yap is a partner at Morrison & Foerster focusing on intellectual property, with experience in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings before the USPTO.