Unified Patents v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01478, against Samsung Display Co., Ltd. at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on March 13, 2025, challenging the validity of US Patent 11574990. Unified Patents is a member-based organization dedicated to deterring "patent trolls" (Non-Practicing Entities or NPEs) and improving overall patent quality by initiating validity challenges like IPRs against patents they deem to be of low quality or asserted improperly. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., on the other hand, is a major operating company and a global leader in the manufacturing of advanced display technologies, particularly Organic Light Emitting Diode (OLED) and Quantum Dot-OLED (QD-OLED) panels used in a wide array of electronic devices such as smartphones, televisions, and laptops.

The patent at issue, US Patent 11574990, is titled "Organic light emitting diode display with curved channel region." It describes an OLED display where a driving semiconductor layer of a thin-film transistor is designed with a curved, bent configuration, lying substantially parallel to the substrate, and may include a storage capacitor. The invention aims to enhance the driving range of the thin film transistor to facilitate larger displays. While no specific "accused product" is directly identified in an IPR petition as it would be in a district court infringement case, the challenge targets the underlying patentability of the claims within this patent, which could potentially impact any future or ongoing assertions of this patent by Samsung Display.

The case is currently settled before institution, meaning the parties reached an agreement to resolve the IPR challenge before the PTAB decided whether to formally initiate a trial. This proceeding takes place at the PTAB, an administrative tribunal within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which serves as a venue for expeditiously and cost-effectively challenging the validity of issued patents outside of traditional district court litigation. This case is notable as it involves Unified Patents, known for its strategic use of IPRs to challenge patents, particularly those that may be susceptible to NPE assertions, even when owned by a large operating company like Samsung Display. The dispute also highlights the intense and often litigious landscape surrounding OLED display technology, a critical and highly valuable sector for Samsung Display, where patent strength and validity are paramount.

Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01478, against Samsung Display Co., Ltd. challenging US Patent 11574990 on March 13, 2025. This case involves a challenge to the validity of the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings and their effect on the litigation:

• IPR Filing (2025-03-13): Unified Patents filed IPR2025-01478 against Samsung Display Co., Ltd. targeting US Patent 11574990.
• Settlement Before Institution: The parties reached a settlement to resolve the IPR challenge before the PTAB made a decision on whether to formally institute a trial. The current status is "Settled After Institution".
• The effect of this settlement is that the validity of US Patent 11574990 was not fully litigated before the PTAB. The settlement terms are not publicly available, but it effectively concludes the IPR challenge.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Unified Patents IPR2025-01478 counsel", "Unified Patents IPR counsel", "Unified Patents attorneys"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Unified Patents, in IPR2025-01478. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for these attorneys. I will use web search with the provided queries to find this information, focusing on PTAB dockets and legal news sources.Unified Patents typically relies on its in-house legal team for its Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While specific counsel of record for IPR2025-01478 were not explicitly identified in public search results, the following attorneys are known to prepare and litigate post-grant proceedings for Unified Patents and are likely to be involved in their IPR filings:

• Jordan Rossen - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house).
  • Office Location: Washington, DC area (preference for candidates, remote possible)
  • Experience: Prior to joining Unified, Jordan practiced intellectual property litigation at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings for eleven years, representing clients before the PTAB, International Trade Commission, district courts, and the Federal Circuit in various technology fields. He has also spoken on PTAB-related topics.
• David Seastrunk - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house).
  • Office Location: Not specified, but Unified Patents prefers candidates in the Washington, DC area.
  • Experience: Previously practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, where he litigated post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and International Trade Commission investigations. He also has experience in patent prosecution and client counseling.
• Michelle Callaghan (formerly Michelle Aspen) - Senior Patent Counsel, Unified Patents.
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house).
  • Office Location: Not specified, but Unified Patents prefers candidates in the Washington, DC area.
  • Experience: Before Unified, Michelle practiced at Erise IP, defending clients against patent demands in district courts, challenging patents before the PTAB, and preparing patent validity and infringement opinions. She has also been a speaker on PTAB issues.
• Jonathan Stroud - COO & CLO, Unified Patents.
  • Firm: Unified Patents (in-house).
  • Office Location: Not specified.
  • Experience: As Chief IP Counsel, Jonathan Stroud is a key figure in Unified Patents' strategy and has participated in webinars discussing patent quality and PTAB reform.

Unified Patents functions as a membership organization that files IPRs independently to deter the assertion of what it deems to be low-quality patents, rather than as a traditional law firm representing specific clients in an attorney-client relationship. Its internal legal department is responsible for managing these patent office proceedings.

The provided case information states that Unified Patents filed an IPR petition against Samsung Display Co., Ltd. for US patent 11574990, and the case settled before institution. In IPR proceedings, the party filing the petition (Unified Patents) is the Petitioner, and the patent owner (Samsung Display Co., Ltd.) is the Patent Owner (also referred to as Respondent in some contexts, especially when responding to the petition). Therefore, to identify counsel for the defendant(s), we need to look for counsel representing Samsung Display Co., Ltd. as the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01478.

However, a direct search for "IPR2025-01478 Samsung Display Co., Ltd. counsel" or similar combinations did not yield specific counsel of record for Samsung Display Co., Ltd. in this particular IPR. The search results provided information about counsel for Unified Patents in other IPRs and counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as petitioners in other IPRs where they challenged patents. Some results also listed counsel for Samsung Display Co. Ltd. in other IPRs and district court cases, but not specifically for IPR2025-01478 as the patent owner. Given the status of "Settled Before Institution," it's possible that detailed appearances by outside counsel for Samsung Display Co., Ltd. were not yet fully established or publicly documented in a readily searchable format before the settlement.

Therefore, at this time, the counsel of record representing Samsung Display Co., Ltd. in IPR2025-01478 cannot be definitively identified from the available public information.