PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 10,013,088. This proceeding was terminated due to settlement. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged to a final decision at the PTAB, and thus, remain undiminished from a PTAB trial perspective.

IPR2025-01481 — BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Co Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-25
• Status: Terminated-Settled – The proceeding was concluded due to a settlement between the parties.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided information.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from the provided information.
• Institution decision: Not publicly available from the provided information.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the proceeding settled.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to settlement on 2026-05-22. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that the patent owner and BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. reached a confidential settlement, preventing a PTAB decision on the merits of the patent's claims. For other potential defendants, the claims of US10013088B2 remain unadjudicated by the PTAB, meaning that an IPR-based defense is still a viable option, and no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10013088B2 remain untested by a full IPR trial. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01481, was terminated due to a settlement between the petitioner, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al., and the patent owner, Samsung Display Co Ltd. This means there is no PTAB decision on the patentability of any claims within US10013088B2.

The estoppel landscape is limited. Since IPR2025-01481 was settled, only BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. (and their privies) would be barred under § 315(e)(2) from raising any grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised against claims in US10013088B2 in future PTAB proceedings or district court litigation. For any other defendant, all prior-art grounds remain available for potential IPR filings. There is no information to suggest a pattern of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner based on the single proceeding on record. Unified Patents is noted as involved in the litigation, but their specific role in the settlement or subsequent proceedings is not detailed in the provided information.

Recommended next steps

Since there are no active PTAB proceedings and no claims have been invalidated, a defendant facing assertion of US10013088B2 would consider:

• Conducting a thorough prior art search to identify potential grounds for a new IPR petition. The absence of a prior FWD means the PTAB has not yet ruled on the patentability of any claims, offering a fresh opportunity for a challenge.
• Analyzing the claims of US10013088B2 to identify potential vulnerabilities under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, particularly given the priority date of 2010-09-14.
• Evaluating the potential for a new IPR to strategically impact ongoing or threatened litigation, as the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving a full IPR trial.