US 10505142

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any litigation activity.

Let me run more targeted searches on the patent's identity and any litigation activity.

Let me search for the specific claims of this patent and any case docket identifying the asserted patents.

US 10,505,142 B2 — Analyst Summary

Ground rule applied: I did not auto-correct any identifier. Everything below is tied to the number string 10505142 / US 10,505,142 B2 as it appears in the sources.

1. Bibliographic data (authoritative, from the Google Patents full-text record)

Family (same specification): 15/637,728 → US 10,505,142 (this patent); divisional 16/666,105 → US 10,727,436; continuation 16/907,966 (filed 2020‑06‑22, pub. US 2020/0321552 A1) → US 11,251,394.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"An organic light emitting display can include a plurality of light emitting elements disposed on a substrate; an encapsulation unit disposed on the plurality of light emitting elements and including a plurality of inorganic encapsulation layers and at least one organic encapsulation layer disposed between the plurality of inorganic encapsulation layers; and a plurality of touch sensing lines and a plurality of touch driving lines intersecting each other, in which at least one of the plurality of inorganic encapsulation layers or the at least one organic encapsulation layer is disposed between the plurality of touch sensing lines and the plurality of touch driving lines at locations where the plurality of touch sensing lines cross the plurality of touch driving lines."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claim(s)

⚠️ Explicit uncertainty flag: the authoritative full text supplied to me was truncated inside the "Detailed Description" (FIG. 8C) and does not include the literal claims section. I therefore cannot quote the exact independent claim language, and I cannot state the total claim count or how many independent claims exist. Using the abstract + the "Summary of the Invention" (which mirrors the claim-1 language) plus the examination-history statements found in the related US 11,251,394 IPR papers, the independent claim(s) are best characterized as follows — verify the verbatim text at USPTO Patent Center or the Google Patents "Claims" tab before relying on this:

• Apparatus claim (≈ claim 1). An OLED display comprising: (a) light-emitting elements on a substrate; (b) an encapsulation unit over them made of multiple inorganic encapsulation layers with at least one organic encapsulation layer sandwiched between them; and (c) touch driving lines and touch sensing lines laid out crossing each other with at least one of those encapsulation layers physically interposed between them at the crossings.
  • Core point: the barrier stack of the OLED doubles as the inter-layer dielectric for the capacitive touch grid, so no separate touch insulation layer and no separate touch-panel lamination step are needed; mutual capacitance (Cm) forms at the crossings.
• Method claim (likely present, per the title "and method of fabricating the same"). A counterpart fabrication method covering forming the emission stack, forming the encapsulation layers, and forming the crossing touch lines with an encapsulation layer between them, including the contact-hole/mask steps described in FIGS. 3A–3D, 6A–6F and 8A–8F (e.g., metal-mask deposition of the inorganic/organic encapsulation layers, photolithography/etch to open touch contact holes, routing contact holes and pad contact holes, and a slit/diffraction-mask dual-etch to simultaneously form transparent touch electrodes and stacked pad connection electrodes).

Dependent-claim subject matter visible in the specification (likely claimed in some form): first/second bridge structures connecting the touch electrodes, with bridges placed under or over the intervening encapsulation layer and routed to overlap the bank to avoid aperture-ratio loss; routing lines with a stacked metal/transparent-oxide (e.g. Ti/Al/Ti or Mo/Al/Mo plus ITO/IZO/IGZO/ZnO) dual-layer for redundancy; routing pads; pad electrodes covered by pad connection electrodes extending down the side and top surfaces of the uppermost encapsulation layer; and the alternative placements in which the crossing is separated by the second inorganic layer (FIG. 2), the organic layer (FIGS. 4–5), or the first inorganic layer plus an interlayer inorganic layer (FIG. 7).

4. Litigation / docket search (USPTO & 2026 CAFC)

• Google Patents flags family litigation: the record carries a "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" indicator (Darts‑IP family ID 60807832). That confirms some member of this family is in suit, but the fetched record does not name the case.
• CAFC 2026: I found no Federal Circuit docket, opinion, or appeal naming US 10,505,142 (or the number string 10505142). I cannot confirm any CAFC activity for this patent. Treat any such claim as unverified until checked against the CAFC docket.
• District court: Search results show an ongoing LG Display v. Tianma (天马微电子) dispute, Eastern District of Texas (filed June 2025, seven asserted LCD/OLED patents) and Western District of Texas (Tianma counter-suit, Dec. 2025, four patents; settlement reported at the W.D. Tex. case). However, the patent specifically identified in those reports and in the PTAB proceeding is US 11,251,394 — not US 10,505,142. US 11,251,394 is a continuation in this same family (16/907,966 ← 16/666,105 → 10,727,436 ← 15/637,728 → 10,505,142). I found no source naming 10,505,142 itself as an asserted patent in that litigation. Do not state that '142 was asserted without confirming from the complaint.
• PTAB: The Tianma IPR petition (challenging US 11,251,394) was denied institution / dismissed on 2026‑03‑18 on statutory standing grounds (petitioner alleged to be influenced by a foreign government entity — AVIC holding >10% of Tianma — under the AIA "person" requirement and Return Mail). Again: this is the child patent, not '142.
• Date caveat: my instructions state a current date of 2026‑04‑26, but several retrieved news items are dated 2026‑05‑28 (reporting a Tianma–LG Display settlement approved 2026‑05‑22). Those items post-date the stated current date; I flag rather than resolve the discrepancy. (The system date given to me is 2026‑09‑29.)

5. Bottom line / confidence

• High confidence: patent number, title, assignee, sole inventor, filing/issue/priority dates, abstract, family lineage.
• Medium confidence: the substance of the independent claims (derived from the abstract, summary and IPR briefing on the sibling '394 patent).
• Low / unverified: literal claim wording and claim count; whether 10,505,142 itself is one of the seven asserted patents or a CAFC case party. Recommended verification: USPTO Patent Center (app. 15/637,728) for the exact claims, and Darts‑IP family 60807832 / PACER for the docket-level confirmation.

Sources: Google Patents record for US10505142 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10505142/en); PTAB petition papers referencing the 15/637,728 → 10,505,142 lineage (ptacts.uspto.gov, petitions 1558534 / 1558084); EET‑China, The Elec and TechNews reports (Mar–May 2026) on the LG Display–Tianma dispute and the US 11,251,394 IPR denial.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10505142 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search specifically on litigation databases and the company as plaintiff/defendant.

I found a promising lead involving LG Display v. Tianma. Let me verify whether patent 10505142 is among the asserted patents.

I'll verify the structured-data default against live sources before writing anything.

Let me run a few more targeted checks for any petition, appeal, or related proceeding.

Important lead surfaced — a Tianma IPR against an LG Display family member ('394). Let me pin down whether it touches the '142 itself.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 10,505,142

Scope note up front: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block is the canonical list, and it reports zero AIA trial proceedings for US 10,505,142. I ran independent web searches (PTAB E2E / PTAB petitions portal, PTAB litigation blogs, VitalLaw IP Law Daily, The Elec, MOFCOM case library) and found nothing that changes that answer for the '142 itself. What I did find is one proceeding against a sibling patent in the same family, which I've documented below because it is the single most decision-relevant fact for a defendant. I have not invented any proceeding number.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 10,505,142: 0. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is unusual and cuts both ways: there is no invalidation to exploit and no PTAB narrowing to hide behind. Not one claim of the '142 has ever been construed, challenged, or cancelled by the Board — so the patent is neither "hardened by surviving two IPRs" nor "gutted." It is simply untested. Any Fintiv/§ 315 estoppel analysis starts from a blank slate, and any invalidity theory you have is one the patent owner has never had to answer. The caveat worth pricing into a case assessment: LG Display's broader touch-on-encapsulation (TOE) patent family — the '142 is the family root — has already drawn one IPR, and that IPR was killed on standing (foreign-sovereign RPI), not on the merits (see IPR2025-01579 below).

No proceedings to report on US 10,505,142

There is no IPR####-#####, PGR####-#####, or CBM####-##### on this patent in the ODP data or in any public source I could locate. Consequently there is no judge panel, no petition ground, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no settlement, and no Federal Circuit appeal to report for the '142. I am stating that as an absence of evidence located, not as a positive finding — but the ODP default plus a negative search across the usual public trackers is about as strong as this conclusion gets.

⚠️ IPR2025-01579 — Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Display Co., Ltd. (RELATED — the patent-at-issue is U.S. 11,251,394 B2, a family member, not the '142)

Include this only as family-level context. It does not cancel, narrow, or estop anything with respect to US 10,505,142.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: U.S. Patent No. 11,251,394 B2 ("the '394 patent"), claims 1–19. The '394 is a direct family relative of the '142: application 16/907,966 (filed 2020-06-22) → continuation of 16/666,105 (issued as US 10,727,436) → division of 15/637,728, i.e., the application that issued as US 10,505,142. Same inventor (Jae-Young Oh), same assignee (LG Display), same Korean priority (10-2016-0083006, filed 2016-06-30), same "TOE" spec.
• Filed: 2025-10-23
• Status: Institution denied — Director exercised discretion and refused to institute, 2026-03-18. No review was initiated; the Board never reached patentability.
• Judge panel: This was a Director-level determination issued by USPTO Director John A. Squires (reported as a rare precedential-style Director decision), not a three-APJ merits panel.
• Petition grounds: Tianma challenged claims 1–19 of the '394 on § 102/§ 103 grounds built on Kang651 and Kim481 (with the petition arguing Examiner error — an alleged first-action allowance on original dependent claims 10 and 19). LG Display never substantively contested the merits; its opposition was entirely discretionary-denial/RPI.
• Institution decision — reasoning: The Director did not assess the technical merits. He held (a) that under Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, 587 U.S. 618 (2019), extended via Vermont Agency and Sturdza, a foreign government is not a "person" eligible to file an IPR under the AIA; (b) that LG Display had put the RPI issue sufficiently in dispute (Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, 903 F.3d 1237) by showing AVIC (Aviation Industry Corporation of China, a Chinese state-owned aerospace/defense conglomerate) held >10% of Tianma and appears on the Commerce Department Entity List; and (c) that Tianma's unsupported assertions that AVIC neither funded nor controlled the petition were insufficient to rebut. Conclusion: "Tianma has not demonstrated that a foreign government is not an RPI and therefore lacks standing to file the petition." Institutional denial was also framed against Fintiv factors (E.D. Tex. docket control order, pretrial conference set 2027-10-07, concurrent claim construction 2026-04-07 → 2026-07-28, and Tianma's failure to name all RPIs).
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD was ever issued, and none will be, because institution was denied. No claim of the '394 — and certainly no claim of the '142 — has been cancelled or sustained.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. Terminated by Director denial of institution.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal. A denial of institution is generally not appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). The parallel district court case is where this continues: LG Display filed against Tianma in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in June 2025 asserting seven patents (LCD and OLED, including three touch-integrated OLED patents), and Tianma counter-sued in the W.D. Tex. in December 2025 on four of its own patents. I could not verify the E.D. Tex. case number from the sources retrieved, so I'm not supplying one.
• Defensive value: Low-to-moderate, and asymmetrically so. It is not precedent invalidating anything, and its standing/RPI holding is petitioner-specific (it turns on AVIC's stake in Tianma). But it is a strong signal that (i) LG Display will litigate this TOE family hard and moved for discretionary denial aggressively, and (ii) the family's claims have never been tested on the merits at the PTAB — no examiner-error theory has ever been adjudicated, so an earlier-allowance / § 102-103 attack on the family remains genuinely untested ground if you can clear the § 315(b) bar.

Strategic summary

Claim status on US 10,505,142: everything is UNTESTED. No claim — independent or dependent — has been cancelled, confirmed, or even construed by the PTAB. There are no "surviving claims" to list because none were ever in jeopardy. I am deliberately not enumerating claim numbers, because no proceeding has addressed them and inventing a claim-level breakdown would be fabrication. The patent's anticipated expiration is 2037-06-29, so you are litigating a ~20-year asset, not a dying one.

Estoppel landscape: there is none, in either direction. Because no IPR was instituted against the '142, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to the '142 at all — not to Tianma, not to anyone. Every prior-art ground, every § 102/§ 103 combination, and every § 112 theory remains fully available to a defendant in district court, subject only to ordinary IPR-timing rules. Note the mirror-image risk: the absence of a prior IPR also means LG Display has never had to defend these claims in an adversarial validity proceeding, so their construction and validity are genuinely unpredictable. The one thing that does carry over is the § 315(b) one-year clock — if you have been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '142, the window to file an IPR is running and is unforgiving.

Pattern signals. (1) No serial petitioner on the '142 — the only family-level petition came from Tianma, once, on the '394. (2) LG Display is a very active patent owner, not a troll: it originated the June 2025 E.D. Tex. action against Tianma asserting seven patents, and it briefed discretionary denial with a decade-long licensing-negotiation narrative (2011–2024). (3) No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears anywhere in this chain — so there is no ready-made, pre-vetted invalidity record you can free-ride on. (4) Family structure matters: three separately assertable patents cover essentially the same TOE disclosure — '142 (15/637,728), '436 (16/666,105), and '394 (16/907,966). Knocking out the '142 alone does not clear the family; a competent plaintiff will assert the siblings as backstops.

Recommended next steps

• There is no FWD to link to, because none exists. The honest bottom line for this patent is: the '142 has never been before the PTAB. If a demand letter cites the '142, you cannot shortcut anything with a PTAB outcome — the patent is fully intact and all of its claims are live.
• Do not over-read IPR2025-01579. It was an institution denial on foreign-sovereign RPI standing, 2026-03-18, and it cancelled nothing. Cite it, if at all, only for the proposition that the family's merits have never been adjudicated. Public petition/documents for that matter are on the PTAB portal (petition ID 1558534): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558534 — and the PTAB E2E docket entry point is https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/. For the district court side, use CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/) and search LG Display v. Tianma in E.D. Tex. — I did not verify a docket number and won't guess one.
• If you are a defendant and served on the '142, the clock is the action item: calendar your § 315(b) one-year date immediately and get a merits invalidity search running, because there is no prior PTAB record to build on. If you want PTAB cover, you must build the petition from scratch.
• If you are evaluating the family as a whole, assume you must address '142, '436, and '394 together. The '394's prosecution history (alleged first-action allowance with Examiner error, per Tianma's petition) may be a useful roadmap for claim-drafting distinctions across all three, but treat it as an unadjudicated allegation — the Board never ruled on it.
• If no petition appears on the '142 in the near term, treat that as a signal, not comfort. Heavily asserted display patents in active litigations (E.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex. here) typically attract follow-on IPRs as other defendants are served. A continued zero on the '142 a year from now would suggest defendants are choosing design-around, license, or inter partes reexam instead — worth monitoring on the PTAB E2E docket before you finalize an invalidity budget.

Confidence and limits: High confidence that no AIA trial proceeding exists on US 10,505,142 (ODP canonical list = zero; independent searches negative). High confidence in the IPR2025-01579 facts as reported (petition filed 2025-10-23; Director denial 2026-03-18 on foreign-sovereign RPI standing; no FWD). Lower confidence on details that only a paid docket would confirm — specifically the E.D. Tex. case number, the exact seven-patent assertion list, and whether the '142 itself is among the seven asserted patents. I could not confirm those and have flagged them rather than filled them in.

I'll start by checking what the patent text itself establishes and then attempt to retrieve the actual USPTO assignment records.

The searches didn't surface the assignment record directly. Let me try more specific queries.

The PTAB document confirms the family. Let me dig for the actual recorded assignment reel/frame and any litigation/assertion records.

I hit the search-step limit before I could pull the actual reel/frame image from Assignment Center. Below I've separated what the authoritative patent record establishes from what I could not verify, and I have not filled gaps with invented reel/frame numbers.

US 10505142 — Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction

Patent: US 10505142 B2 — "Organic light emitting display and method of fabricating the same"
App. 15/637,728 filed 2017-06-29 · Granted 2019-12-10 · Priority KR 10-2016-0083006, 2016-06-30
Current assignee of record: LG Display Co., Ltd. (per Google Patents legal events; original assignee same)

Verification caveat up front: The Assignment Center / legacy assignment database could not be queried successfully in this session, so I do not have reel/frame numbers for the single recorded assignment. Recording activity is documented by the patent's legal-events feed (assignee LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., assignor OH, JAE-YOUNG, event date 2017-10-13), but the reel/frame must be confirmed directly at Assignment Center / legacy assignment search by patent number 10505142. I decline to guess the number.

Inventors

No unusual inventor patterns: single inventor, rights assigned to the operating employer at/around filing, no 12-month mass-departure signature.

Original assignee

LG Display Co., Ltd. (successor by name change to LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.), Seoul, Korea.

• Ships products embodying the claims: yes/very likely. The claims cover touch electrodes integrated into the OLED encapsulation stack (mutual-capacitance touch sensing with the encapsulation layer acting as the touch dielectric, and without a separate touch insulating layer). This is functionally LG Display's in-cell-touch AMOLED panel architecture used in smartphones and OLED displays.
• Primary line of business: display panel manufacturing — TFT-LCD and OLED (large-format TV panels, IT/monitor, mobile/automotive OLED). Registration purpose language in the LG Display corporate register explicitly covers "Research, Development, manufacture, sale and marketing of TFT-LCD and LED products and technical fields relating to TFT-LCD and OLED."
• Current status: operating, publicly listed (KRX: 034220). No US bankruptcy filing identified. No corporate reorganization that would spin this patent into a licensing vehicle.
• Family maintenance: the record shows live continuations in the same family — US 16/666,105 → US 10727436 B2 and US 16/907,966 → US 11251394 B2, both LG Display. Active prosecution spend eight years post-filing is evidence of operating-company commercial value, not a monetization-only posture.

Assignment timeline

Chronological, all entries sourced from the patent's legal-events record:

• ~2017 (executed) / recorded 2017-10-13 — Reel not retrieved this session
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS) — the standard inventor-to-employer employment assignment
  • Assignor: OH, JAE-YOUNG
  • Assignee: LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this session (not stated in Google Patents legal events); must be pulled from the reel/frame image. Because there is only one link in this chain, no recurrence test for a repeat-player correspondent is possible.
  • Context: internal / employment assignment — sole inventor assigning to the operating company that filed the application.

Non-chain item (do not confuse): a separate LG Display Change of Name record appears at Reel 027367 / Frame 0160 (documents captioned "LGNAMECHANGE," submitter noted as "Valerie P."). That filing is a ~2008-era name-change record reflecting LG.Philips LCD → LG Display and is not a link in the US 10505142 chain. Listed only so it is not mistaken for an assignment of this patent.

No further recorded assignments. No post-issuance transfer of US 10505142 (no sale, no security interest, no merger, no license recordation) was found. That means the patent remains with the original operating assignee — itself the key finding.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10505142
    2016 : KR priority application filed Jun 30
    2017 : US application 15637728 filed by LG Display
         : Inventor Oh assigns rights to LG Display
    2018 : Application published as US20180006265A1
    2019 : Patent US10505142 granted to LG Display
    2020 : Continuation filed leading to US11251394
    2037 : Anticipated expiration Jun 29

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded transfer is inventor → LG Display (recorded 2017-10-13). Assignee is a listed operating display manufacturer, not an "IP/Patents/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" suffix, and not a registered-agent address or single-member Delaware/Texas LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Assignee of record is LG Display Co., Ltd. It does not appear on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Round Rock / Spangenberg lists, nor as an RPX/Unified "high-frequency plaintiff" NPE. LG Display does litigate (see below), but as a competitor operating company, not as an NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present / unclear. Only one assignment link exists, and its correspondent was not retrievable this session; recurrence cannot be established (and a single appearance would not be a finding anyway).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. One assignment in ~9 years since filing; no chained LLCs, no common-principal flips.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present (as to assignment). No recordation falls within 6 months before any known assertion of this patent; the 2017-10-13 recording is a filing-time employment assignment, ~2 years before grant. Note: Google Patents carries a "Family has litigation" flag with a Darts-ip family link (family 60807832). That indicates litigation touching the family somewhere, but I could not verify in this session which court, which party, when, or whether US 10505142 itself is asserted. Do not treat it as a pre-litigation transfer signal.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 for the assignor; no sale in bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to an NPE asserting on LG Display's behalf; assignee and original assignee are identical.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, only the original assignment is on record. The single recorded conveyance is the inventor-to-employer assignment (OH, JAE-YOUNG → LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., recorded 2017-10-13), and no post-issuance transfer of US 10505142 exists.

Substantively, zero NPE signals are present: the patent is owned by the operating manufacturer that filed it, which continues to prosecute the family through US 10727436 and US 11251394, and the chain shows no shell entity, no asserter, no cascading transfers, and no defensive-aggregator termination. If LG Display is later confirmed to be asserting this patent (the "family has litigation" flag is unverified here), the verdict would move to Operating-company assertion — not to an NPE category.

Verify at:

• Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 10505142)
• Legacy assignment search: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — used to confirm the reel/frame that I could not retrieve
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10505142B2](/patent/US10505142B2)/en#legalEvents

If you can give me the reel/frame from a live Assignment Center pull (or the "Family has litigation" Darts-ip detail), I'll insert the correspondent name and firm and re-score signal 3 and 5 precisely.

I'll research the patent's citation records and prior art references.

Let me search for the specific citation records of this patent.

Let me try to retrieve the direct Google Patents citation list for this patent.

Prior Art Analysis — US 10,505,142 B2

Important limitation up front: I was unable to retrieve the actual "References Cited" / "Patent Citations" list from the USPTO (PatentCenter) or Google Patents citation table for this patent within the searches performed. Google Patents confirms the patent exists and shows a citation table of 37 patent citations, but the individual entries did not render in my search results. I therefore cannot enumerate each cited reference with full citation, date, description, and claim mapping as requested, and I will not invent them. Below I give what is verifiable, flag the gap explicitly, and note the reference candidates that actually surfaced (which are mostly forward citations, not prior art).

1. Bibliographic verification (USPTO data)

This matches the authoritative full text in the case file. No correction or substitution of the number was made — the number was interpreted literally.

Genealogy note (relied on elsewhere in this analysis): US 10,505,142 is the parent; continuations/divisionals include US 10,727,436 (appl. 16/666,105, filed 2019‑10‑28) and US 11,251,394 (appl. 16/907,966, filed 2020‑06‑22), all sharing the 2016‑06‑30 priority and the same title. This is relevant because any §102 analysis of the '142 patent's claims must be read against the same disclosure family.

2. What the claims actually require (framework for §102)

Independent claim 1 (per the issued abstract/description) is directed to:

• a plurality of light emitting elements on a substrate;
• an encapsulation unit on the light emitting elements comprising a plurality of inorganic encapsulation layers and at least one organic encapsulation layer disposed between the inorganic encapsulation layers; and
• touch sensing lines and touch driving lines that intersect each other, with at least one of the inorganic encapsulation layers or the organic encapsulation layer disposed between them at the crossing locations.

The inventive core is the use of an encapsulation layer itself as the inter-level dielectric between the two crossing touch-conductor layers, eliminating the separate touch insulating layer of the prior art. Additional dependent-claim subject matter (from the description) includes: the bridges/contact-hole arrangements (first bridges in a lower layer connected through touch contact holes vs. coplanar second bridges); the routing lines/pads; the pad connection electrodes with stacked transparent-conductive/metal layers; and the "second inorganic encapsulation layer as uppermost layer" configuration.

Any §102 mapping must therefore target: (a) encapsulation stack of ≥2 inorganic + ≥1 organic interposed; and (b) crossing touch lines separated by an encapsulation layer. A reference disclosing an OLED touch panel with a dedicated touch insulating layer would not anticipate these claims (it may only be §103 material combined with another reference).

3. Prior-art candidates found (status: NOT confirmed as cited references)

The searches surfaced the following, but these are predominantly forward citations ("cited by") or same‑field documents, not verified entries on the '142 patent's own IDS/References-Cited list. Treat with caution:

Forward citations (later documents citing the '142 family) — NOT prior art:

• US 10,256,431 B2 / US 10,340,317 B2 — LG Display (dated after).
• US 10,256,428 B2 — LG Display, "OLED display device and method of fabricating the same" (2019‑04‑09).
• US 12,089,471 — later LG Display document citing the '142 family.

Same-field documents that could plausibly appear as §102/§103 art (unverified as cited):

• US 2016/0154499 A1 — Samsung Display, "Organic light emitting device having touch sensor disposed thereon," pub. 2016‑06‑02 (pre‑dates the 2016‑06‑30 priority). This is the type of reference most likely to be relevant to the "touch sensor integrated with OLED" concept, but I cannot confirm it is on the '142 citation list, and it appears here as a citing document rather than a cited one.
• US 2016/0218305 A1 — Samsung Display, "Organic light emitting display module…," pub. 2016‑07‑28 (post‑dates the priority date, so at best an Art. 102(a)(2)/§102(e)‑type reference only if effective filing predates 2016‑06‑30).
• KR 10‑2016‑0075019 A — LG Display, pub. 2016‑06‑29 (one day before priority; would be highly relevant if cited).
• US 10,205,118 B2 — Samsung Display (published Oct. 2016 priority family) — appears only as a citing document.

Because I cannot confirm which of these (if any) are on the '142 References‑Cited list, I am not asserting any §102 anticipation mapping. Doing so would require the actual citation table.

4. Conflict / contradiction flags

1. Date inconsistency between the case file and the task prompt. The system header for the case states today's date as 2026‑09‑29, while the current task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026." I flag this rather than silently pick one. It affects little here (the patent is long since granted), but it should be reconciled for any status/expiry statements.
2. Litigation lead is unresolved. The previously generated litigation section identified a promising lead in LG Display v. Tianma but had not confirmed that US 10,505,142 is among the asserted patents. That confirmation is still outstanding and is not established by anything in this prior-art search.
3. "37 patent citations" vs. retrievable list. Google Patents reports 37 patent citations for this patent, but the entries did not render; this is a data-retrieval gap, not a contradiction of the patent text.

5. Recommendation to complete the task

To deliver the requested per-reference table (full citation, publication/filing date, description, §102 claim mapping), the following sources should be pulled directly:

• USPTO PatentCenter → Application 15/637,728 → "References Cited" / "Patent and Non-Patent Literature" tab (the examiner-cited PTO‑892 list).
• File wrapper / IFW for 15/637,728 to capture examiner citations and any §102/§103 rejections actually made during prosecution (the strongest indicator of which references the examiner considered anticipatory).
• Google Patents "Patent Citations (37)" table for US 10,505,142 B2, which will list the backward citations in one view.
• The corresponding EP/KR family search reports (the family includes EP 3,334,130‑type filings) for third-party prior art in the same subject matter.

I can produce the full §102 mapping once the actual References‑Cited list is in hand. I would rather flag this gap than fabricate citations for a patent whose citation table I could not verify.

I'll first try to retrieve the actual prior-art citation list for US 10505142, since the page text provided above contains the classification codes and "prior art keywords" but no explicit citations table.

The provided page text stops before the citation tables. Let me try to retrieve the actual cited references for this family.

Strong lead — a PTAB petition against the child patent (US 11,251,394) lists specific prior art. Let me pin down the actual references and the related IPRs.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,505,142 B2 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

0. Sourcing note (read first — this affects how much weight to give each statement)

What the "Prior Art" portion of the fetched page actually contained. The Google Patents text I was given for US 10,505,142 does not include the "Patent Citations / Non-Patent Citations" tables. What it includes is:

• "Prior art keywords": encapsulation layer; light emitting; touch; disposed; organic
• Classifications searched/assigned, notably H10K 59/40 (OLEDs integrated with touch screens), H10K 59/8731 (multilayer organic–inorganic encapsulation), H01L 51/5237 (encapsulation of organic devices), H01L 27/3276, H01L 51/0017, H01L 51/5206 (cathodes/anodes), H01L 51/5008, and G06F 3/0446 (grid-like row/column capacitive electrodes).

So the page's own "prior art" signal is classification + keyword based, not a reference list. Also important: the fetched text is truncated — it ends mid-§8C of the description and the claims are not in the provided text at all. I therefore reconstructed claim scope from (i) the Abstract, (ii) the "Summary of the Invention" sentence, (iii) the detailed description of FIG. 2/5/7/9, and (iv) the claim language of the child patent US 11,251,394 as quoted in the PTAB record. Anything I state about the literal wording of US 10,505,142's claims is reconstruction, not verbatim. Flagging that up front per the operating rules.

What I supplemented. The strongest actual prior-art record for this family is the PTAB petition and Patent Owner Preliminary Response in IPR2025-01579 (Tianma v. LG Display) directed at the child patent US 11,251,394 (a continuation of US 10,727,436, which is a divisional of US 10,505,142 — same specification, same 2016-06-30 KR priority). That record names concrete references:

Sources: IPR2025-01579 Patent Owner Preliminary Response, same, §VI.D reference overviews, Petition element-by-element mapping.

I also found, independently of that petition, a reference that is close to dispositive on the core limitation: US 9,696,838 B2 (Samsung Display), Organic light emitting display apparatus having a touch sensing layer and method of manufacturing the same, which discloses a TFE 200 of stacked inorganic layers 211/223/233 and organic layers 213/231, plus a touch sensing layer 220 whose "touch inorganic layer" 223 is one of the TFE inorganic layers, with a first touch conductive layer 221 under it and a second touch conductive layer 225 above it (US 9,696,838, and see its publication US 2016/0283005 A1). Caveat: its publication date (2016-09-29) is after the '142 priority date, so it is only available as §102(a)(2)/§102(d) art if its effective filing date (KR priority) predates 2016-06-30 — I have not verified that date and you should not rely on this reference without checking it.

Cross-reference flag vs. the earlier litigation section. The previously-generated litigation summary speculated that US 10,505,142 was among the LG Display v. Tianma asserted patents. The contemporaneous reporting lists the asserted patents as LCD 8,416,166; 8,736,801; 10,175,803; 10,444,924 and OLED 10,499,493; 10,869,388; 11,251,394 — US 10,505,142 is not on that list. The '142 patent is in the same family but is not the asserted member. This should be corrected in the litigation section (EET-China, etnews).

(Minor housekeeping flag: the system date I was given (2026-09-29) conflicts with the "Current Date: April 26, 2026" in the task. I have not relied on either for any legal conclusion.)

1. Governing framework

• Priority / effective filing date: KR 10-2016-0083006 filed 2016-06-30; US 15/637,728 filed 2017-06-29. AIA § 102/§ 103 apply.
• Obviousness standard: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (predictable variations, "known technique/known elements," design incentives, market pressure, finite number of identified solutions); Graham v. John Deere factors; In re Keller / In re Mouttet for combining references against a single claim; motivation must be articulated, not assumed (In re Kahn; Belden v. Berk-Tek).
• POSITA (my construction): B.S. in EE/Materials/Physics plus ~2–3 years' experience in OLED display design/fabrication, including TFT backplanes, thin-film encapsulation (TFE) and projected-capacitive touch sensing, or equivalent. This is consistent with the "level of ordinary skill" section the parties briefed in IPR2025-01579.

2. The point of novelty, stated precisely

Reconstructed from the Abstract and Summary: claim 1-type subject matter requires

(a) light-emitting elements on a substrate;
(b) an encapsulation unit on the light-emitting elements comprising a plurality of inorganic encapsulation layers and at least one organic encapsulation layer disposed between them; and
(c) touch sensing lines and touch driving lines intersecting each other with at least one of those encapsulation layers interposed between them at the crossings.

Elements (a) and (b) are conceded prior art of the highest order — the organic/inorganic multilayer TFE was the industry-standard barrier stack for flexible OLEDs long before 2016. Only (c) is arguable, and (c) is a statement about which existing layer functions as the inter-electrode dielectric of the touch sensor — i.e., elimination of a dedicated touch insulating layer and the OCA/attachment step.

The dependent-claim material visible in the description (and mirrored in the '394 claims) adds: (i) first bridges 152b on the organic encapsulation layer 144 connected to first touch electrodes 152e through touch contact holes 150 in the second inorganic layer 146; (ii) second bridges coplanar with the second touch electrodes; (iii) bridges overlapping the bank so as not to reduce aperture ratio; (iv) routing lines as a stacked metal/transparent-oxide dual layer for redundancy; (v) touch pad = pad electrode + pad connection electrode covering it, with the pad connection electrode on the upper and side surfaces of the uppermost encapsulation layer; (vi) routing/pad connection through contact holes in the encapsulation.

3. Ground 1 — the primary § 103 ground: Kwon224 + Kim524

3.1 What each reference supplies

• Kim524 (US 2016/0170524 A1) — same field, same problem. As the record summarizes it: a "display panel 10 may include substrate 100, display active layer 200, encapsulation layer 300 formed on display active layer 200, and touch electrode layer 400 formed on encapsulation layer 300." The "encapsulation layer 300 may be a thin film encapsulation layer (TFE) including a plurality of encapsulating thin films … including at least one inorganic layer and at least one organic layer, and the inorganic layers and the organic layers may be alternately laminated" (¶73); the touch sensor is "formed on encapsulation layer 300" (¶78); 400 includes first and second touch electrode layers 410/420 separated by insulating layer 430, with contact holes 435 through 430 connecting lower signal lines 415 to upper signal lines 425 (¶¶79–84); electrodes are metal mesh (¶87) expressly for flexibility (¶88). That is elements (a), (b), the bridging/two-level architecture, and the contact-hole-through-a-barrier-layer-on-the-TFE concept.
• Kwon224 (Ex. 1005) — as characterized by the Patent Owner itself in the preliminary response, discloses mesh touch electrodes on an encapsulation stack and, notably, a "noise shielding layer … disposed to overlap with the first and second conductive patterns" so the conductive patterns "may be prevented from being interfered with by the noise generated from the display panel," with mesh electrodes reducing tensile/compressive stress. In other words, Kwon224 supplies: two crossing sets of conductive patterns in a touch layer integrated at the encapsulation level, plus the express functional rationale for an intervening layer between/around the touch electrodes (shielding/noise isolation) — which is precisely the dielectric-function role the '142 claim assigns to an encapsulation layer.

3.2 Mapping to element (c)

The combination supplies (c) as follows:

1. Kim524 puts an alternating inorganic/organic TFE under a two-layer touch sensor (element b, plus the two-level crossing architecture).
2. Kim524's crossing insulator 430 is a dedicated layer; Kwon224 shows the crossing-adjacent electrode sets can be arranged around a functional barrier/shield layer at the encapsulation level.
3. The ordinary artisan, seeking the same benefit both references already state (thinner, lighter, more flexible, fewer process steps), would recognize that one of the TFE layers can serve as the crossing dielectric — i.e., put the driving lines on one TFE layer and the sensing lines above a subsequent TFE layer, bridging through that layer. This is the literal claim-1 limitation.

3.3 Motivation to combine (articulated, per KSR/Kahn)

• Same field, same problem, overlapping disclosures. Both references are OLED display modules with capacitive touch integrated at the encapsulation level; the Federal Circuit treats this as strong evidence of combinability (In re Mouttet; KSR).
• Explicit, mutual design incentives already in the art. Kim524 states the mesh/touch-on-encapsulation arrangement is "advantageous for use in a flexible display device" (¶88); the '142 patent's own background concedes that attaching a separate touchscreen increases thickness and harms flexibility/transmittance. Both references thus point the same direction.
• "Known technique, known elements" (KSR at 417). Using an existing inter-layer dielectric as the dielectric for a capacitor-type sensor is a conventional, predictable use of a known element for its known function. Deleting a dedicated insulator and letting a barrier layer perform that role is a classic elimination-of-parts / simplification rationale, well recognized as a valid motivation.
• Finite number of identified, predictable solutions. For a two-layer crossing architecture atop a TFE, the artisan had essentially three options: (i) both touch layers above all TFE layers with a dedicated insulator between them; (ii) driving and sensing layers separated by one TFE inorganic layer; (iii) separated by the TFE organic (planarization) layer. The '142 patent's FIG. 2, FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 are exactly those three options, generated by routine placement choices. That is the paradigm of predictable variation (KSR; In re Ethicon).
• Process/cost incentive. The '142 specification itself identifies the motivation (no separate attachment process, process simplification, cost reduction). Motivation already articulated in the art is generally sufficient (In re Kemps; Wiesner line of authority on motivation evidence).

3.4 Expected claim-by-claim result (Ground 1)

• Independent claim of the "…with at least one encapsulation layer interposed therebetween" type (mirrored by '394 claim 9): obvious over Kwon224 + Kim524, with the mapping of (c) as above. Highest confidence of the whole analysis — because the claim recites only the architectural consequence of the placement choice, and both references disclose every physical structure needed.
• "One of first/second bridges is on the same plane as one of the conductive lines" / "connected through contact holes formed through the at least one insulating film": rendered obvious by Kim524's contact holes 435 through insulating layer 430 connecting lines 415→425, transferred to the TFE layer as the intervening film. Predictable mechanical/electrical variation.

4. Additional grounds for the dependent material

• Ground 2 (claims directed to the composition/position of the encapsulation layers) — Kwon224 + Kim524 + Zhu837. Petitioner's Ground 2 in IPR2025-01579 mapped Zhu837 to the limitation that "the encapsulation unit comprises at least one inorganic encapsulation layer and at least one organic encapsulation layer; and the at least one insulating film is one of them," and to lower/upper encapsulation-layer placement of the respective conductive lines. Caveat: I could not retrieve Zhu837's substantive content; I only have the Petitioner's characterization and the PO's rebuttal. Treat the Zhu837 mapping as asserted but unverified by me. If Zhu837 does what Petitioner says, Ground 2 supplies the specific "which encapsulation layer is the dielectric" selection that is the heart of § 3.2 — which would make Ground 2 the strongest ground, not Ground 1.
• Ground 3 (touch pads on the substrate connected to the second conductive lines) — + Jang513 (filed 2012, published 2013). Touch pad/routing architecture for integrated displays was squarely in the art by 2012–2013; adding pad electrodes at the panel edge for an integrated touch layer is a routine design choice where the connections must leave the panel (In re Kuhle; In re Harza — location/arrangement of a known element is not inventive absent a new result).
• Ground 4/5 (connection wiring on the side surface of the encapsulation unit; interlayer inorganic layer on the cathode) — + Kim481 (filed 2011, published 2012). This maps to the '142 disclosure's FIG. 9 embodiment (routing lines 156 on the side and upper surfaces of the organic encapsulation layer beneath the uppermost inorganic layer, so moisture penetrating the routing/pad is blocked by the underlying barrier). Note the PO's characterization that the deposition of organic+inorganic TFE layers through masks, including inclined side surfaces at the stack edge, was itself long-known (IPR2025-01481 declaration record discussing mask shadow effects producing inclined layer ends) — which strengthens the predictability of putting wiring on those side surfaces to route touch signals out while preserving the barrier.
• Ground 6 (alternative) — Kim524 + US 9,696,838-type TFE-integrated touch sensing layer. If US 9,696,838's priority date predates 2016-06-30, this single reference teaches the entire core concept: "The touch sensing layer may further include a first touch conductive layer under the touch inorganic layer, and a second touch conductive layer on the touch inorganic layer … The touch inorganic layer may be between two successive organic layers" — i.e., the inorganic encapsulation layer itself is the touch dielectric. Combined with Kim524's display/TFE structure and routing, this is a clean § 103 case. Verify the priority date before relying on it.

5. The Patent Owner's likely (and partly strong) rebuttals

Being candid: this is not a slam dunk on all claims. The PO's arguments in the '394 IPR are the ones that will be re-used:

1. Barrier-integrity teaching away / different purposes. A TFE layer is a moisture/oxygen barrier; forming contact holes through it (150, 160, 162 in '142) or routing on its side surface plausibly degrades the barrier — a prima facie "criticality" argument. The PO argued references "combine technologies with different purposes" and that the prior art does not disclose an insulating encapsulation layer with touch pads connected to second conductive lines which in turn connect to first conductive lines connected to the touch sensors (PO Preliminary Response). Assessment: this is a real argument for claims that require vias/step-coverage through the barrier, but it is weak for a bare claim-1-type claim that only requires "at least one encapsulation layer interposed." It is also undermines itself: the '142 specification acknowledges vias through the second inorganic layer as routine.
2. Hindsight / "no motivation." PO asserted the Petition "mix[es] technologies with different purposes as hindsight." Assessment: the counter is that both references are in the identical field and state the identical benefit (flexibility/thickness), which is the classic answer to hindsight (KSR; In re Mouttet). Note, however, that the PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01579 (Feb/Mar 2026 reporting), and the press attributed it to the strength of LGD's discretionary-denial request rather than to a merits win — but a denial of institution is not a holding of validity and creates no estoppel as to US 10,505,142.
3. Claim-scope difference. Notably, the '394 claim required first and second conductive lines with an insulating film between them, which is a narrower, more structured claim than '142's apparent "touch driving lines and touch sensing lines … interposed" formulation. If '142's independent claim is broader, it is more vulnerable, not less.

6. Secondary considerations (Graham factors)

• Commercial success: strong in fact — the TOE (touch-on-encapsulation) architecture is reported to be used in panels supplied to Apple, Microsoft and Google. Nexus is the problem: the products' success would have to be tied to the claimed feature relative to the prior art, and Kim524/Kwon224 (and possibly US 9,696,838) already deliver integrated-touch-on-TFE structure. Expect a Fox Factory/Lectrosonics-style nexus fight.
• No unexpected results apparent: the described benefits (thinner, lighter, flexible, more transmissive, cheaper) are exactly the benefits the prior art already promised.
• Industry praise / licensing: any LG Display→third-party licensing or the Samsung Display patent transfer activity is not probative absent nexus.

7. Bottom line

Summary judgment of the record: the claimed invention reads as a placement/lamination choice — deciding which already-existing encapsulation layer sits between the two already-known sets of crossing capacitive touch electrodes — made against a background in which (i) touch-on-TFE was known (Kim524), (ii) mesh touch electrodes at the encapsulation level with an intervening shielding layer were known (Kwon224), and (iii) at least one reference teaches the encapsulation inorganic layer itself as the touch dielectric (US 9,696,838, date permitting). That is a textbook KSR combination, and I would expect a well-funded IPR to have a materially better than 50% chance against '142's broadest claims if Zhu837 and a verified TFE-touch reference are properly deployed — a different posture than the '394 IPR, where the broader independent claim was already rewritten during prosecution to add two narrower features.

What I could not verify and you should not treat as established: (a) the verbatim text of US 10,505,142's claims (absent from the fetched page); (b) the full publication numbers/content of Kwon224, Kim481, Zhu837, and Jang513 (I have only the Petition's and PO's characterizations plus filing/publication dates); (c) the effective filing date of US 9,696,838 / US 2016/0283005; (d) whether any other IPR on US 10,505,142 specifically (as opposed to the '394, '088 and '279 patents) has been filed.