Patent 10720483

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash

Proceedings on file (1)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

Current assignee: Unified Patents

1 settled
Terminated-Settled
Filed
Aug 31, 2025
Last modified
May 27, 2026
Petitioner
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.
Inventor
Won-Se Lee et al

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

✓ Generated

Proceedings overview

A single AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 10720483. This proceeding, an Inter Partes Review (IPR), was terminated due to settlement. As a result, no claims were adjudicated as unpatentable or patentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This leaves the patent's claims unhardened by PTAB review, meaning all claims remain untested by an administrative validity challenge.

IPR2025-01498 — BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co Ltd

  • Type: Inter Partes Review
  • Filed: 2025-08-31
  • Status: Terminated-Settled. This proceeding concluded due to a settlement between the petitioner and the patent owner before the PTAB issued an institution decision or a Final Written Decision.
  • Judge panel: The specific judge panel for this IPR is not publicly available through general search, as the case was terminated due to settlement before a panel would typically issue an institution decision.
  • Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, the prior art asserted, and the statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) of the petition grounds are not publicly available, as the case settled before an institution decision was rendered.
  • Institution decision: No institution decision was issued by the PTAB due to the settlement between the parties.
  • Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the proceeding was terminated by settlement before a Final Written Decision could be issued.
  • Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated as settled, with the last modification date noted as 2026-05-08. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
  • Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued by the PTAB to be appealed to the Federal Circuit.
  • Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. initiated a challenge against the patent but ultimately reached a confidential settlement with Samsung Display Co Ltd. Since the PTAB did not issue a decision on the merits, the patent claims were neither invalidated nor confirmed as patentable by the Board. This means the validity of the patent's claims remains an open question for any new potential challenger, without the benefit of a PTAB-hardened record.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10720483 remain untested by a PTAB Final Written Decision. The sole IPR filed against this patent, IPR2025-01498, concluded with a settlement between the petitioner, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., and the patent owner, Samsung Display Co Ltd. This means that the PTAB did not rule on the patentability of any claims.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) (which bars petitioners and their privies from raising grounds raised or reasonably could have raised) generally does not apply when an IPR is terminated due to settlement. However, the petitioner, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., and any parties in privity with them would likely be bound by the terms of their confidential settlement agreement. For other potential defendants facing assertion of this patent, the prior art grounds that could have been raised in IPR2025-01498 are still available for their own challenges, assuming they are not in privity with BOE.

The fact that only one IPR was filed and it resulted in a settlement suggests that the patent owner and the initial challenger found a mutually agreeable resolution. This does not provide a definitive signal of either extreme weakness or extreme robustness of the patent's claims.

Recommended next steps

  • There are no active PTAB proceedings concerning US10720483.
  • Since the single IPR filed (IPR2025-01498) was terminated by settlement, no claims have been invalidated or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision. This leaves all claims of US10720483 open for validity challenges by new petitioners (subject to privity considerations). For any entity facing assertion of this patent, a thorough prior art search and analysis is recommended to identify strong invalidity grounds, as the patent has not yet survived a PTAB merits challenge.

Generated 5/23/2026, 6:49:18 AM