PTAB challenges

The "PTAB proceedings on file" section of the prompt indicated no AIA trial proceedings were found via the USPTO ODP API. However, the "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary" sections explicitly state that IPR2024-01095 was filed against US patent 11828425. I will proceed with the information from the "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary" as it provides specific details regarding an IPR.

Proceedings overview

There is one known AIA trial proceeding against US Patent 11828425. This Inter Partes Review initially led to the invalidation of several claims, but one claim (claim 2) is currently under reconsideration by the PTAB following a Director Review. This indicates a complex and ongoing defensive posture for the patent, with some claims having been found unpatentable while others remain potentially valid or are being re-evaluated.

IPR2024-01095 — Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-07-03
• Status: Pending Director Review. The USPTO Director partially vacated the PTAB's Final Written Decision and remanded the case for reconsideration of claim 2.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for this proceeding is not available in the provided patent text or readily found through general web searches for "IPR2024-01095 US11828425 panel judges".
• Petition grounds: Claims 2, 4, 9-12, and 17 were challenged as unpatentable under § 103 (obviousness). Specific prior art references were not detailed in the provided text, but the finding of "obviousness" confirms the statutory basis.
• Institution decision: Details regarding the institution decision date and specific reasoning are not explicitly provided in the patent text or available in general web searches for "IPR2024-01095 US11828425 institution decision date grounds".
• Final Written Decision (if issued): A Final Written Decision was issued on 2026-01-22 (corrected 2026-02-09). The PTAB found claims 2, 4, 9-12, and 17 to be unpatentable as obvious. The reasoning for these findings is not detailed in the provided text.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination occurred. Instead, a Director Review was sought and granted.
• Appeal: USPTO Director John Squires granted Director Review on 2026-06-25, partially vacating the PTAB's Final Written Decision and remanding the case for reconsideration of claim 2. This action was taken because "the Board failed to explain why its conclusion regarding claim 2 in the IPR proceeding differed from a jury verdict in a parallel district court case."
• Defensive value: The initial FWD found claims 2, 4, 9-12, and 17 unpatentable. However, the Director Review and remand for claim 2 introduce uncertainty. Claims 4, 9-12, and 17 were found unpatentable by the PTAB and this decision was not vacated for these claims, providing strong defensive value against assertions based on them. Claim 2's status is now in flux, requiring monitoring of the PTAB's reconsideration.

Strategic summary

As it stands, IPR2024-01095 resulted in the PTAB finding claims 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 17 of US11828425 unpatentable. This significantly narrows the scope of the patent for assertion, as these claims are likely to be permanently invalidated unless further successful appeals or reviews occur. Independent Claim 17, which relates to a transparent OLED, was found unpatentable.

The status of claim 2 is currently uncertain due to the Director Review and remand. A jury in parallel district court litigation found claim 2 to be infringed and not invalid, creating a direct conflict with the PTAB's initial finding. The PTAB is now tasked with reconsidering its decision on claim 2, which could potentially lead to it being sustained or again found unpatentable with a more thorough explanation addressing the jury's verdict. Claims 1 and 3, 5-8, 13-16, and all claims dependent on these, appear to be untested by this IPR.

Regarding estoppel, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (the petitioner) and its privies would be estopped from challenging claims 2, 4, 9-12, and 17 in future PTAB proceedings or district court litigation on any grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2024-01095. For other potential defendants, the grounds of obviousness based on the art cited in this IPR might be unavailable for challenging claims 4, 9-12, and 17 if they are found to be in privity with Samsung or if the claims are ultimately cancelled. The ongoing reconsideration of claim 2 means its estoppel landscape is still developing.

Recommended next steps

• For claims 4, 9-12, and 17: These claims were found unpatentable as obvious in the Final Written Decision of IPR2024-01095. Any infringement theories built upon these specific claims should be carefully re-evaluated as their validity is highly compromised. The original FWD would be the primary document to review for the specific reasoning of their unpatentability.
• For claim 2: Closely monitor the remanded proceedings at the PTAB. The outcome of the reconsideration will be critical. The Board's reasoning for either sustaining or invalidating claim 2 after considering the district court jury verdict will dictate its defensive value.
• For untested claims: Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 13-16, and any other claims not explicitly addressed by IPR2024-01095, remain in play. A thorough prior art search should be conducted for these claims if they are central to any asserted infringement.
• Director Review Order: Refer to the Director's Order dated 2026-06-25, which partially vacated the FWD and remanded for reconsideration of claim 2. This document will contain the specific instructions and reasoning for the remand. While not a Federal Circuit decision, it is a high-level review within the USPTO.
• The absence of further PTAB activity beyond this IPR suggests that the patent may have a relatively narrow set of claims being actively asserted or that petitioners have strategically chosen to focus on specific claims.