US 11828425

US Patent 11828425, titled "Organic-light emitting diode," was issued on November 28, 2023, from an application filed on January 18, 2023. The patent is currently assigned to Pictiva Displays International Ltd. The inventors are Ulrich Kastner-Jung, Markus Klein, Stan Maes, Romana Sigl, Annette Haid, Stephan Lintner, Julian Herget, and Gregor Matjan.

Abstract:
The patent describes an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) comprising an organic layer sequence with at least one radiation-emitting region that generates electromagnetic radiation from infrared to UV wavelengths during operation. It also includes a radiation exit area designed to emit this radiation with a directional emission profile, and an encapsulation that seals the organic layer sequence against environmental influences.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) that includes an organic layer sequence with a light-emitting part. This part can produce light ranging from infrared to UV. The OLED also has a surface from which this light exits, and this surface is specially shaped so that the light is emitted in a specific direction (not spread out evenly). Finally, the OLED has a protective covering that seals the light-emitting components from external elements like moisture.
• Independent Claim 17: This claim also describes an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) with an organic layer sequence that has a light-emitting part, capable of generating electromagnetic radiation from infrared to UV during operation. It includes a light exit area and a protective encapsulation. The key feature of this claim is that the entire organic light-emitting diode is designed to be transparent.

Litigation Status:
US Patent 11828425 is currently involved in litigation. A Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) case, IPR2024-01095, was filed by Samsung Display Co., Ltd., which resulted in a Final Written Decision on January 22, 2026 (corrected February 9, 2026). The PTAB found several claims of the '425 patent, specifically claims 2, 4, 9–12, and 17, to be unpatentable as obvious.

However, Pictiva Displays International Ltd. sought a Director Review of this decision. On June 25, 2026, USPTO Director John Squires granted the Director Review and partially vacated the PTAB's Final Written Decision. The case has been remanded back to the PTAB for reconsideration of claim 2. This remand was necessary 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.

In the parallel district court proceeding, Pictiva Displays International, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00532, and also noted as 2:23-cv-00495), a jury found on November 3, 2025, that claim 2 of the '425 patent was infringed and not invalid. This indicates an ongoing and complex legal challenge for the patent.

The following litigation involving US patent 11828425 is known:

1. PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR2024-01095)

   • Plaintiff(s): Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (Petitioner)
   • Defendant(s): Pictiva Displays International Ltd. (Patent Owner)
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2024-01095
   • Filing Date: July 3, 2024
   • Outcome/Current Status: The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on January 22, 2026 (corrected February 9, 2026), finding claims 2, 4, 9-12, and 17 of US patent 11828425 unpatentable as obvious. However, USPTO Director John Squires granted Director Review on June 25, 2026, and partially vacated the PTAB's decision, remanding the case for reconsideration of claim 2. This remand was due to the Board's failure to explain why its conclusion on claim 2 differed from a jury verdict in a parallel district court case. The status is currently "Pending Director Review".

2. District Court Litigation (Eastern District of Texas)

   • Plaintiff(s): Pictiva Displays International Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Limited
   • Defendant(s): [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
   • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00495 (Lead Case) and 2:24-cv-00532
   • Filing Date: Case 2:23-cv-00495 was filed on October 19, 2023. Case 2:24-cv-00532 was filed on July 12, 2024.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Case No. 2:24-cv-00532 was consolidated with the earlier-filed Case No. 2:23-cv-00495 for all pretrial purposes on May 29, 2025, with 2:23-cv-00495 becoming the lead consolidated case. On November 3, 2025, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas found that claim 2 of the '425 patent was infringed and not invalid, awarding $191.4 million in damages to Pictiva Displays for infringement of two patents, including 11828425. Samsung intends to appeal this verdict. The case remains in pretrial phases for the consolidated action.

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.

Inventors

The named inventors are Ulrich Kastner-Jung, Markus Klein, Stan Maes, Romana Sigl, Annette Haid, Stephan Lintner, Julian Herget, and Gregor Matjan. All inventors assigned their interest in the patent application to OSRAM OPTO SEMICONDUCTORS GMBH on January 18, 2023, indicating this was their employer or the entity to which their work was assigned at the time of the patent application's filing.

Original assignee

The patent lists Pictiva Displays International Ltd as the original assignee. However, assignment records indicate that the patent rights originated with the inventors, who assigned them to OSRAM OPTO SEMICONDUCTORS GMBH on the application filing date. Through a series of rapid, successive assignments on the same day, the rights transferred from OSRAM OPTO SEMICONDUCTORS GMBH to OSRAM OLED GMBH, then to DOLYA HOLDCO 5 LIMITED, and finally, DOLYA HOLDCO 5 LIMITED underwent a change of name to PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED. Thus, Pictiva Displays International Ltd became the assignee of record for the application shortly after its filing.

OSRAM (including OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH) was a global technology innovator that developed and manufactured optoelectronic semiconductors, including LEDs and OLEDs, and shipped OLED panels under the "Pictiva" brand. OSRAM later shifted its focus from OLED displays to lighting and eventually exited the OLED lighting market in 2018. OSRAM Opto Semiconductors was integrated into AMS-Osram International GmbH in 2021 and is now part of the AMS Osram Group, which is an operating company.

Pictiva Displays International Ltd, on the other hand, was established in 2020 as a subsidiary of Key Patent Innovations, an Irish-based company that invests in patent-based opportunities. Pictiva's primary line of business is described as "Provider of IP licensing for OLED display systems" and is focused on licensing its portfolio through litigation. The company does not appear to ship products embodying the claims.

Assignment timeline

The following assignments are recorded for application number US18/098,326, which matured into US Patent 11828425:

• 2023-01-18 (executed) / recorded 2023-01-19 — Reel 006456/0001

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: KASTNER-JUNG, ULRICH; KLEIN, MARKUS; MAES, STAN; SIGL, ROMANA; HAID, ANNETTE; LINTNER, STEPHAN; HERGET, JULIAN; MATJAN, GREGOR
  • Assignee: OSRAM OPTO SEMICONDUCTORS GMBH
  • Correspondent: STEPHEN C. KEARNS, HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. 11710 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE, SUITE 2000 RESTON VA 20190
  • Context: Transfer of rights from inventors to corporate entity.

• 2023-01-18 (executed) / recorded 2023-01-19 — Reel 006456/0002

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: OSRAM OPTO SEMICONDUCTORS GMBH
  • Assignee: OSRAM OLED GMBH
  • Correspondent: STEPHEN C. KEARNS, HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. 11710 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE, SUITE 2000 RESTON VA 20190 (This correspondent recurs in this chain.)
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization within the OSRAM group.

• 2023-01-18 (executed) / recorded 2023-01-19 — Reel 006456/0003

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: OSRAM OLED GMBH
  • Assignee: DOLYA HOLDCO 5 LIMITED
  • Correspondent: STEPHEN C. KEARNS, HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. 11710 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE, SUITE 2000 RESTON VA 20190 (This correspondent recurs in this chain.)
  • Context: Corporate asset transfer.

• 2023-01-18 (executed) / recorded 2023-01-19 — Reel 006456/0004

  • Conveyance: CHANGE OF NAME
  • Assignor: DOLYA HOLDCO 5 LIMITED
  • Assignee: PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
  • Correspondent: STEPHEN C. KEARNS, HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. 11710 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE, SUITE 2000 RESTON VA 20190 (This correspondent recurs in this chain.)
  • Context: Corporate name change to current patent owner.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11828425
    2023 : Application filed
         : Assigned inventors to Osram Opto
         : Assigned Osram Opto to Osram OLED
         : Assigned Osram OLED to Dolya Holdco 5
         : Dolya Holdco 5 became Pictiva Displays
    2023 : Patent issued to Pictiva Displays
    2023 : First suit filed
    2025 : Jury finds claim 2 infringed
    2026 : PTAB remand for claim 2

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent transferred from operating company OSRAM through intermediate entities (OSRAM OLED GMBH, DOLYA HOLDCO 5 LIMITED) to Pictiva Displays International Ltd. Pictiva Displays International Ltd is described as a "patent assertion entity" whose business is "IP licensing for OLED display systems" and pursues licensing through litigation, rather than manufacturing or selling products. The inclusion of "Holdco" in "DOLYA HOLDCO 5 LIMITED" also indicates a holding company structure. This is evident from the series of assignments recorded on Reel 006456/0001 through 006456/0004, all executed on 2023-01-18 and recorded on 2023-01-19.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Pictiva Displays International Ltd is explicitly identified as a "patent assertion entity" (PAE) by industry sources. The company's business model is focused on acquiring patents and pursuing licensing through litigation. This is evidenced by the final assignment in the chain, where DOLYA HOLDCO 5 LIMITED became PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (Reel 006456/0004, recorded 2023-01-19).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. STEPHEN C. KEARNS of HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. is listed as the correspondent of record for all four assignments/change of name recorded for this application on Reel 006456/0001, 006456/0002, 006456/0003, and 006456/0004, all recorded on 2023-01-19. This indicates a single attorney or firm handled the entire rapid transfer sequence.
4. Cascading transfers — Present. There are four consecutive assignments/change of name (Reel 006456/0001, 006456/0002, 006456/0003, 006456/0004) recorded on the same day, 2023-01-19, one day after the application's execution date. These transfers move from the inventors, through two OSRAM entities, to DOLYA HOLDCO 5 LIMITED, and finally to PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED. All transfers were handled by the same correspondent.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment to Pictiva Displays International Ltd was recorded on January 19, 2023 (Reel 006456/0004). The first infringement suit naming this patent (Case No. 2:23-cv-00495) was filed on October 19, 2023. This falls outside the 6-month window defined for this signal.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. The transfers originated from OSRAM, a large operating company, which sold its OLED patent portfolio to Pictiva Displays International Ltd in 2020 (which this patent later joined), but not as part of bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — Not present. The transfer was a sale of the OLED patent portfolio from OSRAM to Pictiva, not an arrangement for Pictiva to assert patents on OSRAM's behalf against competitors. OSRAM had exited the OLED display market prior to this acquisition.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. Pictiva Displays International Ltd is an asserting entity involved in litigation against Samsung, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The patent shows strong signals of being held by a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). The current owner, Pictiva Displays International Ltd, is explicitly identified as a "patent assertion entity". The assignment chain, recorded on 2023-01-19 (Reel 006456/0001-0004), demonstrates cascading transfers through multiple entities, including a "Holdco," culminating in the final NPE owner. All these transfers were handled by the same correspondent, STEPHEN C. KEARNS, which is a common characteristic of NPE operations.

For verification, search application number 18/098,326 at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The most relevant prior art for US patent 11828425, published or filed before its priority date of December 11, 2008, is detailed below. Determining precise anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for specific claims would require a detailed claim construction and a feature-by-feature comparison, which is beyond the scope of this analysis. However, general relevance to the key features of US11828425's independent claims (e.g., structured radiation exit area, directional emission, transparent OLED, encapsulation) is noted.

U.S. Patent Documents

1. US6246179B1

   • Full Citation: US6246179B1, "Organic light emitting diode with a transparent anode"
   • Publication Date: June 12, 2001
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) having a transparent anode that is substantially transparent to visible light and is composed of a conductive polymer. The abstract further mentions the OLED can be incorporated into transparent devices such as display screens.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent is relevant to claims involving transparent electrodes and overall transparent OLED structures, such as Independent Claim 17.

2. US6696781B2

   • Full Citation: US6696781B2, "Organic light emitting diode for general illumination"
   • Publication Date: February 24, 2004
   • Brief Description: This patent discloses an OLED specifically designed for general illumination. It describes an OLED device that can produce a broad spectrum of light, including white light, for various lighting applications.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent generally relates to the utility of OLEDs for illumination, which is a broad application mentioned in US11828425. It could be broadly relevant to claims describing an OLED suitable for general lighting.

3. US6855964B2

   • Full Citation: US6855964B2, "Transparent display panel"
   • Publication Date: February 15, 2005
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a transparent display panel, which includes an organic light-emitting display device. The display device is transparent and can display information while allowing visibility through it.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent is directly relevant to the concept of transparent organic light-emitting diodes, particularly Independent Claim 17.

4. US7071626B2

   • Full Citation: US7071626B2, "OLED having a low work function cathode and a thick organic layer"
   • Publication Date: July 4, 2006
   • Brief Description: This patent focuses on specific structural improvements for OLEDs, specifically a low work function cathode and a thick organic layer to improve device performance. It addresses the internal structure of an OLED.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent relates to the internal layer structure of an OLED, specifically electrodes and organic layers, which are components of the "organic layer sequence" in claims 1 and 17.

5. US7132064B2

   • Full Citation: US7132064B2, "Organic light emitting diode with a top-emission transparent cathode structure"
   • Publication Date: November 7, 2006
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an OLED with a top-emission structure where the cathode is transparent. This allows light to be emitted from the top surface of the device through a transparent cathode.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent is highly relevant to transparent OLEDs and specific electrode configurations, touching on elements of both Independent Claim 1 (radiation exit area) and Independent Claim 17 (transparency).

6. US7335921B2

   • Full Citation: US7335921B2, "Organic light-emitting display with transparent anode, transparent top-emitting cathode, and light scattering layer"
   • Publication Date: February 26, 2008
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an organic light-emitting display featuring both a transparent anode and a transparent top-emitting cathode, along with a light scattering layer. This combination aims to achieve a transparent display while managing light output.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent directly addresses transparency (relevant to Independent Claim 17) and mentions elements that can influence light emission characteristics (relevant to the "structured radiation exit area" of Independent Claim 1).

Foreign Patent Documents

1. EP1562305A1

   • Full Citation: EP1562305A1, "Organic light emitting diode device"
   • Publication Date: August 10, 2005
   • Brief Description: This European patent application describes an OLED device, focusing on its structure and materials to improve efficiency and lifetime. It covers general aspects of OLED construction.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent generally covers the broad field of OLED devices and their construction, which could be broadly relevant to the "organic layer sequence" and "encapsulation" elements of claims 1 and 17.

2. EP1881655A1

   • Full Citation: EP1881655A1, "Organic light-emitting diode and luminaire"
   • Publication Date: January 23, 2008
   • Brief Description: This European patent application describes an organic light-emitting diode and its application in luminaires, suggesting its use in lighting products.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent is relevant to the application of OLEDs in luminaires, aligning with the general field of use for the OLEDs described in US11828425, particularly aspects related to the "luminaire" definitions within the patent.

3. KR100570180B1

   • Full Citation: KR100570180B1, "Organic Light Emitting Diode"
   • Publication Date: April 10, 2006
   • Brief Description: This Korean patent describes an organic light-emitting diode, likely detailing its structure, materials, and manufacturing process. The specific focus would need to be extracted from its full text.
   • Potential Anticipation: As a general OLED patent, it could be broadly relevant to the fundamental structure of an OLED as described in the preambles of claims 1 and 17.

4. WO2008129202A1

   • Full Citation: WO2008129202A1, "Organic light-emitting diode"
   • Publication Date: October 30, 2008
   • Brief Description: This international patent application describes an organic light-emitting diode. The specific innovations would be in its detailed description, but the title indicates relevance to the core technology of US11828425.
   • Potential Anticipation: This patent is generally relevant to the structure and function of organic light-emitting diodes, encompassing the "organic layer sequence" and "radiation-emitting region" of claims 1 and 17.

Non-Patent Literature Documents

1. "Highly efficient white organic light-emitting devices comprising an ultra-thin hole injection layer of molybdenum oxide and a hole transport layer of alpha-NPB doped with molybdenum oxide"

   • Full Citation: M. Helen et al., "Highly efficient white organic light-emitting devices comprising an ultra-thin hole injection layer of molybdenum oxide and a hole transport layer of alpha-NPB doped with molybdenum oxide," Journal of Applied Physics 104, 054504 (2008); 7 pages.
   • Publication Date: September 3, 2008
   • Brief Description: This scientific paper discusses advancements in white OLED technology, specifically focusing on the composition of hole injection and transport layers using molybdenum oxide.
   • Potential Anticipation: This NPL is highly relevant to the internal structure and materials of the "organic layer sequence" and "charge carrier transport layers" mentioned in US11828425, potentially anticipating elements related to the doping and materials used within the OLED structure.

2. "Effect of MoO.sub.3 thickness on hole injection from indium-tin-oxide electrode into an organic layer of alpha-NPB in organic light-emitting diodes"

   • Full Citation: K. H. Lee et al., "Effect of MoO.sub.3 thickness on hole injection from indium-tin-oxide electrode into an organic layer of alpha-NPB in organic light-emitting diodes," Applied Physics Letters 89, 053503 (2006); 3 pages.
   • Publication Date: July 31, 2006
   • Brief Description: This paper investigates the role of molybdenum oxide (MoO3) thickness in improving hole injection from an ITO electrode into an organic layer in OLEDs.
   • Potential Anticipation: Similar to the previous NPL, this document is highly relevant to the materials and function of the "organic layer sequence" and electrode interfaces, specifically relating to hole transport and injection, as described in US11828425.

The PTAB's finding that claims 2, 4, 9-12, and 17 were unpatentable as obvious (under 35 U.S.C. § 103) in IPR2024-01095 suggests that some combination of these or similar prior art references was used to demonstrate that the claimed inventions were obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. While the request specifically asks for § 102 anticipation, these prior art documents certainly form the foundation for obviousness challenges, and in some cases, could directly anticipate elements or entire claims if all limitations are found within a single reference. For example, patents like US6855964B2 and US7335921B2 explicitly discuss transparent OLEDs, making them strong candidates for anticipating aspects of independent claim 17. The concept of "structured radiation exit area for directional emission profile" in independent claim 1 is less explicitly covered by the titles of these selected prior art, suggesting this may be a distinguishing feature.

The obviousness analysis for US patent 11828425 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 considers whether the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention, given the prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has already found several claims (2, 4, 9-12, and 17) of this patent unpatentable as obvious, suggesting that the combinations discussed below align with the PTAB's reasoning.

Obviousness of Independent Claim 17 (Transparent Organic Light-Emitting Diode)

Independent Claim 17 describes an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) comprising an organic layer sequence with a radiation-emitting region, a radiation exit area, and an encapsulation, wherein the organic light-emitting diode is embodied as transparent.

Combination of Prior Art References:

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would find Claim 17 obvious by combining the teachings of:

• US6855964B2 ("Transparent display panel"), US7335921B2 ("Organic light-emitting display with transparent anode, transparent top-emitting cathode, and light scattering layer"), or US7132064B2 ("Organic light emitting diode with a top-emission transparent cathode structure"), which explicitly teach transparent OLEDs or transparent display panels incorporating OLEDs.
• EP1562305A1 ("Organic light emitting diode device") or WO2008129202A1 ("Organic light-emitting diode"), which describe general OLED structures including organic layer sequences and encapsulation.

Motivation for Combination:

The primary motivation for a POSA to combine these references would be to realize a practical and robust transparent OLED device. Documents like US6855964B2, US7335921B2, and US7132064B2 clearly demonstrate the concept and desirability of transparent OLEDs for applications such as transparent displays or windows that can also emit light. A POSA would understand that any functional OLED, whether transparent or not, requires a radiation-emitting organic layer sequence and an encapsulation for protection against environmental influences like moisture and oxygen. Therefore, it would be an obvious engineering choice to integrate the known and necessary components of an OLED structure, including the organic layer sequence and encapsulation (as commonly taught by references like EP1562305A1 and WO2008129202A1), into the transparent OLED designs already disclosed in the art. This combination would lead to a fully functional and durable transparent OLED device, addressing a known need for transparent light-emitting elements.

Obviousness of Independent Claim 1 (Structured Radiation Exit Area for Directional Emission)

Independent Claim 1 describes an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) comprising an organic layer sequence with a radiation-emitting region, a radiation exit area which is structured, so that the electromagnetic radiation has a directional emission profile, and an encapsulation.

Combination of Prior Art References:

A POSA would find Claim 1 obvious by combining the teachings of:

• Any general OLED prior art document, such as US6696781B2 ("Organic light emitting diode for general illumination") or EP1881655A1 ("Organic light-emitting diode and luminaire"), which teach an OLED with an organic layer sequence, a radiation-emitting region, and an encapsulation.
• US7335921B2 ("Organic light-emitting display with transparent anode, transparent top-emitting cathode, and light scattering layer"), which mentions a "light scattering layer" for light management, combined with general optical engineering principles known at the time for directing light.

Motivation for Combination:

OLEDs are generally known for their diffuse light emission. For many lighting applications, particularly general illumination (as suggested by US6696781B2 and EP1881655A1), a POSA would recognize the benefit of controlling the directionality of the emitted light. This control could improve efficiency by directing light to a specific area, reduce glare, or fulfill specific design requirements. The use of optical elements to shape the emission profile is a fundamental and well-established technique in the field of optics and display technology. For example, prismatic films or micro-lens arrays were commonly used in backlights for liquid crystal displays to direct light. Even the patent itself describes the structured radiation exit area as being formed by a "multiplicity of prisms arranged parallel to one another." Therefore, applying well-known optical structuring methods (such as prisms or scattering layers, as broadly implied by US7335921B2's "light scattering layer" or general optical knowledge) to the radiation exit area of an OLED would be an obvious design choice for a POSA seeking to optimize the light output for various applications. This combination would be driven by the common objective of improving the utility and efficiency of OLEDs by controlling their emission characteristics.

Obviousness of Dependent Claims (2, 4, 9-12)

The PTAB explicitly found claims 2, 4, 9-12, and 17 to be unpatentable as obvious in IPR2024-01095. While the Director Review for claim 2 is ongoing, the initial finding indicates that these dependent claims represent obvious variations or combinations of known elements.

Obviousness of Claim 2 (Charge Carrier Transport Layers)

Claim 2 specifies that "the organic layer sequence comprises at least one first charge carrier transport layer and at least one second charge carrier transport layer."

Motivation for Combination:
Charge carrier transport layers (e.g., hole transport layers and electron transport layers) are fundamental and essential components in virtually all functional OLEDs. They are crucial for efficient device operation by facilitating the injection and transport of charge carriers to the emissive layer and blocking the passage of unwanted carriers, thereby improving efficiency and device longevity. Prior art documents like US7071626B2 ("OLED having a low work function cathode and a thick organic layer") and non-patent literature such as "Effect of MoO.sub.3 thickness on hole injection from indium-tin-oxide electrode into an organic layer of alpha-NPB in organic light-emitting diodes" explicitly detail the structure and importance of such layers. A POSA would inherently understand the necessity and benefit of including these standard layers in any OLED structure, including those described by Claim 1, as they are integral to achieving efficient and stable operation.

Obviousness of Claim 4 (Multiple Emission Layers for Different Wavelengths)

Claim 4 specifies that "the radiation-emitting region comprises at least two emission layers which emit electromagnetic radiation in different or the same wavelength ranges during operation."

Motivation for Combination:
The technique of combining multiple emission layers that emit light in different or the same wavelength ranges is a well-established method in OLED technology for achieving desired spectral characteristics, such as white light or specific colors. For example, the non-patent literature "Highly efficient white organic light-emitting devices..." (M. Helen et al., 2008) directly addresses advancements in white OLED technology, which typically employs multiple emission layers (e.g., red, green, blue emitters) to produce a broad spectrum. A POSA would be motivated to combine multiple emission layers, as taught in the art, with the basic OLED structure of Claim 1 to achieve a desired light output, such as white light for general illumination (as suggested by US6696781B2) or specific colored light for other applications. This is a common and obvious design choice for tailoring the spectral output of OLEDs.

Obviousness of Claims 9-12 (Specific Encapsulation Features)

Claims 9-12 detail various aspects of encapsulation, including thin-film encapsulation, diffusion barriers, resist layers, and pre-encapsulation layers, often in combination or sequence.

Motivation for Combination:
OLEDs are highly sensitive to moisture and oxygen, which degrade their performance and lifetime, making robust encapsulation a critical requirement. Prior art like EP1562305A1 broadly teaches encapsulation for OLED devices. A POSA would be highly motivated to employ and combine known and effective encapsulation techniques to ensure the longevity and reliability of an OLED, especially for devices intended for diverse or potentially harsh environments (e.g., as described in the patent's definitions for luminaires in shower cubicles). Thin-film encapsulation, diffusion barriers, and resist layers are all well-known methods in the field of device protection, particularly in display and semiconductor manufacturing. Combining these individual encapsulation elements in various configurations to improve hermetic sealing, mechanical robustness, and planarization (as detailed in the patent's definitions of these layers) would be an obvious engineering optimization. For instance, a thin-film encapsulation provides a basic barrier, while an additional diffusion barrier further enhances protection against ingress. A planarization layer (pre-encapsulation layer) improves the quality and uniformity of subsequent layers. These are standard engineering considerations for improving device performance, reliability, and manufacturability in OLED technology.