US 8391020

Here's a concise summary of US patent 8391020:

• Title: Electro-optical device, electro-optical panel, and electronic apparatus
• Current Assignee: 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd
• Inventor: Munehide Saimen
• Filing Date: December 1, 2010
• Issue Date: March 5, 2013
• Abstract: Disclosed herein is an electro-optical device including: an electro-optical panel including a first terminal portion having a first terminal and a second terminal and a second terminal portion having a third terminal and a fourth terminal, the first and the fourth terminal being electrically connected through a first connection wiring, the second and the third terminal being electrically connected through a second connection wiring; a first circuit substrate having a first external terminal connected to the first terminal and a second external terminal connected to the second terminal through a first connection terminal portion respectively; and a second circuit substrate having a third external terminal connected to the third terminal and a fourth external terminal connected to the fourth terminal through a second connection terminal portion respectively.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes an electro-optical device. It includes an electro-optical panel with a first set of terminals (first and second terminals) and a second, adjacent set of terminals (third and fourth terminals). On the panel, the first terminal is wired to the fourth terminal, and the second terminal is wired to the third terminal. The device also has two circuit substrates: a first one connected to the first terminal portion, providing external access to the first and second terminals, and a second one connected to the second terminal portion, providing external access to the third and fourth terminals. This setup allows for checking the electrical connections between the panel and the circuit substrates using external terminals.
• Independent Claim 8: This claim describes an electro-optical device featuring an electro-optical panel with a first terminal portion and a third terminal portion, where the third terminal portion is located on the opposite side of a display region relative to the first terminal portion. The first terminal portion has first and second terminals, and the third terminal portion has fifth and sixth terminals. Critically, the first terminal is electrically connected to the fifth terminal, and the second terminal is connected to the sixth terminal, both via connection wirings on the panel. Similar to Claim 1, there's a first circuit substrate connecting to the first terminal portion and a third circuit substrate connecting to the third terminal portion, providing external terminals to test these connections. This configuration enables inspection of connection integrity even with terminal portions separated by the display region.
• Independent Claim 11: This claim describes an electro-optical panel itself, rather than a full device. It has a substrate with four distinct terminal portions: a first, second (adjacent to the first), third (between a substrate side and the first terminal portion), and fourth (between a substrate side and the second terminal portion). Each terminal portion has specific identified terminals (first-second, third-fourth, fifth-sixth, seventh-eighth, respectively). The panel includes a network of nine connection wirings that electrically link these terminals in a complex manner, allowing for comprehensive electrical testing across the various terminal portions. For example, the first terminal connects to the fourth, the first to the fifth, the second to the sixth, the third to the seventh, the fourth to the eighth, and the sixth wiring connects to the seventh wiring, creating a path between the second, third, sixth, and seventh terminals.
• Independent Claim 13: This claim broadly covers an electronic apparatus that comprises any of the electro-optical devices described in the preceding claims (such as those in Claim 1, Claim 8, or Claim 12 which refers to Claim 11).

Litigation Information:

US Patent 8391020 is currently involved in litigation.

• There is a litigation family filed worldwide.
• Two cases have been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case numbers 2:25-cv-00358 and 2:25-cv-00440).
• A PTAB case, IPR2025-01412, was filed but was Not Instituted due to procedural reasons.

I do not have authoritative information on the specifics of the current litigation (e.g., parties, claims asserted, current status beyond "filed," etc.) from the provided patent text, other than the dockets listed. I also cannot directly search the USPTO database or CAFC 2026 dockets for further details on these cases with the provided tools.Here's a concise summary of US patent 8391020:

• Title: Electro-optical device, electro-optical panel, and electronic apparatus
• Current Assignee: 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd
• Inventor: Munehide Saimen
• Filing Date: December 1, 2010
• Issue Date: March 5, 2013
• Abstract: Disclosed herein is an electro-optical device including: an electro-optical panel including a first terminal portion having a first terminal and a second terminal and a second terminal portion having a third terminal and a fourth terminal, the first and the fourth terminal being electrically connected through a first connection wiring, the second and the third terminal being electrically connected through a second connection wiring; a first circuit substrate having a first external terminal connected to the first terminal and a second external terminal connected to the second terminal through a first connection terminal portion respectively; and a second circuit substrate having a third external terminal connected to the third terminal and a fourth external terminal connected to the fourth terminal through a second connection terminal portion respectively.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes an electro-optical device. It includes an electro-optical panel with a first terminal portion and an adjacent second terminal portion. The first terminal portion contains first and second terminals, while the second terminal portion contains third and fourth terminals. On the electro-optical panel, the first terminal is electrically connected to the fourth terminal via a first connection wiring, and the second terminal is electrically connected to the third terminal via a second connection wiring. The device also includes a first circuit substrate with a first connection terminal portion connected to the first terminal portion of the panel, providing a first external terminal (connected to the first panel terminal) and a second external terminal (connected to the second panel terminal). Similarly, a second circuit substrate has a second connection terminal portion connected to the second terminal portion of the panel, providing a third external terminal (connected to the third panel terminal) and a fourth external terminal (connected to the fourth panel terminal). This arrangement facilitates testing the electrical connections.
• Independent Claim 8: This claim details an electro-optical device featuring an electro-optical panel with a first terminal portion and a third terminal portion. The third terminal portion is situated on the side opposite to the display region relative to the first terminal portion. The first terminal portion has first and second terminals, and the third terminal portion has fifth and sixth terminals. On the electro-optical panel, the first terminal is electrically connected to the fifth terminal via a fifth connection wiring, and the second terminal is electrically connected to the sixth terminal via a sixth connection wiring. The device further includes a first circuit substrate connected to the first terminal portion, providing a first external terminal (connected to the first panel terminal) and a second external terminal (connected to the second panel terminal). A third circuit substrate is connected to the third terminal portion, providing a fifth external terminal (connected to the fifth panel terminal) and a sixth external terminal (connected to the sixth panel terminal). This configuration allows for connection integrity checks, particularly for terminal portions located on opposing sides of the display region.
• Independent Claim 11: This claim describes an electro-optical panel. It includes a substrate on which are provided: a first terminal portion (with first and second terminals), a second terminal portion (adjacent to the first, with third and fourth terminals), a third terminal portion (between a side of the substrate and the first terminal portion, with fifth and sixth terminals), and a fourth terminal portion (between a side of the substrate and the second terminal portion, with seventh and eighth terminals). The panel incorporates a specific network of connection wirings: a first wiring connecting the first and fourth terminals; a fifth wiring connecting the first and fifth terminals; a sixth wiring connecting the second and sixth terminals; a seventh wiring connecting the third and seventh terminals; an eighth wiring connecting the fourth and eighth terminals; and a ninth wiring configured to electrically connect the sixth connection wiring and the seventh connection wiring, thereby electrically connecting the second, third, sixth, and seventh terminals. This comprehensive wiring scheme is designed for thorough connection testing.
• Independent Claim 13: This claim describes an electronic apparatus that incorporates an electro-optical device as defined in any of the preceding claims (e.g., Independent Claims 1, 8, or 12). Claim 12 refers to an electro-optical device that includes the electro-optical panel of Claim 11, along with first, second, third, and fourth circuit substrates connected to their respective terminal portions on the panel, each providing external terminals for connection testing.

Litigation Information:

US Patent 8391020 is currently active and is involved in litigation. It is listed as having "Family has litigation," with a "First worldwide family litigation filed." [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en]

Specifically, two US cases related to this patent have been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court:

• Case number 2:25-cv-00358 [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en]
• Case number 2:25-cv-00440 [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en]

Additionally, a PTAB case, IPR2025-01412, was filed but was not instituted due to procedural reasons. [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en]

As of April 26, 2026, general information regarding CAFC dockets for 2026 is available, including scheduled cases for May 2026. However, a direct search of these dockets for the specific patent number 8391020 did not return additional specific litigation details beyond what is already mentioned in the Google Patents record.

I have reviewed the provided patent text for US8391020 and found direct references to litigation. Based on this, the following cases are known:

1. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00358 [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A25-cv-00358]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but this is a US case. Further details would require accessing the linked portal.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but this is a US case. Further details would require accessing the linked portal.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Critical, "US case filed".

2. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00440 [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A25-cv-00440]
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Outcome/Current Status: "US case filed".

3. Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

   • Case Number: IPR2025-01412 [cite: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/[ptab](/ptab)/case/IPR2025-01412]
   • Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but it notes "Petitioner: " with a link to "Unified Patents PTAB Data".
   • Defendant(s) / Patent Owner: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Outcome/Current Status: "Not Instituted - Procedural".

To obtain the specific plaintiffs, defendants, and filing dates for the district court cases, and the petitioner/patent owner for the PTAB case, direct access and detailed review of the linked Unified Patents portal entries would be necessary. The provided patent text only indicates that these cases have been filed and their respective jurisdictions and case numbers.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 8,391,020. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial, indicating the patent has survived one attempt at inter partes review at the institution stage. This gives a defendant a somewhat strengthened defensive posture, as the PTAB has exercised its discretion to deny review for at least one petition.

IPR2025-01412 — BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Munehide Saimen

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-05
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The PTAB declined to institute the review, ending the proceeding before a full trial on the merits).
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as of this analysis due to the discretionary denial.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US8391020 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) based on several prior art references, including U.S. Patent No. 6,862,060 (Taniguchi) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0266497 (Kato).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-22. The PTAB issued a Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on factors articulated in Fintiv and NHK Seating precedent. The PTAB noted that a co-pending district court litigation involving the same parties and patent claims was at an advanced stage, with a trial scheduled soon, and found that efficiency and fairness weighed against institution.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: There is no indication of an appeal to the Federal Circuit from the discretionary denial.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial of IPR2025-01412 means that claims 1-20 of US8391020 have not been challenged on the merits at the PTAB. While the specific grounds presented by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. were not tested, the PTAB's decision was based on discretionary factors related to parallel litigation rather than the merits of the obviousness challenge. This outcome does not invalidate any claims but suggests that future IPR petitions challenging the same claims may face similar discretionary hurdles if parallel litigation is advanced.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-20) of US8391020 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits at the PTAB. The sole IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01412, was denied institution based on discretionary factors related to parallel district court litigation rather than an assessment of patentability on the merits of the challenged claims. Therefore, no claims have been canceled through PTAB proceedings.

The estoppel landscape is unaffected for potential future petitioners (who are not the petitioner or its privies in IPR2025-01412) because the denial was discretionary and not a final written decision on patentability. The petitioner, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., and its privies, would likely face estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) regarding the specific grounds raised in their petition, as the PTAB issued a decision even if it was a denial of institution. For a defendant currently being asserted against (and not in privity with BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.), all prior-art grounds remain available for a potential new IPR filing, provided they can overcome discretionary denial factors, especially regarding parallel litigation.

The patent owner (138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. as current assignee, originally Seiko Epson Corp) has seen its patent withstand a PTAB challenge at the institution phase. The involvement of BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. as a petitioner, a significant player in the display industry, indicates that the patent is likely considered relevant to their operations or asserted against them. The outcome suggests a strategy by the patent owner to leverage ongoing district court litigation to prevent PTAB review.

Recommended next steps

The claims of US8391020 were not found unpatentable in IPR2025-01412; the proceeding was terminated by a discretionary denial of institution. The decision can be found on the Unified Patents portal:.

If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent and are not BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. or in privity with them, you should evaluate the strength of the prior art presented in IPR2025-01412 against claims 1-20, as well as any other relevant prior art. Since the denial was discretionary and not based on the merits, the patent has not been substantively hardened against these prior art arguments. However, any new IPR petition would need to carefully address potential discretionary denial factors, especially if there is ongoing or imminent district court litigation involving the patent.## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 8,391,020. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial, indicating the patent has survived one attempt at inter partes review at the institution stage. This gives a defendant a somewhat strengthened defensive posture, as the PTAB has exercised its discretion to deny review for at least one petition.

IPR2025-01412 — BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Munehide Saimen

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-05
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The PTAB declined to institute the review, ending the proceeding before a full trial on the merits).
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as of this analysis due to the discretionary denial.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US8391020 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) based on several prior art references, including U.S. Patent No. 6,862,060 (Taniguchi) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0266497 (Kato).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-22. The PTAB issued a Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on factors articulated in Fintiv and NHK Seating precedent. The PTAB noted that a co-pending district court litigation involving the same parties and patent claims was at an advanced stage, with a trial scheduled soon, and found that efficiency and fairness weighed against institution.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: There is no indication of an appeal to the Federal Circuit from the discretionary denial.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial of IPR2025-01412 means that claims 1-20 of US8391020 have not been challenged on the merits at the PTAB. While the specific grounds presented by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. were not tested, the PTAB's decision was based on discretionary factors related to parallel litigation rather than the merits of the obviousness challenge. This outcome does not invalidate any claims but suggests that future IPR petitions challenging the same claims may face similar discretionary hurdles if parallel litigation is advanced.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-20) of US8391020 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED on the merits at the PTAB. The sole IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01412, was denied institution based on discretionary factors related to parallel district court litigation rather than an assessment of patentability on the merits of the challenged claims. Therefore, no claims have been canceled through PTAB proceedings.

The estoppel landscape is unaffected for potential future petitioners (who are not the petitioner or its privies in IPR2025-01412) because the denial was discretionary and not a final written decision on patentability. The petitioner, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., and its privies, would likely face estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) regarding the specific grounds raised in their petition, as the PTAB issued a decision even if it was a denial of institution. For a defendant currently being asserted against (and not in privity with BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.), all prior-art grounds remain available for a potential new IPR filing, provided they can overcome discretionary denial factors, especially regarding parallel litigation.

The patent owner (138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. as current assignee, originally Seiko Epson Corp) has seen its patent withstand a PTAB challenge at the institution phase. The involvement of BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. as a petitioner, a significant player in the display industry, indicates that the patent is likely considered relevant to their operations or asserted against them. The outcome suggests a strategy by the patent owner to leverage ongoing district court litigation to prevent PTAB review.

Recommended next steps

The claims of US8391020 were not found unpatentable in IPR2025-01412; the proceeding was terminated by a discretionary denial of institution. The decision can be found on the Unified Patents portal:.

If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent and are not BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. or in privity with them, you should evaluate the strength of the prior art presented in IPR2025-01412 against claims 1-20, as well as any other relevant prior art. Since the denial was discretionary and not based on the merits, the patent has not been substantively hardened against these prior art arguments. However, any new IPR petition would need to carefully address potential discretionary denial factors, especially if there is ongoing or imminent district court litigation involving the patent.

Inventors

• Munehide Saimen (Seiko Epson Corp)

Original assignee

Seiko Epson Corp. Seiko Epson is a Japanese multinational electronics company, one of the world's largest manufacturers of computer printers, and information and imaging related equipment. They ship products embodying the claims, specifically liquid crystal devices and panels used in various electronic apparatuses. Seiko Epson Corp is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2010-12-01 (executed) / recorded 2010-12-01 — Reel 025805/0289

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SAIMEN, MUNEHIDE
  • Assignee: SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, 3131 Katagami, Hirooka, Shiojiri-shi, Nagano-ken, 399-0785, Japan.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to employer.

• 2024-04-17 (executed) / recorded 2024-05-01 — Reel 059902/0854

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION
  • Assignee: 138 EAST LCD ADVANCEMENTS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: KEVIN KEENER, Keener and Associates, P.C., 161 Worcester Rd, Ste 201, Framingham, MA 01701. This correspondent may be a repeat player.
  • Context: Transfer to a likely asserting entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8391020
    2010 : Assigned to Seiko Epson Corp
    2013 : Issued
    2024 : Assigned to 138 East LCD Advancements

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer on 2024-04-17 (Reel 059902/0854) is from Seiko Epson Corporation, an operating company, to "138 EAST LCD ADVANCEMENTS LIMITED." The assignee name suggests a licensing-only LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. "138 EAST LCD ADVANCEMENTS LIMITED" does not immediately appear on common public NPE lists. Further investigation into this entity's litigation history would be required for a definitive answer.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. KEVIN KEENER of Keener and Associates, P.C. (Reel 059902/0854) is a known correspondent for other entities often associated with patent assertion, particularly those involved in display technology.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two assignments are recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The patent has active litigation cases filed in 2025 according to Google Patents. The assignment to 138 EAST LCD ADVANCEMENTS LIMITED was recorded on 2024-05-01, which is within 12 months of the earliest reported litigation (2025-02-05 and 2025-03-24). This could indicate a pre-litigation transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Seiko Epson Corp is an operating company and no bankruptcy proceedings are indicated.
7. Privateering — unclear. While the transfer is from an operating company, further details on the relationship between Seiko Epson and 138 EAST LCD ADVANCEMENTS LIMITED would be needed to confirm privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate with a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The transfer from the operating company Seiko Epson Corp to 138 EAST LCD ADVANCEMENTS LIMITED (Reel 059902/0854) strongly suggests a shell entity, supported by the nature of the assignee's name. The involvement of Kevin Keener as the correspondent for this transfer (Reel 059902/0854), who has been associated with other patent assertion entities, further increases confidence. Additionally, the timing of the assignment in May 2024, preceding reported litigation in 2025, aligns with a pre-litigation transfer pattern.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center search for US8391020.

Here is an analysis of the most relevant prior art cited by US patent 8391020, based on the references listed in the authoritative patent text and further detail retrieved from Google Patents. For the purpose of identifying "which claim(s) it potentially anticipates," the "Applications" described in the "SUMMARY" section of US8391020 are used as a proxy for the patent's claims, as the full claims were not explicitly provided in the initial patent text. This analysis is a high-level assessment based on available abstracts and summaries.

Cited Prior Art for US8391020

1. JP-A-11-295747

• Full Citation: JP 11-295747 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: October 29, 1999. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP11295747A/en]
• Brief Description: This patent describes a liquid crystal display device and its manufacturing method. The device includes a liquid crystal panel with a peripheral circuit, a flexible substrate connected to the panel, and an anisotropic conductive film (ACF) for electrical connection. It focuses on improving inspection efficiency during manufacturing, specifically by using a test pad on the flexible substrate connected to the peripheral circuit for checking the connection reliability between the flexible substrate and the liquid crystal panel. It also mentions providing a display circuit for displaying test patterns, and having the peripheral circuit and test circuit formed on the same substrate as the liquid crystal element. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP11295747A/en]
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • Application 1: JP 11-295747 A broadly discloses an electro-optical device (liquid crystal display device) with an electro-optical panel (liquid crystal panel) and a circuit substrate (flexible substrate) connected via an anisotropic conductive film. It also discusses inspecting electrical connections between the panel and the substrate using a test pad on the flexible substrate. This general concept of an electro-optical device with a panel and a circuit substrate connected for inspection is present. However, it does not explicitly detail the specific configuration of two adjacent terminal portions on the panel, each with specific terminals (first, second, third, fourth) connected by first and second connection wirings on the panel, and two circuit substrates with corresponding external terminals as described in Application 1 of US8391020. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP11295747A/en]
  • The "Related Art" section of US8391020 directly cites JP-A-11-295747, noting that it "discloses a method of providing connection terminals to a liquid crystal panel and a flexible substrate (Flexible Printed Circuits (FPC)) as a relay substrate and pressing the connection terminals with Anisotropic Conductive Film (ACF) interposed therebetween so as to electrically connect conductive particles configuring the ACF and connection terminals by contact." This implies that the core connection method is known. US8391020 then identifies a problem with this prior art regarding the inability to easily check electrical reliability after bonding, particularly with elastic conductive particles that don't leave marks. This suggests that the specific inspection methodology and wiring configurations of US8391020 (e.g., Application 1, 2, 3) are meant to overcome the deficiencies of JP-A-11-295747's approach.

2. JP-A-2005-274844

• Full Citation: JP 2005-274844 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: October 6, 2005. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2005274844A/en]
• Brief Description: This patent describes an electro-optical device and an electronic apparatus that aim to suppress generation of parasitic capacitance and reduce power consumption. It features a structure where a wiring on a substrate and a flexible printed circuit (FPC) are connected by an anisotropic conductive film (ACF). The patent details a configuration where the flexible printed circuit is arranged such that a connection region and a device mounting region overlap with each other, thereby reducing the occupied area and parasitic capacitance. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2005274844A/en]
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • While JP 2005-274844 A relates to an electro-optical device using an FPC and ACF, its primary focus is on reducing parasitic capacitance and power consumption through a specific arrangement of the FPC and device mounting region. It does not appear to explicitly disclose the detailed internal panel wiring for connection inspection involving multiple terminal portions and cross-connections between them using dedicated connection wirings, as described in US8391020's Applications 1, 5, 8, or 11. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2005274844A/en]

3. JP-A-2007-065116

• Full Citation: JP 2007-065116 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: March 15, 2007. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2007065116A/en]
• Brief Description: This patent describes a liquid crystal display device and its manufacturing method, aiming to reduce manufacturing cost and improve reliability. It includes a liquid crystal panel, a connection wiring board (e.g., flexible printed wiring board) electrically connected to the liquid crystal panel via an anisotropic conductive film (ACF), and a driving IC. The patent focuses on a specific terminal structure on the liquid crystal panel and the wiring board to ensure stable electrical connection even when the terminal pitch is narrow, possibly by adjusting terminal width or shape. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2007065116A/en]
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • JP 2007-065116 A addresses reliability and cost in LCD manufacturing, specifically regarding terminal connections with ACF. However, its focus is on the physical structure of the terminals to ensure reliable contact, rather than the specific internal connection wiring scheme for comprehensive connection inspection across multiple distinct terminal portions using external terminals, as is the inventive concept in US8391020's Applications 1, 5, 8, or 11. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2007065116A/en]

4. JP-A-2007-286088

• Full Citation: JP 2007-286088 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: November 1, 2007. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2007286088A/en]
• Brief Description: This patent describes a display device and a display module that prevent damage to connection portions during manufacturing and improve yield. It focuses on a structure where a wiring board is connected to a display panel via an anisotropic conductive film. The invention aims to prevent cracking of the display panel that can occur due to stress during the bonding process, for example, by providing a reinforcement member or specific bonding arrangements. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2007286088A/en]
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • JP 2007-286088 A is concerned with preventing physical damage (cracking) to the display panel during the bonding of the wiring board with ACF, thereby improving manufacturing yield. This is a different problem and solution compared to US8391020, which focuses on an electrical inspection method using specific internal wiring configurations to verify electrical connections after bonding. Therefore, it does not appear to anticipate US8391020's Applications 1, 5, 8, or 11. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2007286088A/en]

Overall Assessment:

The cited Japanese prior art documents generally relate to electro-optical devices, liquid crystal panels, flexible substrates, and their electrical connection using anisotropic conductive films (ACF), often addressing manufacturing efficiency, cost reduction, or reliability (electrical contact or physical integrity). These form the general technical background.

However, none of the abstracts of the Japanese patents explicitly disclose the specific interconnection scheme for inspection as comprehensively detailed in US8391020's Applications (e.g., Application 1, 5, 8, 11). US8391020 specifically addresses the problem of verifying electrical connections through the circuit substrates themselves by using dedicated internal connection wirings on the electro-optical panel, particularly those extended around the display region (Application 2, 6) or between opposed terminal portions (Application 8, 9), and connecting "test" terminals at the end sides of terminal groups (Application 3, 7, 10) to detect connection failures. This detailed approach to inspectability through dedicated wired connections on the panel, rather than just the physical connection method or basic electrical testing, appears to be the novel contribution claimed by US8391020 over this cited prior art.

To assess the obviousness of US patent 8391020 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we need to identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious and explain the motivation for combining them. Obviousness is determined by whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time the invention was made.

The provided patent text for US8391020 explicitly mentions one prior art reference:

• JP-A-11-295747: This reference "discloses a method of providing connection terminals to a liquid crystal panel and a flexible substrate (Flexible Printed Circuits (FPC)) as a relay substrate and pressing the connection terminals with Anisotropic Conductive Film (ACF) interposed therebetween so as to electrically connect conductive particles configuring the ACF and connection terminals by contact." [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en] The patent further notes that "As a method of inspecting whether the liquid crystal panel and the flexible substrate are electrically connected, in the related art, particle marks of the conductive particles formed in the connection terminals during pressing are checked." [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en] However, with the use of elastic conductive particles (e.g., plastic balls plated with metal), these marks are not formed, making inspection difficult without actually driving the liquid crystal panel. [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en]

Additionally, the PTAB challenge IPR2025-01412 identified two other prior art references:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,862,060 (Taniguchi)
• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0266497 (Kato)

Unfortunately, the full details of Taniguchi and Kato are not provided in the given text, only their identification as references used in the IPR petition. Without the content of these documents, a detailed obviousness analysis combining them with JP-A-11-295747 or other common general knowledge is limited.

The core problem US8391020 aims to solve is the difficulty in reliably checking electrical connections between an electro-optical panel and a circuit substrate, particularly when using elastic conductive particles in ACF, which do not leave visible particle marks. [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en] The invention addresses this by providing specific wiring configurations on the electro-optical panel and external terminals on the circuit substrates to allow for electrical testing of the connections without relying on visual inspection of particle marks or needing to fully drive the display. [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en]

A POSITA in the field of electro-optical devices and their manufacturing, prior to US8391020, would have been aware of the challenges of inspecting electrical connections, especially with the evolving materials like elastic conductive particles. [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en] The general concept of inspecting electrical connections is well-established in various fields, including fiber optics and integrated circuits, where visual and electrical inspection methods are routinely employed to ensure functionality and prevent defects.

Obviousness Analysis (based on available information):

Combination 1: JP-A-11-295747 in view of general knowledge of electrical testing and circuit design.

• JP-A-11-295747 teaches the basic method of connecting a liquid crystal panel and a flexible substrate using ACF and highlights the problem of inspecting connections when elastic conductive particles are used. [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en]
• Motivation to combine: A POSITA, faced with the problem articulated in JP-A-11-295747 (i.e., the inability to visually inspect connections made with elastic conductive particles), would have a strong motivation to devise an alternative, reliable method for checking electrical connectivity. It is common general knowledge in electrical engineering to test the continuity of circuits using external access points.
• Reasoning for obviousness:
  • Independent Claim 1: This claim describes connecting specific terminals (first to fourth, second to third) on the electro-optical panel via connection wirings, and then accessing these connections through external terminals on circuit substrates. Given the problem of unreliable visual inspection, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate dedicated test paths on the panel and corresponding external access points on the flexible circuit boards. The specific routing of the connection wirings on the panel to connect non-adjacent terminals (e.g., first to fourth, second to third) would be a straightforward design choice to create a test loop that verifies the integrity of multiple connection points across the terminal portions. The motivation would be to create a comprehensive test that quickly identifies connection failures without needing to activate the full display.
  • Independent Claim 8: This claim extends the concept to terminal portions on opposite sides of the display region. Given the general problem of connection inspection, it would be obvious to a POSITA to apply the same principle of creating internal test pathways and external access points, regardless of the physical arrangement of the terminal portions on the panel. The motivation would be the same: to ensure reliable electrical connection over a larger area or between separated components.
  • Independent Claim 11: This claim describes an electro-optical panel with an elaborate network of connection wirings (first through ninth) designed to electrically connect various terminals across multiple terminal portions. While specific, the underlying principle is to create a robust system for electrical inspection. A POSITA, aiming to improve the diagnostic capabilities beyond simple two-point checks, would be motivated to design more complex internal wiring schemes to test multiple connection points simultaneously or in sequence, thereby providing more granular feedback on the location of a fault. The "ninth connection wiring configured to electrically connect the sixth connection wiring and the seventh connection wiring" exemplifies this kind of design choice to create a more comprehensive test loop, which would be an obvious step for a skilled artisan looking to maximize test coverage.
  • Independent Claim 13: This claim covers an electronic apparatus including such an electro-optical device. Once the electro-optical device is rendered obvious, its inclusion in an electronic apparatus would also be obvious as its intended use.

Lack of specific information on Taniguchi and Kato:

Without the specific disclosures of U.S. Patent No. 6,862,060 (Taniguchi) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0266497 (Kato), it is not possible to perform a detailed obviousness analysis combining them with JP-A-11-295747 or the claimed features of US8391020. However, the PTAB's discretionary denial of IPR2025-01412 on procedural grounds (due to advanced parallel district court litigation) means that the obviousness arguments presented by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. against claims 1-20 based on Taniguchi and Kato were never substantively evaluated. [cite: patents.google.com/patent/US8391020/en] This implies that there were at least plausible arguments that these references, alone or in combination, could render the claims obvious.

Motivation for a POSITA:

The primary motivation for a POSITA to combine these prior art references or apply general electrical testing principles would be to overcome the acknowledged problem of unreliable connection inspection in electro-optical devices, particularly with the advent of elastic conductive particles in ACF. The desire to reduce manufacturing defects, improve quality control, and minimize the need for full functional testing (driving the display) would drive a skilled artisan to implement dedicated electrical test pathways.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

Based solely on the explicit details provided in the patent text for JP-A-11-295747 and general knowledge of electrical engineering practices for testing connections, the fundamental concept of incorporating dedicated connection wirings and external terminals on an electro-optical panel and circuit substrates to enable electrical inspection would likely have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of US8391020. The specific arrangements of the wirings, while detailed in the claims, appear to be design choices aimed at achieving comprehensive testing, which would be within the purview of a skilled artisan seeking to solve the stated problem. A more definitive assessment would require access to the full text of Taniguchi and Kato to evaluate the strength of the specific obviousness arguments raised in the IPR.