US 9818803

I'll run targeted searches for this exact patent number, then combine with the authoritative patent text.

Let me dig into the specific litigation identifiers tied to this patent.

Let me pin down the 2025–2026 Federal Circuit appeals and the IPR status.

US Patent 9,818,803 — Analyst Summary

Search scope / limitations up front: I ran targeted queries against public web indexes (Google Patents, USPTO PATS/PTAB document portals as surfaced via search, courtlistener/dockets.justia, ITC Federal Register notices). I did not have direct authenticated access to USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket system, so the litigation details below are drawn from secondary aggregators and should be re-verified against the primary dockets before being relied on. I did not substitute any similar patent number; all references below are literally to 9,818,803.

1. Bibliographic data (from the patent document itself)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9818803/en

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A pixel arrangement structure of an OLED display is provided. The pixel arrangement structure includes: a first pixel having a center coinciding with a center of a virtual square; a second pixel separated from the first pixel and having a center at a first vertex of the virtual square; and a third pixel separated from the first pixel and the second pixel, and having a center at a second vertex neighboring the first vertex of the virtual square."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claim

Claim 1 is the only independent claim. All of claims 2–21 depend, directly or transitively, on claim 1. In plain terms, claim 1 requires:

1. A plurality of pixels for an OLED display, comprising at minimum:
2. A first pixel whose center sits at the center of a virtual square;
3. A second pixel, separated from the first pixel, whose center sits at a first vertex (corner) of that virtual square;
4. Another first pixel positioned on the line defined by (a) the center of the virtual square and (b) that first vertex — and the first pixel, second pixel, and this other first pixel must be consecutive pixels along that line among the plurality of pixels;
5. A third pixel, separated from both the first and second pixels, whose center sits at a second vertex neighboring the first vertex of the virtual square;
6. Wherein the second pixel has a larger area than the third pixel; and
7. Wherein the first pixel is configured to emit green light.

Analyst note (important for construing this patent): The "another first pixel on a line…consecutive pixels on the line" limitation, the "second pixel larger than the third pixel" limitation, and the "first pixel…green light" limitation in issued claim 1 are not reflected in the SUMMARY section's generic recitation of the invention. That suggests claim 1 was narrowed during prosecution relative to the originally disclosed generic concept, and these limitations are the ones most likely to be the focus of any claim-construction or validity dispute.

Dependent claim groups (orientation to the 20 dependent claims):

• Claims 2–9 — build the full enclosure: a paired second pixel at a third vertex (cl. 2), a paired third pixel at a fourth vertex (cl. 3), second and third pixels enclosing the first pixel within the virtual square (cl. 4), polygonal shapes with second/third pixels larger in area than the first (cl. 5), quadrilateral first pixel with hexagonal or octagonal second/third pixels (cl. 6), specifically octagonal (cl. 7), equal shortest gaps of a "first length" among first/second/third pixels (cl. 8), and a longer "second length" gap between neighboring first pixels (cl. 9).
• Claim 10 (from cl. 6) — second pixels larger than third pixels, with a "first length" gap between second/third pixels and a "second length" gap between first and second/third pixels; claims 11–12 add a longer "third length" spacing between neighboring first pixels, and in claim 12 the neighboring first pixels are quadrilaterals symmetrical to each other.
• Claim 13 (from cl. 6) — neighboring first pixels are quadrilaterals symmetrical to each other; claim 14 adds second pixels larger than third pixels.
• Claim 15 (from cl. 5) — inverted geometry: octagonal first pixel, with second and third pixels as quadrilaterals; claims 16–18 add the areas/gap-length scheme and symmetrical octagonal neighboring first pixels.
• Claims 19–20 — first/second/third pixels emit different colors, with second = blue and third = red (claim 20).
• Claim 21 — the second pixel has a larger area than the first pixel.

Stated technical purpose: improving aperture ratio while keeping adequate inter-pixel gaps so that fine-metal-mask (FMM) deposition of the organic emission layers remains reliable. The specification also states that blue-emitting pixels (here, the second pixels) have the shortest lifetime, which motivates making them larger (see the FIG. 2 embodiment discussion).

4. Family and prosecution context

• US 9,818,803 is the parent of a large Samsung Display family (Google Patents family ID 47884155).
• It has a continuation-in-part: application 13/872,018, filed 2013-04-26, which issued as US 10,832,616 B2 (Samsung Display's own PatentCenter records describe 13/872,018 as "a CIP of 13/614,197 … PAT 9818803").
• It has a continuation: application 15/811,599, filed 2017-11-13, which issued as US 10,854,683 B2 — itself another patent asserted in the same Samsung v. BOE campaigns.
• Numerous later continuations (e.g., US 11,594,578; US 11,626,064; US 11,651,731; US 11,626,067; US 11,676,531; US 11,626,068; US 11,980,077; US 12,183,272; US 12,324,335; US 12,512,050) all carry the March 6, 2012 priority date.
• Foreign siblings include EP 2,709,155 B1, KR 10-1615332 B1, CN 103681754 B, JP 6301610 B2, and TW I624047.

5. Assertion and litigation posture (2022–2026)

ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1351 — Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof.

• Complaint filed Dec. 28, 2022 by Samsung Display Co., Ltd.; investigation instituted Jan. 27, 2023. The notice of investigation expressly asserts claims 1–5 and 19–21 of the '803 patent, alongside U.S. 10,854,683, U.S. 7,414,599, and U.S. 9,330,593 (with U.S. 11,594,578 added later).
• Named respondents were predominantly U.S. mobile-device repair-parts sellers (MobileSentrix, Mobile Defenders, Injured Gadgets, Group Vertical, Wholesale Gadget Parts, Phone LCD Parts, etc.); Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics intervened as a respondent.
• The ALJ's Final Initial Determination (Nov. 15, 2024) reportedly found infringement of four Samsung Display patents but did not recommend exclusion; the Commission reviewed in part, and the investigation closed March 19, 2025.
• Source: ITC Federal Register notice, 88 FR 7463 (Feb. 3, 2023) — https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2023/02/03/2023-02246.html ; also https://insight.rpxcorp.com/usitc/1787-...337-ta-1351-violation

District court — E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, No. 2:23-cv-00309, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Co., Ltd. and Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. The complaint expressly asserts U.S. 9,818,803 (the '803 patent) together with the '593, '599, '683, and '578 patents, and identifies accused products including OLED displays in Apple iPhone 12/13 devices.

• Complaint text (PDF): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00941/...

PTAB — Google Patents' litigation record for US 9,818,803 lists IPR2023-00987, with petitioner field blank, described as having reached a Final Written Decision, and links to the Unified Patents PTAB portal. I could not independently confirm from my searches which claims were challenged, who the real party in interest was, or the FWD outcome (institution, claim cancellation, or affirmance). Related BOE-side activity appears at IPR2023-00941 (Mianyang BOE v. Samsung Display). Treat the IPR status as unverified.

Federal Circuit, 2026 docket — A dockets.justia listing shows:

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. ITC, No. 25-1791 — Appellant: Samsung Display Co., Ltd.; Appellee: U.S. International Trade Commission; Intervenor: Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.

This is consistent with a direct appeal from the ITC's final determination in 337-TA-1351, which is the proceeding in which the '803 patent was asserted. Google Patents additionally lists Nos. 25-1517 and 25-1520 as "US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit." My searches did not independently corroborate the parties or subject matter of 25-1517 and 25-1520, so I flag those two as unverified. I also found no 2026 CAFC decision on the merits for any of these appeals in my searches.

Other listed matters (low confidence):

• E.D. Va. No. 1:25-cv-00908 (docket indexed on CourtListener as Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. [BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/BOE%20Technology%20Group%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.)) — found in a CourtListener document containing ITC Commission-review materials, but I did not verify the complaint's asserted patents.
• Google Patents lists an ITC matter as "337-TA-3661". Given that ITC "37xx" numbers are 2024-era dockets and that the docket-number range for the relevant period is "13xx," I suspect this is a secondary aggregator artifact (possibly an EDIS document ID or a mis-keyed investigation number) rather than a distinct investigation. I am not auto-correcting it; I am flagging it as unreliable.

6. Explicit uncertainty list

1. IPR2023-00987 outcome — confirmed only as "filed / Final Written Decision" on a Google Patents secondary listing; challenged claims, petitioner identity, and result are not verified.
2. CAFC Nos. 25-1517 and 25-1520 — listed by Google Patents but not independently verified as to parties or subject matter. Only 25-1791 (Samsung Display v. ITC, Mianyang BOE intervening) is corroborated by a court-docket aggregator.
3. No 2026 merits dispositions for this patent were located.
4. E.D. Va. 1:25-cv-00908 asserted-patent list not verified.
5. The ITC identifier "337-TA-3661" appearing in the Google Patents record appears inconsistent with the investigation actually identified in the Federal Register (337-TA-1351) and should be disregarded pending primary-source confirmation.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9818803. Let me run several targeted searches.

Key leads found. Let me dig into the specific cases: the Samsung Display v. BOE litigation, the ITC investigation, PTAB IPR, and the CAFC appeals.

Based on searches of Google Patents/Unified Patents litigation data, PACER/RECAP (via CourtListener), the ITC's Federal Register notices, and news coverage, here is the litigation I found involving U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803 ("the '803 patent," titled "Pixel arrangement structure for organic light emitting display device," assigned to Samsung Display Co., Ltd.). Note the '803 patent has almost always been asserted in a multi-patent campaign together with related Samsung Display patents (U.S. 10,854,683; U.S. 7,414,599; U.S. 9,330,593; and U.S. 11,594,578).

Confirmed matters involving the '803 patent

1. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1351

• Complainant: Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (SDC)
• Respondents: ~17 named companies, primarily U.S. mobile-device repair/parts distributors (e.g., Injured Gadgets, Wholesale Gadget Parts, Phone LCD Parts, etc.), plus Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., which intervened as a respondent (granted Mar. 22, 2023).
• Jurisdiction: U.S. International Trade Commission (Section 337)
• Case No.: 337-TA-1351
• Filed: Complaint filed Dec. 28, 2022; supplement Jan. 17, 2023; investigation instituted Jan. 27, 2023 (published 88 FR 7463, Feb. 3, 2023).
• Patents asserted: Initially the '803, '683, '599, and '593 patents; later amended to add the '578 patent. As to the '803 patent specifically, the notice of investigation identified claims 1–5 and 19–21; after terminations, only claims 5 and 21 of the '803 patent remained asserted at the final ID.
• Status/outcome: An ALJ granted respondents' summary determination of no violation for lack of standing (Jan. 9, 2024). A subsequent initial determination (reported Nov. 15, 2024) found infringement of three patents but did not recommend the exclusion/cease-and-desist relief SDC sought. On April 9, 2025 the ITC found no violation of Section 337. The investigation was then terminated as part of the parties' global settlement (see below). (Note: the record shows some tension between the standing ruling, the Nov. 2024 ID, and the April 2025 final determination; the precise procedural sequence should be verified against EDIS.)

2. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. BOE Technology Co., Ltd. and Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.

• Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division)
• Case No.: 2:23-cv-00309 (JRG-RSP) — Judge Rodney Gilstrap; Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne
• Filed: Complaint June 26, 2023; Amended Complaint June 28, 2023
• Patents asserted: The '599, '593, '803, '683, and '578 patents (accused products include OLED displays supplied by BOE, e.g., panels in Apple iPhone 12)
• Status/outcome: Case stayed July 24, 2023 under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) pending the ITC 337-TA-1351 investigation. SDC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice on May 30, 2025; the court dismissed the case without prejudice on June 4, 2025. No merits ruling issued.

3. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. [BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/BOE%20Technology%20Group%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division)
• Case No.: 1:25-cv-00908 (Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr.)
• Filed: May 28, 2025
• Defendants: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.; Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Ordos Yuansheng Optoelectronics Co., Ltd.; Chengdu BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Chongqing BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Wuhan BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; and Yunnan Invensight Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.
• Patents asserted: The '803, '683, '578, '599, and '593 patents
• Status/outcome: Case stayed June 25, 2025 pending the final determination of the ITC 1351 investigation. Following the settlement, SDC filed a Stipulation of Dismissal WITH PREJUDICE on Nov. 19, 2025, so-ordered Dec. 2, 2025.

4. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. International Trade Commission (appeal)

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case No.: 25-1791
• Filed: May 20, 2025 (SDC petitioned for review of the ITC's April 9, 2025 no-violation determination; Mianyang BOE was a party to the appeal)
• Status/outcome: Reported as pending at the time of the district-court stay filings; the parties' November 2025 global settlement, which withdrew all pending U.S. actions and investigative petitions, would have mooted this appeal. (Verify current docket status.)

Reported but not independently confirmed by my searches

• PTAB Proceeding IPR2023-00987: The Google Patents litigation tab for the '803 patent lists a PTAB case, IPR2023-00987, associated with this patent ("Final Written Decision"), with Unified Patents PTAB data cited as the source and no petitioner identified in the snippet. I was not able to retrieve a document confirming that this IPR actually names the '803 patent as the challenged patent — treat as reported-but-unverified.
• Additional Federal Circuit dockets (25-1517 and 25-1520) and an additional ITC docket ("337-TA-3661") appear in the Google Patents litigation list for this patent. The '3661 number is unusual (beyond the range normally seen) and may be a data error; I could not independently confirm that these specifically involve the '803 patent. Treat as unverified.

Overall outcome

The '803 patent's enforcement activity arose from the Samsung Display–BOE OLED dispute spanning roughly Dec. 2022 to Nov. 2025. In November 2025 BOE and Samsung Display reached a global settlement under which all U.S. lawsuits and ITC investigations were withdrawn (reportedly including a BOE license to Samsung Display OLED IP with royalties). The '803 patent itself was never invalidated and never received a final merits judgment on infringement in district court; the district cases ended in a without-prejudice dismissal (E.D. Tex.) and a with-prejudice dismissal (E.D. Va.), and the ITC appeals were mooted by settlement.

Caveats: I could not confirm every docket entry firsthand (e.g., precise filing dates, claim sets, or the PTAB/IPR detail), and because these cases were resolved by settlement, some records may be sealed or removed. The Google Patents data and the search results sometimes listed the '803 patent's priority date as "2012-03-05" versus the application's stated Mar. 6, 2012 date — I have not corrected either identifier. If you need certified docket-level confirmation, the authoritative sources are PACER for the district cases, EDIS (edis.usitc.gov) for 337-TA-1351, and the PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint for IPR2023-00987.

I'll start by noting a conflict between my canonical source and the patent record, then research the proceedings the record surfaces.

Key conflict identified: the Google Patents record shows an IPR the ODP block says doesn't exist. Let me dig into it.

Strong signal found. Let me pin down the FWD claim-level outcome, panel, and the appeal mapping.

⚠️ Source conflict — flagging first. The canonical "PTAB proceedings on file" block says the ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 9,818,803. That is contradicted by the patent record itself embedded in your prompt (which lists IPR2023-00987, with a Final Written Decision), by the ITC's own Federal Register notices, by Samsung Display's district-court complaint, and by Samsung Display's 2025-10-01 mandatory notices filed in a sibling IPR. I am treating the ODP block as stale/incorrect and relying on the primary documents. I could not retrieve the FWD text itself (PTAB E2E was not retrievable in this session), so claim-level granularity below is drawn from the ITC notices and the parties' filings, with the one secondary-source gap expressly flagged.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file against US 9,818,803 — IPR2023-00987 (Mianyang BOE et al. v. Samsung Display), FWD 2025-01-06, claims held unpatentable in part / challenged claim 5 sustained, now on appeal — giving a defendant a materially weakened but not dead patent: the challenged independent claim 1 and its claims 2–4 and 19–21 were held unpatentable, and Samsung Display's only surviving theory rests on dependent claim 5, which itself depends from the canceled claim 4.

No PGR. No CBM (program expired 2020). No second IPR on the '803 located. No settlement.

IPR2023-00987 — Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq.)

• Filed: 2023-06-21 (per Samsung Display's complaint, which states "On June 21, 2023, Defendant Mianyang BOE filed a petition for inter partes review… Case No. IPR2023-00987"). Note the corroborating power-of-attorney/service papers in the sibling IPR2023-00941 carry a 2023-06-09 service date, so the exact petition date is 2023-06-09 to 2023-06-21 depending on which document you credit.

• Status: Not returned by the canonical ODP source (see conflict note above). Substantive public status: trial instituted; Final Written Decision issued 2025-01-06 holding challenged claims unpatentable in part; appeal pending at the Federal Circuit. Not terminated by settlement; no adverse judgment and no disclaimer located.

• Real parties in interest / petitioner group: This was a joint Chinese-panel-maker challenge, not a lone petitioner. The Rule 42.8 power of attorney filed across the five parallel IPRs names: Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd.; Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd.; and Visionox Technology, Inc. Counsel of record: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (lead counsel Richard Martinelli, Reg. No. 52,003; backup Donald Daybell, Travis Jensen, H. Patrick Herman). Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00941/Mianyang_BOE_Optoelectronics_Technology_Co._Ltd/docs/06-09-2023-Petitioner/Notice__Power_of_Attorney-2-Notice__Power_of_Attorney.pdf

  ⚠️ Correction to the Google Patents record: the Google Patents litigation block shows "Petitioner: 'Unified Patents PTAB Data'". That is the data-provider attribution for the license, not the petitioner. There is no Unified Patents (or other defensive aggregator) involvement in this proceeding. Do not plead Unified Patents as an RPI or privy.

• Judge panel: Not confirmed. I could not retrieve the FWD caption (Paper 46) to identify the three APJs. Do not guess — pull the FWD from PTAB E2E before relying on panel composition.

• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness. The challenged claim set tracks the claims Samsung Display asserted in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1351: claims 1–5 and 19–21 of the '803 patent. (Claims 6–18 were not part of the ITC assertion set and do not appear to have been challenged.) The specific prior-art references are not confirmed in the sources retrieved — I did not locate the petition's ground-by-ground art identification and will not fabricate reference names.

• Institution decision: Date and panel reasoning not confirmed. Arithmetic from the statutory deadline (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)) against the 2025-01-06 FWD implies institution in approximately January 2024. Note that a widely-circulated Chinese industry report stated that "by 2024-09-12" BOE's IPRs against these Samsung Display patents had "all been formally instituted" — that date is inconsistent with a 2025-01-06 FWD and more likely refers to the refiled petitions (e.g., the '593 patent IPR, which BOE withdrew and refiled in April 2024, per The Elec). Treat the September 2024 date as belonging to a different docket. Source: https://www.bdipp.cn/news/show-7616.html

• Final Written Decision (FWD 2025-01-06, Paper 46):

  • Claims 1–4 and 19–21 — held unpatentable (obviousness/§ 103). Source: contemporaneous report of the decision ("PTAB administrative law judges found claims 1–4 and 19–21 lacked inventive step and declared them invalid"), https://www.bdipp.cn/news/show-7616.html.
  • Claim 21 — unpatentable. This one is confirmed by primary-source documents: the ITC's notice states "the Board found claim 21 of the '803 patent unpatentable and all other asserted claims of the '578 and '803 patents at issue in this investigation had not been proven unpatentable." https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1351_notice03192025sgl.pdf
  • Claim 5 — NOT proven unpatentable. Confirmed twice over: (i) the ITC notice (above); (ii) Samsung Display's own complaint: "On January 6, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of claim 5 of the '803 Patent." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.[574882](/patent/574882)/gov.uscourts.vaed.574882.1.0.pdf
  • Claim 5 is the pivot point — and it is structurally fragile. I verified the dependency chain directly from the patent's own claim set: claim 5 depends from claim 4; claim 4 from claim 3; claim 3 from claim 2; claim 2 from claim 1. Every claim (1–21) depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. Claims 6–18 all hang off claim 5 (6←5, 7←6, 8←7, 9←8, 10←6, 11←10, 12←10, 13←6, 14←13, 15←5, 16←15, 17←16, 18←17). So if claims 1–4 are canceled and the cancellation certificate issues, claim 5 has no un-canceled antecedent claim to depend from, and neither do claims 6–18. Confirm against the FWD text — this is the single most valuable defensive point available.
  • The FWD did not address claims 6–18 on the merits (they were not challenged), so I make no representation that they were held valid or invalid.

• Settlement / termination: None. The proceeding ran to FWD; no adverse judgment, no 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) request for adverse judgment, no § 317 settlement located.

• Appeal: Yes — consolidated appeals pending at the Federal Circuit. Per Samsung Display's 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 mandatory notices filed 2025-10-01 in IPR2025-01545: "These three patents ["'803, '683, '578] were also the subject of inter partes reviews, Nos. IPR2023-00987, IPR2023-00988, and IPR2023-01075, which are on appeal to the Federal Circuit, Nos. 25-1517, 25-1518, 25-1519, 25-1520, 25-1521." https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558494](/patent/1558494)/download-documents?artifactId=Z_l-Qsbn6984r0te7jUZToNH96gRxRMhdVyxJ47nV_ItqndAz8TZ3Jg

  • Five docket numbers across three IPRs means both sides appealed: BOE appeals the claims that survived (claim 5 of the '803, and the surviving claims of the '578/'683), and Samsung Display appeals the claims held unpatentable. The Google Patents record lists 25-1517 and 25-1520 on the '803 family.
  • I could not map a specific CAFC docket number to IPR2023-00987 with confidence, and no disposition has issued (appeals filed ~2025; briefing/appeal stage). Verify on PACER/CM-ECF or CourtListener before citing a docket.
  • Separately, Samsung Display appealed the ITC's no-violation determination in Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. International Trade Commission, No. 25-1791 (Fed. Cir.), which is the vehicle for the '803's validity/infringement findings in front of the Commission.

• Related litigation (context for the defensive picture):

  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, instituted 2023-02-03; Mianyang BOE intervened 2023-03-22; final ID 2024-11-15 found infringement of claims 5 and 21 of the '803 by at least one representative accused product but no violation of § 337 (Samsung Display failed the economic prong of domestic industry); Commission terminated the investigation with a finding of no violation on 2025-03-19. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-03-25/pdf/FR-2025-03-25.pdf
  • Samsung Display Co. v. BOE Technology Group Co., No. 1:25-cv-00908 (E.D. Va.), complaint filed 2025-05-28, re-asserting the '803 (specifically "at least claim 5"), '683, '578, '599 and '593 patents. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70497017/1/samsung-display-co-ltd-v-boe-technology-group-co-ltd/

• Defensive value: Claim 1 is Board-dead (subject to appeal) and claims 2–4 and 19–21 with it — any demand letter or infringement theory built on claims 1, 19, 20 or 21 is now bait, not leverage. Samsung Display's own post-FWD enforcement posture is explicitly limited to claim 5, and claim 5 depends from canceled claim 4 — which means the real fight is whether a dependent claim with no surviving parent can be enforced at all. If you are not BOE, China Star, Tianma or Visionox (or a privy), you are not bound by § 315(e)(2) and can raise the same art, plus art BOE didn't find, in your own IPR or in court.

Strategic summary

Claim status. On the Board's findings (appeal pending, cancellation certificates not yet issued), claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 19, 20 and 21 are held unpatentable; claim 5 was challenged and not proven unpatentable; claims 6–18 were never challenged and were not addressed on the merits. But because the entire claim set is a single dependency tree rooted in claim 1, the "surviving" claim 5 is a dependent claim whose parent chain (4→3→2→1) was held unpatentable. Samsung Display's public position is narrower than its patent's face suggests: its E.D. Va. complaint asserts "at least claim 5," and its ITC case did not survive the domestic-industry economic prong. Nothing is formally canceled yet — § 318(c) certificates issue only after appeals terminate — so a defendant should say "held unpatentable by the Board on 2025-01-06, on appeal," not "canceled." That said, the practical assertion set Samsung Display can credibly press today is claim 5 (and the unchallenged dependents 6–18 that ride on it), subject to the canceled-parent problem. See https://patents.google.com/patent/US9818803/en (claims 1–21) for the dependency structure.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) bars only the petitioner, its real parties in interest, and privies — here, Mianyang BOE and co-petitioners Wuhan China Star, Tianma Microelectronics and Visionox — from asserting in civil litigation any ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised as to the claims for which a final written decision issued (claims 1–5 and 19–21). § 315(e)(1) also bars them from requesting or maintaining an Office proceeding on those claims. A different defendant is not estopped at all: no issue preclusion flows from an IPR the defendant did not participate in, and § 315(e)(2) is not a general "the art is spent" rule. Free grounds for a non-petitioner include: (i) all of BOE's art, re-run in a fresh petition; (ii) new art not in BOE's petition (including art directed at claim 5's "polygonal shapes / larger area than the first pixel" limitation, which was the one limitation the Board was not persuaded on); (iii) § 112 grounds in district court; (iv) the dependency/antecedent defect against claim 5 and 6–18. Watch the two statutory tripwires: § 315(b) (one-year bar from service of a complaint alleging infringement, now running against parties served in E.D. Va. 1:25-cv-00908) and § 325(d) / § 314(a) Fintiv-style discretion (Samsung Display is litigating hard and arguing discretionary denial — see its POPR in IPR2025-01498 and its Fintiv arguments in the 2025 filings).

Pattern signals. This is a coordinated four-petitioner Chinese-panel-industry attack, not a one-off: BOE, China Star, Tianma and Visionox filed the same-day family of IPRs on all five Samsung Display patents asserted in 337-TA-1351 — IPR2023-00987 ('803), ‑00988 ('683), ‑01075 ('578), plus dockets on the '599 and '593 — and the '483 patent IPR (IPR2025-01498) shows the campaign has continued into 2025. The '803, '683 and '578 are all in the same family (the '578 is a continuation of the '683, which is a continuation of the '803, same inventor, same written description), and the Board heard them on parallel schedules with all three FWDs on 2025-01-06 (Papers 46, 44, and the '01075 decision respectively). Both sides appealed — Samsung Display has been an aggressive PTAB appellant (the five CAFC dockets 25-1517 through 25-1521), and it separately appealed the ITC loss at 25-1791. There is no defensive aggregator in this chain. Result to date: a partial win for the petitioners — the patents survived on a single dependent claim each. Note also a data-integrity caution on the Google Patents record you were given: it lists an ITC case 337-TA-3661, which does not correspond to any OLED panel investigation I can identify; the real matter is 337-TA-1351. Treat that entry as an artifact.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the FWD itself before relying on claim-level granularity. The disposition I have is corroborated by primary sources for claim 21 (unpatentable) and claim 5 (not proven unpatentable), and by a single secondary source for claims 1–4 and 19–21. Retrieve IPR2023-00987, Paper 46 (2025-01-06) from PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/dashboard) or the PTAB Decisions portal and confirm: (a) the exact claim list held unpatentable; (b) the prior-art grounds and statutory basis for each; (c) the panel; (d) whether the Board discussed the effect of canceling claim 1 on dependent claim 5. Do not plead a claim list you have not read in the decision.

2. Run the dependency attack on claim 5 — now. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 (held unpatentable), which depends from claim 3 (unpatentable), which depends from claim 2 (unpatentable), which depends from claim 1 (unpatentable). Claims 6–18 all branch off claim 5. If the cancellation certificate issues in its expected form, Samsung Display has no un-canceled antecedent claim on which to build an infringement theory. Brief this in any Markman/validity posture and preserve it for summary judgment. Quote the FWD disposition verbatim when it issues: "claim 21 of the '803 patent unpatentable" and "claim 5 … had not been proven unpatentable" (ITC notice, https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1351_notice03192025sgl.pdf).

3. Calendar the appeals. Federal Circuit Nos. 25-1517 / 25-1518 / 25-1519 / 25-1520 / 25-1521 cover IPR2023-00987, ‑00988 and ‑01075; No. 25-1791 is Samsung Display's appeal of the ITC's no-violation determination. No FWD finding becomes a final cancellation until these terminate (§ 318(c)/§ 328(c)). Monitor on CourtListener and the CAP/CM-ECF dockets; a Rule 36 affirmance or an affirmance-in-part is the event that triggers the certificates. https://www.courtlistener.com/

4. Preserve the non-petitioner's freedom. If you were not served with a complaint alleging infringement more than one year ago and are not a privy of BOE/China Star/Tianma/Visionox, you have a full, un-estopped set of grounds. File well inside § 315(b) and write the petition to defeat a Fintiv/General Plastic discretionary-denial argument — Samsung Display is actively running those arguments against BOE in 2025 (see its POPR in IPR2025-01498).

5. Assume the family, not the patent. The '803 is one member of a family Samsung Display asserts in packs ('803, '683, '578, '599, '593 in the ITC and E.D. Va.; 12 patents across the 2025 E.D. Tex. suits). Knock-on family members — particularly US 10,854,683, US 11,594,578 and US 11,626,066 — carry near-identical written description and their own live IPRs (IPR2023-00988, IPR2023-01075, IPR2025-01544/‑01545). Defensive analysis of "the '803" alone will understate exposure.

I'll verify the assignment record and litigation context before reconstructing the chain.

Let me try to pin down the recording details and check for any later transfers.

Let me verify the litigation identifiers and check for any NPE-related transfers.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 9,818,803 B2

Patent: US 9,818,803 B2 ("Pixel arrangement structure for organic light emitting display device")
Application: 13/614,197 · filed 2012-09-13 · granted 2017-11-14 · adjusted expiration 2033-03-31
Source of record used: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9818803/en (legal-events block, which is populated from USPTO assignment data), cross-checked against ITC/Federal Register dockets and Unified Patents' case portal.

⚠️ Verification caveat, stated up front: My web queries did not return a rendered USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) result page for this patent number. I therefore cannot quote a reel/frame number or an assignment correspondent of record from personal inspection — I have not fabricated either. The existence, date, assignor and assignee of the single conveyance below come from the Google Patents legal-events record, which is derived from the same USPTO assignment dataset. Anyone relying on this for diligence should pull the reel/frame and correspondent directly from Assignment Center.

Inventors

Pattern check — inventor departure: Not present. Lee is a career Samsung Display engineer. He is still being named as inventor on Samsung Display filings more than a decade after the '803 filing — e.g., US 12,190,799 B2 ("Pixel arrangement structure for organic light emitting diode display," issued 2026-01-07, assignee Samsung Display), US 12,527,156 B2, and US 12,532,629 B2 (both Samsung Display). A 12+ year continuous inventorship trail with the same assignee is the opposite of the "inventor leaves within 12 months → portfolio fire-sale" precursor. (Minor caveat: "Sang-Shin Lee" is not a rare name; I am matching on name + assignee + identical technical field, which is strong but not conclusive.)

Original assignee

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (SDC) — 1, Samsung-ro, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 17113, Republic of Korea.

• Line of business: The world's largest manufacturer of AMOLED display panels — panels and modules for smartphones, tablets, wearables, laptops and TVs. This is an operating display-panel maker, not a licensing vehicle.
• Did they ship product embodying the claims? Yes — this is affirmatively established in the litigation record, not inferred. In ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, the Commission's determination describes SDC's domestic-industry products as (1) AMOLED display modules manufactured by SDC abroad and (2) Galaxy smartphones built by non-party Samsung Electronics incorporating them, imported through Samsung Electronics America. The '803 patent is one of the asserted patents in that investigation.
• Current status: Operating. Wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., following the 2012 reorganization in which Samsung Mobile Display was folded into Samsung Display. No bankruptcy, assignment-for-benefit-of-creditors, or dissolution of any kind appears in the record.
• Family status: The entire continuation family — US 10,832,616; 10,854,683; 11,594,578; 11,626,064; 11,626,066; 11,626,067; 11,626,068; 11,651,731; 11,676,531; 11,680,077; 11,683,272; 11,975,927; 11,980,077; 12,166,298; 12,324,335; 12,512,050; and pending US 2025/0268051 — is held by Samsung Display. Nothing has ever left the family.

Assignment timeline

One recorded conveyance. There is no post-issuance assignment chain.

• 2012-09-13 (executed) / recorded 2012-09-13 — Reel/frame not surfaced in the sources I could access (see caveat above)
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST ("see document for details")
  • Assignor: LEE, SANG-SHIN (individual inventor)
  • Assignee: SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
  • Correspondent: not determinable from my sources. For the related continuation-in-part 13/872,018, prosecution correspondence of record ran through Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, PO Box 29001, Glendale, CA 91209-9001; later Samsung Display patents in the family route through Lerner David LLP and Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. These are prosecution counsel, not confirmed assignment-recording correspondents — do not treat them as the same thing.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment, filed contemporaneously with the application. Ordinary corporate IP housekeeping — not a fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

That is the complete chain. No assignment to any LLC, holding company, or NPE has ever been recorded against this patent. The Google Patents legal-events block lists the 2012 assignment followed by the 2017 grant, and then nothing but litigation events — no further "assigned to" entries.

Litigation timeline (for the pre-litigation-transfer test), sourced from the ITC, the Federal Register, and the ITC/Federal Circuit dockets:

Note on one identifier: Google Patents renders one ITC matter as "337-TA-3661." The Federal Register and ITC docket confirm 3661 is the ITC complaint/DN number for the December 2022 SDC filing, whose investigation number is 337-TA-1351. The separate SDC trade-secret action against BOE is 337-TA-1378 (instituted 2023-12-06). I am reporting these as they appear rather than silently normalizing them.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9818803
    2012 : Application 13/614,197 filed
         : Inventor Lee assigns to Samsung Display
    2017 : US 9818803 granted
    2022 : SDC files ITC complaint against BOE
    2023 : ITC investigation 337-TA-1351 instituted
         : IPR2023-00987 reaches Final Written Decision
         : EDTX suit 2 23-cv-00309 filed
    2025 : E D Virginia suit 1 25-cv-00908 filed
         : Three CAFC appeals docketed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. is and always has been the sole owner: the only recorded assignment is the 2012-09-13 inventor-to-Samsung-Display conveyance (assignor LEE, SANG-SHIN), with no subsequent assignment to any entity of any kind over the following 13 years. SDC demonstrably ships products embodying the claims — the ITC's 337-TA-1351 record identifies SDC's own AMOLED display modules and the Galaxy smartphones incorporating them as domestic-industry articles. And SDC asserts the patent in its own name against genuine competitors and importers (ITC complaints filed 2022-12-28 and 2023; E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00309; E.D. Va. 1:25-cv-00908; appeals at the Federal Circuit), with BOE's counter-suit confirming this is two-way commercial warfare, not NPE extraction.

Verification link: search the patent number at the USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Expect one hit, recorded 2012-09-13, assignor Sang-Shin Lee → Samsung Display Co., Ltd. Pull the reel/frame and correspondent from that page to close the gap I have flagged above; format of the record is documented at https://www.lexology.com (IAM, "Assignment documents now publicly available through USPTO website").

I'll research the prior art cited against US 9,818,803. Let me run targeted searches on the key references.

Let me investigate the key pixel-arrangement references and the IPR art at deeper level.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,818,803 B2

Note on scope and method. I confirmed that the record returned is literally US 9,818,803 B2 ("Pixel arrangement structure for organic light emitting display device," app. 13/614,197, filed 2012‑09‑13, priority KR 10‑2012‑0022967 of 2012‑03‑06, issued 2017‑11‑14, Samsung Display) and not a similar number. The authoritative prior-art list I use below is the "Citations (44)" table in the '803 document itself (the examiner/third-party references of record), cross-checked against Google Patents pages inside the same family and against USPTO PTAB petition filings (ptacts.uspto.uspto.gov) for sibling patents in this family (notably the '066 and '616 patents, which share the '803's specification and priority).

I did not have authenticated USPTO PatentCenter full-text search. Where I give an "anticipation" assessment I flag whether I reviewed the reference's actual content or only its title/abstract. Anticipation under § 102 requires that a single reference disclose every limitation of the claim as arranged; several of the most relevant references here have instead been used by petitioners in § 103 combinations — which is itself evidence that no single face reference cleanly anticipates claim 1.

0. The claim-1 template (what a § 102 reference must meet)

Because claim 1 is the sole independent claim, every dependent claim inherits its limitations. To anticipate, a reference must disclose all of:

• (a) a first pixel whose center coincides with the center of a virtual square;
• (b) a second pixel, separated from the first, centered at a first vertex of that virtual square;
• (c) another first pixel on the line through the virtual-square center and the first vertex, with first‑pixel → second‑pixel → other‑first‑pixel being consecutive pixels on that line;
• (d) a third pixel, separated from the first and second, centered at a second vertex neighboring the first vertex;
• (e) the second pixel has a larger area than the third pixel; and
• (f) the first pixel emits green light.

As flagged in the earlier section, limitations (c), (e) and (f) were not in the generic SUMMARY recitation — they read like prosecution narrowing, and they are precisely the limitations most likely to defeat a § 102 case. That is the lens through which I assess the references below.

1. Tier‑1: the references that plausibly read on claim 1

1.1 US 2004/0108818 A1 — Cok, Arnold & Miller (Eastman Kodak)

• Full citation: US 2004/0108818 A1, "Color OLED display having repeated patterns of colored light emitting elements." Granted as US 6,867,549 B2 (2005‑03‑15).
• Dates: filed 2002‑12‑10; priority 2002‑12‑09; published 2004‑06‑10.
• Description (content reviewed): Discloses a square RGBG repeating unit (FIG. 1) with two green light-emitting elements 14 of a first size, a red element 12 that is smaller, and a blue element 16 that is larger, the sizes being set by a formula S = A×W/(E×F) that balances lifetime, efficiency, white point and human visual frequency response. The green elements sit on a uniform/equal grid; the FIG. 1 unit and its repetition can be mapped onto a virtual square whose center is a green pixel and whose vertices fall on the red and blue pixel centers. Green is explicitly the higher-count, luminance-dominant emitter.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Claim 1 — strong candidate for (a), (b), (d), (e) (blue > red), (f) (green "first" pixel); element (c) (the "another first pixel…consecutive on the line") requires a specific reading of Cok's repeated RGBG tiling. Directly relevant to claims 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 (polygonal/size relationships, blue = second, red = third).
• Analyst caveat: In the related PTAB filings, Cok is used as a primary reference in § 103 combinations (e.g., Cok + Hong, Credelle‑379 + Cok, Cok + Suh), which implies Cok alone was not treated as a complete § 102 anticipation of the family's independent claim. The virtual-square/vertex framing must be read into Cok's grid geometry.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040108818A1/en

1.2 US 2003/0128179 A1 — Credelle (Clairvoyante Laboratories), "split blue sub-pixels"

• Full citation: US 2003/0128179 A1, "Color flat panel display sub-pixel arrangements and layouts for sub-pixel rendering with split blue sub-pixels" (Credelle, Thomas Lloyd). In the same family as US 2003/0128225 A1 and US 7,755,652 B2.
• Dates: as listed on the '803 record — priority 2002‑01‑07, published 2003‑07‑10 (the underlying 10/278,352 CIP was filed 2002‑10‑22).
• Description (content reviewed via PTAB quotations): Discloses an octal sub-pixel repeating group in which the blue sub-pixel occupies twice the positions of red/green; the green ("majority") emitters are placed on a square grid / "checkerboard", and the reference teaches that the relative sizes, aspect ratios, spacings and positions of the pixels can be altered, and that "other shapes" are contemplated. Petitioners mapped Credelle‑379's FIG. 1C green grid to the claimed "virtual square," with red and blue at vertices.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Claim 1 — candidate for (a)–(d); area and color limitations are disclosed/strongly suggested. Especially relevant to claims 8–12 (equal "first length" spacing, longer second/third lengths) because Credelle teaches adjustable spacing.
• Analyst caveat: Credelle's emitters are "sub-pixels" for rendering; a POSITA mapping to the claimed "pixels" is an argument, not a literal disclosure. Again, used in the family IPRs as part of a combination.
• URLs: petition discussion at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558494](/patent/1558494)/download-documents?artifactId=rtvO9ZnoDaaTrzA-Veeb37h1Lbi--sLUwERyWLUilkTVdIBIZu0VbFI ; publication at https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030090581A1/en (related family).

1.3 US 2011/0291550 A1 — Kim, Oh & Kim (Samsung Mobile Display / Samsung Display)

• Full citation: US 2011/0291550 A1, "Pixel arrangement of an organic light emitting display device." Granted as US 8,552,635 (and JP 5346060 B2 / EP 2390869 A2/A3).
• Dates: filed 2011‑05‑25/26; KR priority 2010‑05‑26; published 2011‑12‑01.
• Description (content reviewed): Repeated sub-pixel groups with first/second sub-pixels alternately arranged in rows and columns and third sub-pixels arranged between columns; the third sub-pixel is at least ~2× longer / has a wider area than the first sub-pixel and is expressly the color with the "shortest life property" (blue), while first = red and second = green (in the recited embodiment). A distance between a first and adjacent second sub-pixel substantially equals the distance between two adjacent third sub-pixels.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Claim 1 — candidate for (a), (b), (d), (e) and the equal-spacing limitations of claim 8; directly relevant to claims 10, 14, 19, 20, 21. Note the color assignment (green as second) differs from claim 1's "first pixel emits green," so the mapping requires the alternative color embodiment.
• Analyst caveat: Same-assignee reference (Samsung). This is a very close conceptual neighbor to the '803 — the strongest § 103 partner, and a plausible § 102 reference to the spacing/size dependent claims even if claim 1 itself is not fully met.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110291550

1.4 US 8,354,789 B2 — Kim et al. (Samsung Display)

• Full citation: US 8,354,789 B2, "Pixel arrangement of an organic light emitting display device."
• Dates: filed 2010‑05‑31; published (as application) 2011‑12‑01; granted 2013‑01‑15.
• Description (content reviewed): First/second sub-pixels alternately arranged in columns; third sub-pixels in adjacent columns, the third sub-pixel being longer than the first and second sub-pixels along the column direction (pentile-derived); explicitly states the third sub-pixel may be green (with red/blue as first/second).
• Potential § 102 mapping: Relevant to claims 1, 8–11 (relative lengths/spacings) and 21 (relative sizes). Weaker on the "virtual square with vertices at pixel centers" because this reference is stripe/pentile-column oriented rather than diagonal-vertex oriented.

1.5 US 2011/0012820 A1 — Gun-Shik Kim (Samsung)

• Full citation: US 2011/0012820 A1, "Pixel arrangement structure for organic light emitting display."
• Dates: filed 2009‑07‑14; published 2011‑01‑20.
• Description (content reviewed): Modifies the Clairvoyante "Pentile Matrix Color Pixel Arrangement" using hexagonal sub-pixels; four hexagonal first sub-pixels per group, two in a column sharing a symmetry axis, first sub-pixels in a zig-zag arrangement; second/third sub-pixels each formed of two hexagons sharing a side.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Directly engages claims 5–7 and 15 (hexagonal/octagonal polygonal geometries; green first sub-pixel; blue/red second/third). Illustrates the pre-existing pentile+hexagon geometry that the '803's octagonal vertices build on. Weaker as a clean claim-1 anticipation because its geometry is hexagon/column based, not "virtual-square vertices."

1.6 US 2002/0015110 A1 — Brown Elliott (Clairvoyante Laboratories)

• Full citation: US 2002/0015110 A1, "Arrangement of color pixels for full color imaging devices with simplified addressing."
• Dates: filed 2000‑07‑28; published 2002‑02‑07.
• Description: The foundational pentile/checkerboard color-pixel arrangement that later references (Credelle, Cok, the Kim patents) build upon — the origin of the green-dominant, blue-sub-sampled layouts with unequal color counts.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Background/base disclosure relevant to claims 1, 19, 20 (different-color pixels; green + blue + red). The '803's family treatment (see ¶ 63–67 of the PTAB petition quoted above) confirms this reference is treated as general background, not a standalone anticipation of the diagonal-vertex claim.

1.7 US 2008/0001525 A1 — AU Optronics

• Full citation: US 2008/0001525 A1, "Arrangements of color pixels for full color OLED."
• Dates: filed 2006‑06‑30; published 2008‑01‑03.
• Description (title/abstract level): Repeated color-pixel arrangements specific to OLED.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Relevant to claims 1, 19, 20 (OLED color-pixel arrangement concept). I did not review the full text; treat the claim mapping as provisional.

1.8 US 6,366,025 B1 — Yamada (Sanyo Electric)

• Full citation: US 6,366,025 B1, "Electroluminescence display apparatus."
• Dates: filed 1999‑02‑26; granted 2002‑04‑02.
• Description (content reviewed via Cok's discussion of it): OLED display with unequal light-emitting-element areas, the areas being adjusted to improve lifetime — i.e., dies the "second pixel larger than third pixel" and "second pixel larger than first pixel" concepts (claim 1(e); claim 21) long before the '803.
• Potential § 102 mapping: Claim 21 (second pixel larger than first) and the size-relationship aspects of claim 1(e)/claim 10. Not directed to virtual-square geometry, so it does not anticipate claim 1 as a whole.

2. Tier‑2: cited references material to the dependent claims or to § 103

(The remaining few entries in the 44-item table — e.g., the Mitsubishi Electric JP H10‑39791 and Toray JP 2000‑235891 prior-art pairs, US 2002/0070909, and the LG "average picture level" reference — are old or off-point and do not bear on claim 1.)

3. Tier‑3: the "Family Cites Families (147)" list

The '803's Google Patents page also shows a "Family Cites Families" set of 147 references (e.g., US 3,971,065 Color imaging array; US 5,485,293 "color triads with split pixels"; US 6,747,618 "Color OLED display with improved lifetime"; US 7,495,158 etc.). These are cited-by-family references, not the examiner citations against the '803 itself. Most are LCD imaging-subpixel or color-filter art and are, at most, general background. I flag them so they are not confused with the 44-item examination record above.

4. IPR context (the real "prior-art" battleground)

The Google Patents record lists IPR2023-00987 against the '803 (reported as reaching a Final Written Decision; Petitioner/petitioned claims unverified — I could not retrieve a document confirming the '803 itself was the challenged patent). What I could retrieve are PTAB petition papers for sibling family patents (the '066 and '616 patents, same specification/priority), which show exactly how Samsung's pixel-arrangement family is attacked:

• Combination 1 — Credelle‑379 + Cok (grounds against claim 1 and dependents): Credelle‑379 supplies the green-on-a-grid / blue-split arrangement, Cok supplies the relative red/blue/green sizes via S = A×W/(E×F). Petitioners explicitly mapped "the green pixels … on an equal grid spacing … (e.g., a virtual square)" and "two blue pixels … larger than … two red pixels."
• Combination 2 — Cok + Hong: Cok for the RGBG pattern and size formula; Hong for equal spacing d1 between green‑blue and green‑red pairs to reduce shadowing (supplies the "same first length" spacing of claim 8).
• Combination 3 — Cok + Suh: Suh's pixel-defining layer for clearly defined/separated pixel areas.
• Also seen: Kim + Tang, Kim + Shimoda (drive-circuit grounds, not pixel-layout grounds).

Analytical takeaway: The asserted family is being attacked with § 103 combinations, not clean § 102 anticipations. That is consistent with my independent read: no single face reference discloses every limitation of claim 1 as arranged — in particular the "another first pixel…consecutive on the line (c)" limitation, and the specifically relative size of second > third (e). References:

• https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558494/ (Cok/Credelle/…)
• https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558493](/patent/1558493)/ (Cok + Hong)
• https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1548433](/patent/1548433)/ (family background)

5. Bottom-line ranking for § 102 relevance to claim 1

1. US 2004/0108818 A1 (Cok; US 6,867,549) — best single reference for claim 1's green-centered RGBG geometry, blue>red size relationship, and the dependent size/color claims (5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21); the virtual-square-with-vertices framing and the "consecutive on a line" limitation must be argued/read in.
2. US 2003/0128179 A1 (Credelle; split-blue) — best single reference for the virtual-square/vertex diagonal geometry and equal/adjustable spacing (claims 1, 8–12), with the size relationship supplied by combination (Cok).
3. US 2011/0291550 A1 / US 8,354,789 B2 (Kim, Samsung) — closest same-assignee conceptual neighbors; strong on the spacing/size/blue-lifetime dependent claims (8, 10, 11, 14, 21) even where they do not recite claim 1's diagonal-vertex geometry in green-first form.
4. US 2011/0012820 A1 (Kim) — the hexagonal-pixel/pentile reference relevant to claims 5–7, 15.
5. US 2002/0015110 A1 (Brown Elliott), US 2008/0001525 A1 (AUO), US 6,366,025 B1 (Yamada) — foundational/background for color arrangement and unequal-area-for-lifetime (claim 21, claims 19–20).

6. Explicit uncertainty list

1. § 102 assessments are provisional for every reference I reviewed only at the title/abstract level (AUO '525, Asano '909, Osada '195, and the Tier‑2/3 bulk). Only Cok, Credelle, the two Kim patents (via PTAB quotations), US 8,354,789, and US 2011/0012820 were reviewed with real content.
2. No reference is asserted here as a definitive anticipation — I state only potential § 102 relevance, and flag where petitioners themselves used the reference only in § 103 combinations.
3. IPR2023-00987 — the challenged claims, petitioner, and outcome are not verified; the family-level petition documents I quote are from other IPRs on sibling patents, not confirmed to be the '00987 record.
4. US 2003/0128179 A1 date discrepancy: the '803 face record lists priority 2002‑01‑07 / pub. 2003‑07‑10, while the underlying 10/278,352 CIP was filed 2002‑10‑22. I have not auto-corrected either; both appear in the record.
5. I could not access authenticated USPTO PatentCenter full-text; the citation set is taken from the authoritative '803 document plus the Google Patents mirror of that same record.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis by researching the key prior-art references cited on the '803 patent's page, plus the IPR that challenged it.

Key find: the prosecution/PTAB record shows examiner rejections using "Elliot in view of Kim (US 2011/0012820 A1)". Let me pin down the "Elliot" reference and the IPR grounds.

Obviousness Analysis Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — US 9,818,803 B2

Builds on the previously generated Patent summary (claim 1 dissection), Litigation summary, and Assignment history. Do not re-read those sections for the claim breakdown; they are assumed below.

0. Search-scope caveat (read first)

I was able to retrieve two empirical anchors that materially shape this analysis, and I was unable to retrieve one that would have made it conclusive:

• Retrieved: the examiner's actual § 103 rejection in the prosecution of the related CIP (application 13/872,018, "CIP of 13614197 09/13/2012 PAT 9818803") — "unpatentable over Elliot in view of Kim (U.S Pub. No. US 2011/0012820 A1)" (ptacts.uspto.gov petition record).
• Retrieved: the IPR2023-00987 Final Written Decision (Jan. 6, 2025) outcome, as recited in the ITC's 337-TA-1351 termination notice — "the Board found claim 21 of the '803 patent unpatentable and all other asserted claims … had not been proven unpatentable" (USITC notice, 337-1351; govinfo 2025-03-25 FR).
• NOT retrieved: the IPR2023-00987 petition's specific grounds/references (I hit the search-step limit before pulling the petition). So I can report which claims fell and which survived, but not the precise art combination BOE asserted. Treat the "why claim 1 survived" reasoning below as my inference, flagged as such.

Also note: the '803 patent's priority (Mar. 6, 2012) and U.S. filing (Sep. 13, 2012) both predate Mar. 16, 2013, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs.

1. Legal framework and critical date

• Governing statute: pre-AIA § 103(a). Graham v. John Deere factors (scope/content of prior art; differences; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations), as liberalized by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ("obvious to try," "predictable variation," "design incentive," "known problem → known solution").
• Critical date: earliest priority March 6, 2012 (KR 10-2012-0022967); U.S. filing September 13, 2012. References published/filed before that date qualify. (See the Litigation summary for the family/continuation tree; the same priority is shared by US 10,832,616, 10,854,683, 11,594,578, etc.)

2. Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA)

A bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, materials science, physics, or display engineering, plus 2–4 years of experience in OLED pixel-circuit/pixel-layout design and FMM (fine-metal-mask) deposition — or an equivalent combination. This is a crowded, fast-iterating, highly collaborative field (Samsung Mobile Display → Samsung Display; Samsung SDI; LG Display; Clairvoyante; Eastman Kodak; AUO; Tohoku/Toppan), which matters: KSR and Federal Circuit law treat predictable improvements in such fields as squarely obvious.

3. Prior art landscape (references on the '803 page, all pre-critical-date)

Cross‑check worth noting: a later BOE PCT search report cites EP 2637209 A1 (Samsung Display) as "X" (single‑reference anticipation) against claims 1, 3, 8, 16–22 of an analogous pixel‑arrangement claim set (JP 2023531333 A search report). EP 2637209 is a sibling in the same family/priority neighborhood. This is not art against the '803, but it is strong evidence that examiners in multiple jurisdictions considered the genus of these arrangement claims to be at or near the prior‑art line.

4. Claim 1 limitation‑by‑limitation mapping

Claim 1 (the sole independent claim) requires: (b) first pixel center = center of a virtual square; (c) second pixel center at a first vertex; (d) another first pixel on the line through the center and that vertex, with first/second/other‑first consecutive along the line; (e) third pixel center at a neighboring second vertex; (f) second pixel larger than third; (g) first pixel emits green.

5. The two strongest § 103 combinations

Combination A — primary: Kim 0291550 / US 8,354,789 (pentile‑type, blue‑largest) + secondary: Clairvoyante 2002/0015110 or Elliott 2004/0051724 (diamond/center‑of‑repeat‑unit geometry)

• What A yields: a repeated RGB arrangement in which a green sub‑pixel occupies the center of the repeat unit and blue/red occupy offset (vertex) positions, with the blue sub‑pixel made largest to compensate for blue's shortest lifetime.
• Overlaps claim 1: (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g) squarely; (d) implicitly via the repeat unit.
• Why combine: Kim 0291550 and Clairvoyante are in the identical field (sub‑pixel layouts for emissive/rendered displays); Kim 0291550 itself frames its arrangement as a refinement of the PenTile concept, i.e., the two references are already "interrelated teachings." The only delta — the diamond "center‑plus‑vertices" geometry — is the very geometry both Clairvoyante and Elliott disclose. KSR: substituting a known repeat‑unit geometry into a known pentile layout is a predictable variation with no unexpected result.

Combination B — primary: Kim 0012820 (hexagonal, green‑first, PenTile‑modified) + secondary: Kodak 6,747,618 (lifetime‑based sub‑pixel sizing) [+ optionally Clairvoyante 2002/0015110]

• What B yields: Kim's green first sub‑pixel + blue/red second/third in a repeat group, with the Kodak teaching of enlarging the short‑lifetime color's emitter applied to make the blue (second) pixel larger than the red (third).
• Overlaps claim 1: (a), (b)/(c)/(e) (Kim's diagonal second/third pairing and zig‑zag first sub‑pixels), (f), (g).
• This is essentially the combination the examiner already ran in the sibling CIP — "Elliot in view of Kim (US 2011/0012820 A1)" — where Kim supplied the green/blue/red assignment and the stated motivation was "balancing the lives of sub‑pixels." That is the same motivation the '803 specification itself gives for the FIG. 2 embodiment (blue shortest‑lived → larger area). A motivation that the applicant recites as the reason for his own design is, by definition, a motivation available to the PHOSITA.

Motivation‑to‑combine summary (applies to both A and B):

1. Same field / same problem: both references address OLED aperture ratio vs. FMM deposition reliability — the exact trade‑off stated in the '803 Background ("When reducing a gap … deposition reliability may be deteriorated. On the other hand, when increasing the gap … the aperture ratio … may be deteriorated").
2. Design incentive: blue's short lifetime (Kim 0291550 verbatim; Kodak 6,747,618).
3. Reasonable expectation of success: purely geometric/area re‑allocation of known emitters — no new materials, no unpredictable physics.
4. KSR "obvious to try": the field had a small, finite set of known arrangement options (stripe, mosaic, delta, PenTile/diamond), and the '803 itself lists them.

6. Dependent claims — where obviousness is strongest

Net: every dependent claim has a defensible § 103 theory, and claim 21 has already been held unpatentable. Claims 6–9, 15–20 are close to the anticipatory edge (cf. the EP 2637209 "X" citation against the analogous claim set).

7. What is genuinely at risk of surviving § 103 (the non‑obviousness case)

Two features are where Samsung's defense concentrates, and they are exactly the limitations the earlier Patent summary flagged as added during prosecution and absent from the SUMMARY:

1. The "consecutive pixels on the line" limitation (claim 1, element (d)). This recites a specific repeating‑lattice relationship — the larger "second" pixel is the next consecutive pixel along the center‑to‑vertex diagonal, flanked by two green first pixels. None of the cited references (as enumerated on the '803 page) appears to recite that consecutive‑on‑line relationship with precision; it is established only by inference from the repeat unit. BOE evidently did not prove this limitation obvious: claim 1 was not held unpatentable in IPR2023‑00987.
2. The triple relational requirement in combination — central green (g) and second > third (f) and the specific gap scheme (dependent claims) — where the "larger" pixel in the closest reference (Kim 0291550) sits in a column‑type arrangement, not a diamond/center‑plus‑vertex arrangement. A patentee can argue non‑obviousness of the combination even where each piece is old (KSR notwithstanding), and the IPR result is evidence that a sophisticated challenger failed to bridge that gap for claim 1.

Caution: the survival of claim 1 in IPR is not a merits adjudication of validity — a different petitioner with different art (e.g., a § 102(e)‑only reference, a printed publication, or a system‑prior‑art theory) could still invalidate it. And the ITC found claim 21 unpatentable while only assuming it for the domestic‑industry analysis.

8. Bottom line

• Claim 21 of the '803 patent is obvious — indeed adjudicated unpatentable (IPR2023‑00987 FWD, Jan. 6, 2025).
• Dependent claims 5–9 and 15–20 are highly vulnerable: they reduce to (i) known PenTile/diamond geometry (Clairvoyante 2002/0015110; Elliott 2004/0051724; AUO 2008/0001525), (ii) the express blue‑lifetime/area teaching (Kim 0291550; Kodak 6,747,618), (iii) the express green/blue/red assignment (Kim 0012820 — the examiner's own reference), and (iv) routine FMM‑driven gap optimization (KR100742370; KR20090017910). Combinations A and B each render this subject matter prima facie obvious under KSR.
• Independent claim 1 is the hard target. The combination of (b)+(c)+(d)+(e)+(f)+(g) — including the "consecutive pixels on the line" lattice relation — was not proven obvious in the only adversarial § 103 test on record. A challenger would likely need a reference expressly teaching a green‑centered diamond with an enlarged blue at the vertex plus the consecutive‑line relation, or a § 102 anticipation.
• Cross‑check/red flag from the record: the same district/ITC art would look different under post‑AIA § 103 with IPR‑style claim construction; the earlier Litigation summary notes the appeals (Fed. Cir. 25‑1791, 25‑1517, 25‑1520) and the Nov. 2025 global settlement mooted most of them — so no appellate § 103 merits ruling exists to date.

Explicit uncertainties: (1) I could not retrieve the IPR2023‑00987 petition grounds, so I cannot state which references BOE asserted or the PTAB's specific reasoning for sparing claim 1; (2) the identity of "Elliot" as US 2004/0051724 A1 (Elliott) versus US 2003/0128179 A1 (Credelle) is inferred — both are Clairvoyante‑line references on the '803 page; (3) I did not independently pull full texts of US 2002/0015110, US 2003/0128179, US 2008/0001525, or US 6,747,618, so their precise figures are characterized from titles/abstracts and should be verified before being relied on. The limitation‑mapping in §4 and the § 102(e) status of US 8,354,789 should be re‑checked against the primary documents (Google Patents / USPTO PatentCenter) before this is used in a validity opinion.