Pictiva Displays Intl Ltd v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Pictiva Displays International Ltd. (Ireland)
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: McKool Smith, P.C.; Irell & Manella LLP
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00495, E.D. Tex., 03/01/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. has a regular and established place of business within the district, and Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a foreign corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s consumer electronic products incorporating Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) displays infringe six patents related to OLED manufacturing methods, device structures, and material compositions.
• Technical Context: OLED display technology is central to the modern consumer electronics market, enabling high-resolution, power-efficient, and thin displays for devices such as smartphones, televisions, and wearables.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of pre-suit licensing discussions beginning around September 2020, during which Plaintiff allegedly provided Defendant with claim charts for U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389. The complaint also alleges that Defendant had knowledge of U.S. Patent No. 8,314,547 as early as September 2016, when its subsidiary cited the patent in an Information Disclosure Statement during the prosecution of its own patent application.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-05-02	’389 Patent Priority Date
2005-09-27	’389 Patent Issue Date
2007-09-19	’547 Patent Priority Date
2008-01-01	Samsung allegedly begins incorporating OLED displays in devices
2008-05-30	’164 Patent Priority Date
2008-09-26	’223 Patent Priority Date
2008-12-11	’425 Patent Priority Date
2012-09-27	’492 Patent Priority Date
2012-11-20	’547 Patent Issue Date
2013-10-15	’223 Patent Issue Date
2014-05-13	’164 Patent Issue Date
2016-02-09	’492 Patent Issue Date
2016-09-21	Samsung allegedly gains knowledge of ’547 Patent via IDS
2020-09-25	Pictiva allegedly notifies Samsung of infringement and begins licensing discussions
2020-12-16	Pictiva allegedly sends claim chart for ’389 Patent to Samsung
2021-06-01	Pictiva allegedly provides claim charts for ’389 Patent and lists of ’223, ’164 Patents
2021-08-17	Pictiva allegedly reiterates license need for ’389, ’223, and ’164 Patents
2023-11-28	’425 Patent Issue Date
2024-03-01	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389 - “Encapsulation for Organic Light Emitting Diodes Devices”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the vulnerability of OLED devices to environmental factors, particularly oxygen and moisture, which requires robust encapsulation. Prior methods of "direct thin-film" encapsulation often covered the entire device, including electrical contact pads that needed to remain exposed, necessitating additional costly processing steps for removal (’389 Patent, col. 2:17-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more targeted encapsulation method where protective layers are applied selectively over only the active areas of the OLED devices, leaving contact pads and other regions uncovered. One described embodiment involves depositing a UV-curable organic "planarization layer" over the devices, hardening it in a patterned manner to cover only the active OLEDs, removing the unhardened material, and then selectively depositing a protective "barrier layer" over the hardened region (’389 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-53).
• Technical Importance: This selective encapsulation approach was intended to provide a more cost-effective and reliable manufacturing process while enabling thinner, lighter, and more flexible OLED packages compared to prior art techniques that required separate glass plates or non-selective film deposition (Compl. ¶10; ’389 Patent, col. 1:48-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 34 (Compl. ¶38).
• Essential elements of claim 34:
  • fabricating a plurality of devices on a substrate;
  • selectively depositing at least one planarization layer upon said devices; and
  • selectively depositing at least one barrier layer over said planarization layer.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,314,547 - “Opto-Electronic Component”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of achieving a desired color output during operation and a desired color impression when the device is switched off (’547 Patent, col. 1:12-15).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes an optoelectronic device with a "structured layer" placed in the path of light emitted from an organic layer sequence. This structured layer is composed of at least two types of regions arranged laterally (side-by-side): "first regions" containing a "wavelength conversion layer" that changes the color of light (e.g., from blue to green), and "second regions" containing a "filter layer" that is transparent to the original light but may block other colors (’547 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:26-38). This structure allows for precise control over the final color output of the display.
• Technical Importance: This architecture is relevant to modern full-color displays, particularly Quantum Dot OLED (QD-OLED) technology, where a blue-emitting OLED source is used in conjunction with quantum dot wavelength converters to generate red and green subpixels (Compl. ¶47).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent device claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
• Essential elements of claim 1:
  • An optoelectronic device comprising an organic layer sequence which emits a first wavelength spectrum.
  • A structured layer disposed downstream of the organic layer sequence, including first and second regions arranged laterally in the beam path.
  • The first regions each include a wavelength conversion layer configured to convert the first wavelength spectrum into a second wavelength spectrum.
  • The second regions each include a filter layer that is transparent to the first wavelength spectrum.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,558,223 - “Organic Electronic Component and Method for the Production Thereof”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses improving electron conductivity within an OLED's electron-conducting layer. The proposed solution is a layer created by the "joint vaporization" of a metal complex with a specific organic compound, which is alleged to increase the number of "free" electrons while creating an amorphous layer that improves reliability and emission homogeneity (Compl. ¶12).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶57).
• Accused Features: The electron transport layer in Samsung's OLED displays, such as the Galaxy S20, is accused of being formed by the joint vaporization of a lithium metal complex and an organic compound with a conjugated C-C bond (Compl. ¶57-58).

U.S. Patent No. 8,723,164 - “Electronic Device”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an electronic device with an organic functional layer comprising at least three distinct matrix materials. These materials are defined by their relative energy levels (HOMO and LUMO) and charge carrier mobilities, an arrangement intended to improve charge carrier balance and thereby increase device efficiency (Compl. ¶13).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 16 is asserted (Compl. ¶68).
• Accused Features: The display panel of the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra is accused of having an organic functional layer with at least three matrix materials that meet the specific energetic and mobility relationships recited in the claims (Compl. ¶68).

U.S. Patent No. 9,257,492 - “Method for Producing a Passive Electronic Component, Method for Producing an Optoelectronic Assembly and Passive Electronic Component”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent details an electronic component structure and a method for its production. The structure involves first and second conductive layers separated by a trench, a structured dielectric that insulates the two resulting contact regions, and a third conductive electrode layer applied over the dielectric (Compl. ¶14).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 16 is asserted (Compl. ¶78).
• Accused Features: Samsung’s OLED display panels are accused of infringing, with the complaint identifying the two ITO layers of an anode, a trench, a pixel define layer ("PDL") as the dielectric, and a cathode as the electrode layer (Compl. ¶78).

U.S. Patent No. 11,828,425 - “Organic-Light Emitting Diode”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an OLED device comprising an organic layer sequence, a radiation exit area, an encapsulation, and a carrier. The claims specify features such as a radiation-emitting region and an n-doped charge carrier transport layer within the organic layer sequence (Compl. ¶15; ’425 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶89).
• Accused Features: The display panel of the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra is accused of infringing. The complaint maps the claim elements to the device's emission layer, transparent cathode (radiation exit area), thin-film encapsulation, carrier, and n-doped electron transport layer (Compl. ¶89).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a broad range of Samsung consumer electronic products that incorporate OLED displays, referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶16). Specific examples cited include various Galaxy smartphones (e.g., Galaxy S20, S23 Ultra), computers (e.g., Galaxy Book Pro), tablets, televisions (e.g., S95B TV), and personal wear products (Compl. ¶16, 23, 37, 46, 68, 89).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused functionality resides in the OLED display panels incorporated into these products. The complaint notes that Samsung markets these displays as having excellent image quality, color reproducibility, and fast response speed (Compl. ¶18). The technology at issue includes Active-Matrix OLED (AMOLED), Super AMOLED, and Quantum Dot OLED (QD-OLED) displays (Compl. ¶18-19). The complaint alleges that Samsung is the leader in the global OLED market, holding over 90% market share for smartphone OLED displays in 2020 (Compl. ¶17). The infringement allegations focus on the methods used to manufacture these displays and the specific materials and layered structures within them. An annotated diagram in the complaint shows the selective deposition of encapsulation layers, alleging that it avoids covering the edge, data driver, and camera hole (Compl. p. 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’6,949,389 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 34)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
fabricating a plurality of devices on a substrate;	Samsung manufactures multiple OLED devices on a substrate for its smartphone displays.	¶38	col. 10:16-17
selectively depositing at least one planarization layer upon said devices; and	A planarization layer is allegedly deposited only over the active OLED device areas, leaving other areas like the edge and camera hole uncovered.	¶38	col. 11:3-4
selectively depositing at least one barrier layer over said planarization layer.	A barrier layer is allegedly deposited over the previously deposited planarization layer, also in a selective manner that conforms to the underlying pattern.	¶38	col. 11:4-5

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary dispute may concern the meaning of "selectively depositing." The question is whether this term requires the deposition process itself to be targeted (e.g., via a mask or inkjet printing, as described in some patent embodiments), or if it can also cover a process of blanket deposition followed by patterned removal of unwanted material (as described in other embodiments). The annotated photograph in the complaint showing the final selectively-covered display points to an infringement theory based on the final structure, regardless of the intermediate steps (Compl. p. 15).
• Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether Samsung's manufacturing process for products like the Galaxy S20 actually includes distinct steps that can be characterized as depositing a "planarization layer" and then a "barrier layer" consistent with the patent's teachings.

’8,314,547 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an organic layer sequence which emits an electromagnetic radiation having a first wavelength spectrum during operation	The accused S95B TV allegedly uses an OLED panel that functions as a blue light emitting source.	¶47	col. 14:56-58
a structured layer disposed downstream of the organic layer sequence ... including first and second regions that are arranged laterally in the beam path	The display allegedly has a layer with laterally arranged red, green (first regions), and blue (second regions) subpixels. A diagram shows this side-by-side arrangement (Compl. p. 17).	¶47	col. 14:59-62
wherein the first regions each include a wavelength conversion layer configured to convert ... a first wavelength spectrum into ... a second wavelength spectrum	The red and green subpixels allegedly use a Quantum Dot (QD) layer to convert the blue light from the source into red and green light.	¶47	col. 14:63-67
wherein the second regions each include a filter layer which is ... transparent to the electromagnetic radiation having the first wavelength spectrum	The blue subpixel regions allegedly function as a filter layer, allowing the underlying blue light to pass through.	¶47-48	col. 15:5-10

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the blue subpixel structure in Samsung's QD-OLED TVs qualifies as a "filter layer" as that term is used in the patent. While the complaint alleges it is transparent to blue light and opaque to others, the defense may argue it is merely a transmissive element or a color-purifying filter, not the specific type of "filter layer" contemplated by the patent.
• Technical Questions: A factual question will be what components actually constitute the "blue subpixel regions" in the accused TVs. The analysis will depend on whether they contain a distinct layer that performs a filtering function beyond simply being a transparent aperture for the underlying blue light source.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389

• The Term: "selectively depositing" (Claim 34)
• Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the infringement allegation for the '389 Patent's method claim. The dispute will likely focus on whether Samsung's manufacturing technique meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether processes involving blanket deposition and subsequent patterned removal fall within the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes an embodiment comprising the steps of "hardening said at least one planarization layer in a patterned manner" and "removing areas...that are not hardened," which results in a selective final structure (’389 Patent, col. 2:48-53). This could support a construction where "selectively depositing" refers to the net result of the process, not just the initial act of deposition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discloses distinct embodiments that use inherently selective techniques, such as depositing through a mask (claim 41) or using a gas nozzle deposition system (’389 Patent, col. 7:33-46). A defendant may argue that "selectively depositing" should be limited to these acts of targeted application, not blanket-and-etch processes.

U.S. Patent No. 8,314,547

• The Term: "filter layer" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the blue subpixels of Samsung’s QD-OLED displays depends on this term. The central question is whether the structure that allows blue light to pass in the accused devices constitutes the claimed "filter layer."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the filter layer to be "transparent to the electromagnetic radiation having the first wavelength spectrum" (’547 Patent, col. 15:8-10). The patent specification does not appear to impose a specific structural composition, focusing instead on this functional optical property. This may support a broad interpretation covering any layer that selectively transmits the source wavelength.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that in the context of the patent, a "filter layer" implies more than mere transparency and requires an active filtering or color-purifying function distinct from the wavelength conversion in the "first regions." The specification's contrast between a "wavelength conversion layer" and a "filter layer" may suggest they are intended to be structurally and functionally distinct types of components, not just a converter versus a pass-through.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all six patents-in-suit. The allegations are based on Samsung intentionally aiding and encouraging third parties, such as vendors and customers, to make, use, sell, or import the Accused Products with knowledge and specific intent to infringe (Compl. ¶39, 48, 59, 69, 80, 90). The complaint further alleges Samsung provides advertising, technical assistance, and literature that encourages infringing use (Compl. ¶28).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all six patents. The basis for pre-suit knowledge varies:

• For the ’547 Patent, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge since at least September 2016, when Defendant’s subsidiary allegedly cited the patent in an Information Disclosure Statement to the USPTO (Compl. ¶20, 50).
• For the ’389, ’223, and ’164 Patents, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge gained during licensing discussions no later than June-August 2021, which allegedly included the provision of claim charts for the ’389 Patent (Compl. ¶22-23, 41, 62, 72).
• For the ’492 and ’425 Patents, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge acquired no later than the service of the First Amended Complaint (Compl. ¶83, 93).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of process interpretation: For the ’389 manufacturing patent, can the claim term "selectively depositing" be construed to cover modern, high-volume production techniques that may achieve a selective outcome through a series of blanket deposition and patterned etching steps, or is its scope limited to the specific targeted deposition methods described in the patent's embodiments?
• A second central question will be one of architectural mapping: For the ’547 device patent, does Samsung's QD-OLED architecture—which uses quantum dots to convert a blue light source for red and green pixels while allowing the source to pass through for blue pixels—align with the patent's claimed structure of distinct "wavelength conversion" regions and "filter layer" regions?
• Finally, the case will present a key evidentiary challenge across patents like the ’164 and ’223: can Plaintiff prove through discovery and technical analysis that the complex, multi-component organic material stacks and their specific chemical and energetic properties (e.g., HOMO/LUMO levels) in Samsung's mass-produced displays meet the precise limitations recited in the claims?