Back to Blog
CAFC-PTOOctober 15, 2026·26-1815·Dismissed.

Pictiva Displays International Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Holding

On the parties' agreement, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal from the PTAB's decisions in IPR2024-01222 and IPR2024-01223 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The order decides no substantive issue.

Why It Matters

The appeals ended by agreement with no ruling on the merits, so the order gives no guidance on any patent issue, and the order does not say what happens to the Board decisions beyond dismissal.

Full Summary

Pictiva Displays International Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. On the parties' agreement, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal from the PTAB's decisions in IPR2024-01222 and IPR2024-01223 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The order decides no substantive issue. The appeals ended by agreement with no ruling on the merits, so the order gives no guidance on any patent issue, and the order does not say what happens to the Board decisions beyond dismissal. Dismissed. Pictiva Displays International appealed and Samsung Display cross-appealed from PTAB proceedings in IPR2024-01222 and IPR2024-01223 (Nos. 2026-1815, 2026-1816). The parties agreed to dismissal, and the court dismissed the proceedings under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Each side bears its own costs. The mandate issued the same day, October 15, 2026. The order states no reasoning and does not identify the patents, claims, or issues on appeal. standing / jurisdiction non-precedential standing / jurisdiction non-precedential standing / jurisdiction

Key Points

  • Pictiva Displays International appealed and Samsung Display cross-appealed from PTAB proceedings in IPR2024-01222 and IPR2024-01223 (Nos. 2026-1815, 2026-1816).
  • The parties agreed to dismissal, and the court dismissed the proceedings under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).
  • Each side bears its own costs.
  • The mandate issued the same day, October 15, 2026.
  • The order states no reasoning and does not identify the patents, claims, or issues on appeal.
standing / jurisdictionnon-precedential

How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the court's opinion or order; before publishing, code checked that the quotation and the citations it gives appear in that document. Editorial policy

More on this topic

New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity