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

The Director granted Patent Owner's request, vacated the Final Written Decision as to claims 2 and 17, and remanded. A jury in parallel E.D. Tex. litigation had found claim 2 infringed and not invalid, yet the Board's decision found it unpatentable without discussing the verdict or the parties' statements. Under the September 16, 2025 Memorandum on prior findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Board must explain why a different outcome is warranted, and the Board did not. When a district court has adjudicated the same or substantially similar claims, a Board final written decision that reaches a different outcome must explain why, and must do so in more detail where the evidence and arguments are the same or substantially the same. Practitioners should put district court verdicts and the overlap analysis before the Board, since silence on a raised verdict can lead to vacatur. Decision under review: the Final Written Decision (Paper 54) held claims 2, 4, 9-12, and 17 of the '425 patent unpatentable as obvious. Patent Owner argued the Board ignored a November 3, 2025 E.D. Tex. jury verdict finding claim 2 infringed and not invalid. Patent Owner's position: the Board did not address the verdict or explain why a different outcome is warranted, and Petitioner's invalidity challenge is substantially similar to the one raised in district court. Patent Owner raised this in its authorized Statement (Paper 48). Petitioner's position: its challenge rests on prior art and evidence different from what was raised in district court (DR Response 9-12; Paper 50, 2-3). Director's reasoning: under the September 16, 2025 Memorandum, a Board outcome different from a prior district court finding or conclusion must be explained, and the Board did not do so for claim 2. Claim 17 is substantially similar and was considered together with claim 2, so the ruling covers it too. Order: Director Review granted; the Final Written Decision is vacated as to claims 2 and 17 and remanded. The Board must consider the parties' statements and explain any different outcome, with a more detailed explanation if the evidence or arguments are the same or substantially the same. Absent good cause, the Board is to decide within 30 days. Patent Owner's other arguments were considered and found unpersuasive. KEY QUOTE: "Contrary to this Memorandum, the Board did not explain why its outcome as to claim 2, which differed from that of the district court’s adjudication, is warranted." (Paper 63, p. 3)