⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context.

Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners.

We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to.

Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube /feed.xml Open RSS Status

Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026)

No. 25-1426 Argued October 5, 2026 Published October 6, 2026

The Federal Circuit hears Wuhan China Star versus Samsung Display. The dispute concerns Samsung's patent on a circuit controlling the light emitted by individual pixels in OLED screens. The design aims to keep brightness uniform despite differences between transistors. Wuhan and other display companies asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to cancel eighteen patent claims, arguing that the invention was obvious from earlier technology. Obviousness asks what a designer with ordinary technical skill would have understood at the time, without hindsight. The Board found none of those claims proven unpatentable. Wuhan now seeks to have that ruling set aside and the case returned to the Board. Listen for two connected questions: whether changing transistor types had a sound technical justification, and whether the Board adequately considered and explained its treatment of the evidence. APA refers to the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how courts review agency decisions.

Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (No. 25-1426) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 5, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1426_10052026.mp3
Official argument listing — Federal Circuit:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/
Patent challenge — petition, IPR2023-00941, Paper 1 (filed original, mirrored):https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00941/1
Board decision — December 6, 2024, embedded Paper 68 (filed original, mirrored):https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00941/70
Notice of appeal — February 6, 2025, Paper 71 (filed original, mirrored):https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00941/71
Samsung's sur-reply — Paper 45 (filed original, mirrored):https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00941/45
Obviousness — 35 U.S.C. § 103:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/pdf/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap10-sec103.pdf
KSR v. Teleflex — Supreme Court opinion:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-550/pdf/USREPORTS-550-398.pdf
Administrative Procedure Act — statutory title note:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title5/pdf/USCODE-2024-title5-partI-chap5-subchapII-sec551.pdf
Review of agency decisions — 5 U.S.C. § 706:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title5/pdf/USCODE-2024-title5-partI-chap7-sec706.pdf
Ultratec v. CaptionCall — Federal Circuit opinion:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/16-1706.opinion.8-24-2017.1.pdf

0:00
0:00