U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 2015 ruled in favor of Eidos Display, LLC. The Federal Circuit decision regarding patent dispute against AU Optronics Corp and other manufacturers remains in effect. 

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd filed joint petition in September, urging Supreme Court to review a ruling by the Federal Circuit that found a liquid crystal display patent held by Eidos Display LLC to be valid. The petition said that appellate court's ruling would undermine the claim construction standard established by the high court's recent Teva ruling. However, Reuters reported that U.S. Supreme Court rejected the appeal that are contesting claims they infringed on a patent held by Eidos Display. 

In Teva ruling, referred by Chunghwa is Supreme Court decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v Sandoz Inc., Supreme Court justices discarded the Federal Circuit's long-standing rule.The case was a dispute over multiple-sclerosis drug patented by Teva as Copaxone. In the ruling, Supreme Court held that, Federal Circuit must apply a clear error, instead of de novo or standard of review. Sandoz first filed to invalidate patent held by Teva in New York, in which the justice decided in favor of Teva. Sandoz then apppealed to Federal Circuit, that reviewed the claim with standard of review and decided the Teva's patent is invalid. Teva then appealed to Supreme Court which decided in favor of Teva. 

However, in regard to patent case of Chunghwa and other manufacturers v Eidos Display, LLC., judges thought otherwise. Chunghwa filed the joint petition with HannStar Display Corp., Hannspree North America Inc., Chi Mei Innolux Corp. and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA Inc. As Law 360 reported, U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a ruling that revived a patent to Eidos LLC. 

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, Intellectual Property Watchdog reported that the case of Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. v. Eidos Display, LLC is a major case of intellectual property right in electronic industry. It also mentioned that patent case in Supreme Court tend to fall into two categories. The first one consist of cases where there is an opportunity to reign in ever-expanding patent rights. While the second one is for Supreme Court to ensure that general legal principles are uniformly applied in the context of patent law. Chungwa v Eidos fall into the second category, although Supreme Court does not apply the same legal principle similar to that in Teval case.

As U.S. Supreme Court rejected the appeal, automatically the Federal Court ruling in favor of Eidos is in effect.