As I've come to understand it; Prior to the last 2, 3 maybe 4yrs , the USPTO had been granting materials science patents that were very broad & far reaching...sometimes, unreasonably so. For that reason , the USPTO has since required patent definitions that are more narrow in scope. As I recall, our TQD & R2R printing patents fall under the older (broader) definitions, as-is likely with the Bayer patents as well. I would suspect that would also be the case with most of the Nanosys & QDV patents.
But to your point; [while keeping in-mind I don't claim to be a patent guru] , I would think it reasonable that other QDot films , of differing compositions , formulations &/or design characteristics could-well be defined as being 'new' per these patent law definitions...particularly if it performs better or has other attributes that set it apart &/or 'improve' upon prior art. In any case , I serious doubt that anyone , under any circumstances or design characteristics would be precluded from producing a competitive QDot film , as long as it meets this legal criteria. But regardless , there will no doubt be a lot of legal wrangling along the way before it's all said & done.
And all bets are off for the 1st one to successfully make a fullscreen QDLED.
