Thanks for the comments and other linked content. I was looking at another large die patent application (2016/0322434), not the one you referenced (2018/0083081) - I obviously overlooked that one. At any rate, it's hard to dispute the targeted display sizes when they are explicitly called out in that other application.
I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the economics of die sizes that are that are that large (die per wafer), even after assuming they are moving to 300mm wafers with their new equipment.
Interesting text in the Valve patent: "...relatively large feature OLED pixels (e.g., a 30 micrometer (um) pixel pitch, with approximately 10 um by 30 um subpixels)..." - those dimensions would potentially enable the use of FMM for direct patterning (thus opening up opportunity to EMAN competitors since the DPD IP is based on mask features smaller than those of FMM), but of course that would be a dead end going forward since anyone using FMM for DP at 30um pitch could not do future pitch reduction.
Going to have to chew on this some more. Thanks again.