While one would assume that OLED displays would naturally migrate up from smartphones and tablets and down from TVs, the road to OLED monitors has been a bit bumpier than expected. Its not that the technology is lacking or that demand has not surfaced, and this time it is not a battle between Samsung Display (pvt), the leader in small panel OLED and rival LG Display the leader in large panel OLED, but a battle between Samsung Display and Japan’s JOLED (pvt), who have been at odds since last year when JOLED filed a lawsuit in the US District Court of Texas alleging that Samsung had been selling products that violated four JOLED patents since 2014. The suit, which is ongoing, asks for compensation and triple damages.
The JOLED suit is focused on Samsung’s Galaxy line, including the Note 4 and running up to the Galaxy Fold, which would represent the core of the Samsung flagship line, and was likely the result of failed licensing negotiations between the two parties. Samsung Display, and its monstrous legal resources, doesn’t take these things lightly, and just filed a suit against JOLED in the same court alleging that both JOLED and Taiwan based monitor producer ASUS have been violating one of Samsung’s patents entitled “Thin Film Transistor Array Substrate and Organic Light Emitting Diode Display Including Same” in the display of the ASUS Proart PQ22UC OLED monitor, a $3,950 device whose 21.6” OLED display was produced by JOLED.
Unfortunately, this is an example of what causes the CE space to crawl through technology transitions, as licensing battles turn into IP battles. When direct IP holders are sued, there is nervousness in the industry over products that might be considered to be using almost duplicate technology, but nothing causes grief more than when both the IP holder/violator and the end product user is sued, as any other potential customer of the lawsuit target might be considered complicit and have to make expensive changes to product or eliminate them entirely. Obviously Samsung has the muscle to do this and included ASUS in the suit, and while ASUS also has legal resources, it’s the fear that all of the cost and profit from the product could evaporate if the suit is lost. JOLED cannot easily afford to have to explain the merits of its lawsuit while disparaging the merits of Samsung’s suit to potential customers, who would likely err on the side of caution, something Samsung is likely counting on. We wonder what the relative cost of legal and settlement would be against the incremental difference between whatever license disagreement started the process last year.
The JOLED suit is focused on Samsung’s Galaxy line, including the Note 4 and running up to the Galaxy Fold, which would represent the core of the Samsung flagship line, and was likely the result of failed licensing negotiations between the two parties. Samsung Display, and its monstrous legal resources, doesn’t take these things lightly, and just filed a suit against JOLED in the same court alleging that both JOLED and Taiwan based monitor producer ASUS have been violating one of Samsung’s patents entitled “Thin Film Transistor Array Substrate and Organic Light Emitting Diode Display Including Same” in the display of the ASUS Proart PQ22UC OLED monitor, a $3,950 device whose 21.6” OLED display was produced by JOLED.
Unfortunately, this is an example of what causes the CE space to crawl through technology transitions, as licensing battles turn into IP battles. When direct IP holders are sued, there is nervousness in the industry over products that might be considered to be using almost duplicate technology, but nothing causes grief more than when both the IP holder/violator and the end product user is sued, as any other potential customer of the lawsuit target might be considered complicit and have to make expensive changes to product or eliminate them entirely. Obviously Samsung has the muscle to do this and included ASUS in the suit, and while ASUS also has legal resources, it’s the fear that all of the cost and profit from the product could evaporate if the suit is lost. JOLED cannot easily afford to have to explain the merits of its lawsuit while disparaging the merits of Samsung’s suit to potential customers, who would likely err on the side of caution, something Samsung is likely counting on. We wonder what the relative cost of legal and settlement would be against the incremental difference between whatever license disagreement started the process last year.
ASUS Proart PQ22UC OLED Monitor - Source: Amazon
RSS Feed