SID 2017 – TADFs – Why Should you care? – Part 1
OLED materials are a growing business as the adoption of OLED displays continues to increase along with unit volumes, and the key ‘ingredient’ in OLED displays, the emitter, is the most expensive in the OLED material stack. While the goal of OLED display producers is to produce the best display possible, they also face the issue of cost, and must focus on reducing the overall cost of materials in any way possible. That said, the emitter materials used by OLED display producers, are covered by IP owned by Universal Display (OLED), and must be licensed, either for R&D or commercial usage. These emitter materials are based on heavy-metal phosphorescent technology, of which UDC is the sole provider, which gives UDC an upper hand in controlling emitter material pricing. Red, green and yellow/green emitter materials are therefore subject to no outside competitive pricing pressure, while blue emitter material, which remains a fluorescent compound, is produced by a number of potential suppliers, as no phosphorescent equivalent has been developed.
So there are two gaps in OLED emitter materials, blue phosphorescent emitters, and a way to reduce the cost or increase the competitive nature of phosphorescent emitters, and with panel producers working toward reducing OLED costs while improving products, these topics are of great importance to OLED panel producers. Blue phosphorescent materials are difficult to produce as the energy associated with such molecules is high enough to make the molecules unstable. There are some light blue phosphorescent emitters being tested, but a dark blue phosphorescent emitter material with a lifetime similar to other OLED materials has yet to be commercialized. While UDC has purchased significant ‘blue related’ IP and other material suppliers have focused research on the same concept, that gap has yet to be filled.
Currently, as noted above, blue fluorescent emitter material is currently being used in RGB OLED devices as a substitute for blue phosphorescent material, but fluorescent materials do not give off the same amount of light as phosphorescents, and therefore force panel producers to make concessions to the lower output fluorescent blue that reduce the overall display potential of the device. Two private companies, and a wide variety of OLED material suppliers however, are working toward a solution that does not entail the development of a phosphorescent blue emitter. This developmental technology, known as Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence (TADF) is a process by which a blue fluorescent material can be made to produce the same amount of light as a phosphorescent equivalent would produce. Again, the main issue, even for TADF blue emitters, is lifetime, and as of yet, no commercial blue TADF material is able to meet current lifetime demands from OLED panel producers, but material improvements are being made and lifetimes are extending. That said, we would not expect to see a commercial blue TADF product that could meet specs and be in volume production before 2019, but it does represent at least a challenge to those developing a phosphorescent deep blue emitter.
Germany-based Cynora (pvt) is the private company most directly involved in the development of blue TADF emitter materials, and is currently venture funded, although we would expect the current round of financing to include some ‘strategic’ investors. Cynora is focused on developing a blue TADF emitter and while attention is given to other potential TADF emitters, Cynora is working toward filling the ‘blue’ gap mentioned above. Kuylux (pvt) is a Japan-based company[1], with substantial industry investors[2], that is also working toward developing TADF emitter materials, but with more of a focus on being a potential alternative supplier of red and green emitter materials. As these red and green TADF emitters are not based on heavy metal phosphorescent technology, they would not fall under the UDC license umbrella, and would offer an alternative material to OLED producers if they can meet current specs. Both companies have specific material technology platforms that define them, but both are working toward the same goal of producing commercial TADFs for OLED panel producers, as are other OLED material suppliers, but we note that most large specialty chemical companies are interested in high volume materials and current profitability, which gives them less flexibility to allocate resources to such a specific goal. Of course, should either company develop a successful TADF material, there will be no lack of large material suppliers who will look to license the IP.
We will go into more detail on the development of TADF materials in notes over the next few weeks.
[1] Spinoff from Kyushu University – US operations in Boston
[2] Japan Display, JOLED, LG Display, Samsung Display,
So there are two gaps in OLED emitter materials, blue phosphorescent emitters, and a way to reduce the cost or increase the competitive nature of phosphorescent emitters, and with panel producers working toward reducing OLED costs while improving products, these topics are of great importance to OLED panel producers. Blue phosphorescent materials are difficult to produce as the energy associated with such molecules is high enough to make the molecules unstable. There are some light blue phosphorescent emitters being tested, but a dark blue phosphorescent emitter material with a lifetime similar to other OLED materials has yet to be commercialized. While UDC has purchased significant ‘blue related’ IP and other material suppliers have focused research on the same concept, that gap has yet to be filled.
Currently, as noted above, blue fluorescent emitter material is currently being used in RGB OLED devices as a substitute for blue phosphorescent material, but fluorescent materials do not give off the same amount of light as phosphorescents, and therefore force panel producers to make concessions to the lower output fluorescent blue that reduce the overall display potential of the device. Two private companies, and a wide variety of OLED material suppliers however, are working toward a solution that does not entail the development of a phosphorescent blue emitter. This developmental technology, known as Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence (TADF) is a process by which a blue fluorescent material can be made to produce the same amount of light as a phosphorescent equivalent would produce. Again, the main issue, even for TADF blue emitters, is lifetime, and as of yet, no commercial blue TADF material is able to meet current lifetime demands from OLED panel producers, but material improvements are being made and lifetimes are extending. That said, we would not expect to see a commercial blue TADF product that could meet specs and be in volume production before 2019, but it does represent at least a challenge to those developing a phosphorescent deep blue emitter.
Germany-based Cynora (pvt) is the private company most directly involved in the development of blue TADF emitter materials, and is currently venture funded, although we would expect the current round of financing to include some ‘strategic’ investors. Cynora is focused on developing a blue TADF emitter and while attention is given to other potential TADF emitters, Cynora is working toward filling the ‘blue’ gap mentioned above. Kuylux (pvt) is a Japan-based company[1], with substantial industry investors[2], that is also working toward developing TADF emitter materials, but with more of a focus on being a potential alternative supplier of red and green emitter materials. As these red and green TADF emitters are not based on heavy metal phosphorescent technology, they would not fall under the UDC license umbrella, and would offer an alternative material to OLED producers if they can meet current specs. Both companies have specific material technology platforms that define them, but both are working toward the same goal of producing commercial TADFs for OLED panel producers, as are other OLED material suppliers, but we note that most large specialty chemical companies are interested in high volume materials and current profitability, which gives them less flexibility to allocate resources to such a specific goal. Of course, should either company develop a successful TADF material, there will be no lack of large material suppliers who will look to license the IP.
We will go into more detail on the development of TADF materials in notes over the next few weeks.
[1] Spinoff from Kyushu University – US operations in Boston
[2] Japan Display, JOLED, LG Display, Samsung Display,
OLED Material Market - Source: UBI, DSCC
RSS Feed