As we noted last week LG Display (LPL) announced that they have reached the commercialization stage  of their blue OLED panels.  While these panels are not quite the final step in the blue saga, as they use a combination of blue fluorescent and blue phosphorescent material to achieve results, they are certainly a step toward the ultimate goal of a three color (RGB) phosphorescent stack (see our 5/1/25 note for more detail).  The development of this panel was conducted with Universal Display (OLED), who has been on the blue phosphorescent material development path for years and is the key supplier of red and green organometallic phosphorescent emitters to the entire OLED industry.

Why is blue so hard?
​

Commercialization of a blue phosphorescent emitter and host combination that does not rely on blue fluorescent support has proved to be a daunting task due to the high energy associated with blue photons (packets of electromagnetic energy).  These excited particles can break chemical bonds in their own molecules, degrading them, or can create new non-radiative molecules that reduce the efficiency of the blue emitter.  Additionally, the host material that the blue emitter sits in has to have a higher energy level than the blue emitter itself to keep energy from leaking back to the host as heat or non-radiative energy.  So finding a blue phosphorescent emitter that meets all specifications is only part of the process, as the host material  development can also be challenging.
So, we know the development of a blue phosphorescent emitter has been difficult to say the least, as some potential blue emitter materials have high efficiency and a deep blue color point but only last for a few minutes, while others have a longer lifetime, and proper color, but are too inefficient to be used commercially, and some have excellent efficiency and a long lifetime but can’t quite produce the deep blue that is needed.  While Universal Display has completed ‘commercial verification’ with LG Display, UDC continued to record blue emitter/host revenue in 1Q as ‘developmental’, which is required until the product using the material is commercially available.  As the timeline for LGD’s panel production is still unknown, the key to understanding whether the LGD panels are being used in a commercial device will be when UDC begins recording the blue material as ‘commercial’.
What about Samsung?
Obviously, there are other OLED panel manufacturers working to bring a full phosphorescent blue emitter to market, particularly Samsung Display (pvt), who is also working with UDC along with their own development team.  As the leader in small panel OLED displays, they have a very big stake in this process but tend to be a bit more ‘purist’ when it comes to OLED processes.  SDC did not believe that LG Display’s TV panel, which uses a single color OLED and a color filter to create red, green, and blue, was the right way to produce large panel (TV) OLED in 2013 and concentrated on smaller RGB OLED displays, eventually settling on a blue OLED with quantum dot s to create colors for their QD/OLED TVs.
As the LG Display panel uses both fluorescent and phosphorescent blue emitters, we suspect that the current blue phosphorescent host/emitter that LGD is using as part of its stack might not meet Samsung Display’s requirements yet.  Samsung would likely be most interested in using blue phosphorescent material in mobile devices (smartphones and tablets) where the higher efficiency of a phosphorescent blue emitter will be key to either a power consumption reduction or an improvement in brightness, but as mobile devices have individual sub-pixels for each color, we expect their requirements might be a bit more stringent.  That said, we do expect SDC will find a way to incorporate a blue phosphorescent system in some product this year.  It could be a similar fluorescent/phosphorescent blue emitter base for their QD/OLED TV/Monitor panels, or it could be a higher specification deep blue phosphorescent emitter for an RGB architecture for mobile devices, but we find it difficult to imagine that SDC will cede the first ‘blue year’ to LGD.
All of that said, changing from a blue fluorescent emitter to a phosphorescent emitter is much more complicated than just switching materials.  In a large panel (TV), the OLED materials are deposited across the entire panel and the driving circuitry is the same for every sub-pixel point, as each sub-pixel is the same (white) color until it reaches the color filter or quantum dot.  In current RGB (small panel) displays, the driver for the red and green sub-pixel can be the same but as the driving characteristics for the fluorescent sub-pixel (blue) as different, the circuitry for the blue driver is different, adding to complexity.  In an all phosphorescent RGB display, all three sub-pixel circuits can be the same (in theory), which means not only does the material stack change, but the driver circuitry also changes, adding another level of complexity to designing an all phosphorescent display.
Timeline?
Not only do all of these issues need to be worked out, but they also need to be tested both at the pilot level and in a mass production setting, and this can take time.  The issue then becomes where do they start?  Does the OLED producer have enough ‘spare’ capacity that they can convert a line to producing all phosphorescent RGB OLED displays, or are they capacity constrained enough that they cannot afford to dedicate a line to all phosphorescent OLED production?  As was the case when green phosphorescent emitter material became commercially available, adoption took time.  With the first commercial product using a phosphorescent green emitter was released in 2013, UDC’s green emitter sales increased but then stayed relatively flat for ~15 quarters, being adopted by one of two major customers. In 2017, sales increased as a second large customer adopted the material and continued to grow quickly through 2021.  While still growing to a lesser degree, as the industry has universally adopted green phosphorescent emitter  material, growth is more tied to capacity expansion and new product applications, although the adoption of multi-layer OLED displays could lead to incremental material sales.
Adoption?
So the question now becomes will the adoption take 15 months, as it did with green or will it be faster or slower?  These are essential questions for UDC’s longer-term prospects, as while OLED capacity growth continues, the addition of a third primary material revenue stream is a godsend for any material producer.  We expect the adoption of blue will be faster, but with some caveats.
Why faster?
Numbers – in 2013 there were two OLED producers, Samsung Display and LG Display.  Tianma (000050.CH) built their first OLED fab that year but did not ship commercial product and BOE (200725.CH), China’s largest OLED producer, did not build their first OLED fab until 2016, so the adoption of green phosphorescent emitter material was dependent on only two producing entities.  Now there are over a dozen producers, all of whom are looking to differentiate their OLED displays from others and blue is a perfect differentiator.
Experience –Samsung Display and LG Display had been involved with OLED display development for over 10 years when green phosphorescent emitter material was released commercially by UDC, yet much OLED production was still problematic, and yield was always an issue.  At that time making major changes to formulas, architecture, processes, and equipment meant a long learning curve before returning to decent production yields and carrying substantial losses that could erode potential funding and adoption.  The current experience level across the industry is considerably higher than 10 years ago and producers are more likely to see a change that could give them an edge over the competition as one they are willing to take after years of managing commercial production.
Quality – A true blue phosphorescent emitter will give display designers a greater ability to balance their systems.  As a more efficient material they can maintain brightness with less power and less power means longer battery life for mobile users and a longer lifetime for the material, putting a damper on the ever-present burn-in question.  They can maintain the current power level and produce a brighter display to compete with other display modalities that are encroaching on the OLED space, or they can use blue as a differentiator that will separate their display from those without blue phosphorescent emitters.
Advertising – The idea of the display industry is to sell displays, and in order to sell displays there have to be lots of products that use them.  As the display industry can find itself in a somewhat stagnant position, with few new enticements for consumers, any new technology affords the industry a shot at incremental unit sales. We expect the industry will be enamored with the promotion of blue when it starts and will start a new line of promotion for OLED devices to counteract Mini-LED, Quantum Dots, and eventually Micro-LED displays.  However unless there is a truly discernable difference between all phosphorescent displays and what we have now, price will remain the most important factor to consumers as the blue enthusiasm wears down.  UDC however will have a new revenue stream , one that can eventually be bigger than red or green.
Why bigger?
In order to produce white light in large OLED displays, one can combine a blue emitter and a yellow/green emitter and then send the light to a color filter to create red, green, and blue sub-pixels, essentially the way LG Display’s WOLED TV panels work.  Samsung Display’s QD/OLED panel is similar but based on a blue[1] OLED material that gets converted to red and green by quantum dots. Smaller devices use individual red, green and blue sub-pixels, directly creating all colors.  WOLED displays uses UDC’s yellow/green phosphorescent emitter with a blue fluorescent emitter.  If a phosphorescent blue emitter became available, UDC would have the potential to be able to put both materials in every WOLED TV.  In Samsung’s QD/OLED the blue material used is fluorescent, with UDC providing no substantial OLED emitter material.  If a phosphorescent blue emitter became available, UDC would have that potential new stream.  In RGB display (phones, tablets) the impact would not be as significant as UDC would only be adding a third phosphorescent emitter to the two they already supply, but the volumes are extremely high, so all in, UDC benefits unless someone comes up with a better phosphorescent blue.  That said, even in that scenario UDC still has device patents that cover the use of phosphorescent emitters in OLED devices, so they might lose the OLED material sale to someone else but should still be able to capture a device royalty stream as before.
Why Not?
Cost – Fluorescent emitter materials tend to be less expensive than phosphorescent ones.  In premium OLED displays, the additional cost can be absorbed, but as one migrates to lower price tiers, the cost will be more difficult to absorb, and adoption will be slower.  We expect however that many brands will bite the bullet and eat the additional material cost in order to compete, at least for some products.  The cost of converting formulas, structure, and process also must be considered, and some who have been producing OLED displays for years at a loss might hesitate, unless they can convince funding sources to foot the bill.
Complexity – While there are certainly issues that will make adding phosphorescent blue to OLED production more complex, at least at the onset, OLED producers are so used to phosphorescent materials that they will likely adapt to required changes more quickly
 So?
We note also that UDC has contracts with all major OLED producers.  Some are based on a flat fee license, and some are based on a per unit royalty, and some cover only current phosphorescent (red & green) emitters.  In some cases UDC will have to strike new deals for blue that follow current contract formats.  While developmental OLED materials are expensive their volumes are low, but when they become commercial, they tend to be priced according to volume, so large, early adopters could have an advantage over small lower volume producers, unless their current contracts cover ‘all phosphorescent materials’.  UDC will have to balance their production cost and volume tiers against their desire to encourage blue adoption, ideally setting smaller price/volume increments in the early years against the opposite in later years. 
All in, blue is good, especially for those who produce it, but regardless of the headlines that are calling for a new ‘blue’ era in the display world, we expect most investors will expect too much too soon.  Panel producers need to make money and if they are producing at profitable utilization levels, they are going to want to keep doing so as long as possible, putting aside any changes that might reduce volume or profitability.  Most will talk the ‘blue’ talk but the implementation might be a bit less than the rhetoric.  We believe the adoption of blue phosphorescent emitter material will certainly be a positive for the industry and for the consumer, but technology hype is just that whether it is AI hype, metaverse hype, or 5G hype.  How consumers see ‘blue’ will be the deciding factor as it always is.


[1] Actually a combination of fluorescent blue and phosphorescent green.

Warning…Thinking Caps on…
​

​In an OLED device, a voltage is applied to the cathode, creating electrons and the opposite electrode produces holes.  Think of them as the cute girl sitting at one end of the bar and the svelte guy sitting at the other end.  When they see each other, they are immediately attracted to each other (opposites attract) and both get up and push their way through the crowd (OLED stack).  They meet on the dance floor (emitting material) where the magic happens.  They hold each other in a warm embrace (forming an exciton, a combination of an electron and an electron hole that is in an excited state) and dance in the spotlight (produce light) until the music stops.  They gaze into each other’s eyes and quietly head back to their seats on either side of the bar.  OLED devices play out this scenario over and over as long as there is a voltage at the electrodes.

Simple enough, right?  Now let’s move this conceptual production to an industrial setting.  There are two companies in Pixeltown, both producing the same thing, excitons.  Fluorescent Inc. produces four excitons on each production run, One singlet exciton (red) and three triplet excitons (blue), but their process is old, and they are only able to sell the singlet excitons to customers, throwing away all of the triplets, leading to a 25% efficiency rating and a serious trash problem that the Pixeltown mayor is not happy about. Phosphorescent Inc. uses the same basic equipment and produces the same initial output of one singlet exciton and three triplet excitons.  However, the folks at Phosphorescent Inc hired some smart guys who came up with a way to get their triplet excitons to act like singlet excitons, which allows them to sell all three triplets and one singlet for each run, for a nearly 100% efficiency rating. 
Sooner or later the folks at Fluorescent Inc (Factory a) figured out that they are going to go out of business, having such a low efficiency rating, and the economic impact to Pixeltown would be catastrophic.   Management hired a hot-shot banker and put out  some feelers but there were no takers until the banker’s lowly assistant figured out that if you were to combine both fluorescent and phosphorescent materials together when making excitons, the result would be even better than the two individually. 
Here’s why.  If the materials are carefully matched, the ability of Phosphorescent Inc’s process to use both triplet and singlet excitons to produce light, allows some of the triplet excitons that Fluorescent Inc produces but throws away (heat rather than light), to become useful.  This means that the combined fluorescent and phosphorescent emitters could have an efficiency that is higher than 25% for the fluorescent excitons and remain at 100% for phosphorescent excitons, essentially improving the efficiency of the combination by about 15%.  Not all of the fluorescent triplet excitons can be converted and used by the phosphorescent emitter, but enough to make a difference.

Why is this important?
LG Display (LPL) made an announcement today that will undoubtedly shake up things in the OLED space, but the devil is in the details and it is essential to understand how OLEDs work in order to quantify the announcement.  In fact the structure that LG Display is speaking about is similar to the tandem system that the company uses for production of small OLED displays for ‘a large customer’.  Typically, in order to improve brightness, the dual stack approach is used, essentially squeezing two OLED stacks between electrodes instead of one.  This helps, but is an expensive solution as OLED materials, particularly phosphorescent emitters, are costly, especially if you are duplicating the entire (RGB) stack, and increases the number of steps involved in the deposition process, which has a tendancy to reduce yield.
We believe the LG Display approach is both similar in that it uses a multi-stack approach, but it is also a bit different.  We expect that the phosphorescent blue host and dopant combination that LGD is using  would not stand on its own commercially quite yet, as it could possibly fall short on a particular commercial specification, any of three major categories, lifetime, efficiency, or color point.  Developers must balance these three factors when trying to create a stable phosphorescent emitter and that has been a difficult task for all.  Materials that have the necessary color point (deep blue) might have a lifetime that is too short to use commercially or be lacking in efficiency (high power usage).  Other materials that have a more extended lifetime might not have the necessary color point.  You get the idea.  So while the concept of using a combination of blue phosphorescent and blue fluorescent emitters has promise, it is an interim solution until a truly stable blue emitter and host combination can be found. 
LG Display was careful to call this iteration ‘a step closer’ and not a final solution, but it will certainly get LG Display some acclaim and cachet from the announcement.  The response from Samsung Display (pvt) will be interesting to see as they have been working on the same blue phosphorescent emitter with Universal Display (OLED) for years and at one time, years agho, evaluated a combination blue Phosphorescent/Fluorescent combination.  We also expect a response from both the TADF community and those developing quantum dot EL displays. 
Here's the LG Display Press release: (our highlights in red)
LG Display, the world’s leading innovator of display technologies, announced today that it has become the world’s first company to successfully verify the commercialization-level performance of blue phosphorescent OLED panels on a mass production line. The achievement comes about eight months after the company partnered with UDC to develop blue phosphorescence and is considered a significant step closer to realizing a “dream OLED” display.
In the display industry, “dream OLED” refers to an OLED panel that achieves phosphorescence for all three primary colors of light (red, green, and blue). OLED panel light emission methods are broadly categorized into fluorescence and phosphorescence. Fluorescence is a simpler process in which materials emit light immediately upon receiving electrical energy, but its luminous efficiency is only 25%. In contrast, phosphorescence briefly stores received electrical energy before emitting light. Although it is technically more complex, this method offers luminous efficiency of 100% and uses a quarter as much power as fluorescence.
However, achieving blue phosphorescence has remained a major challenge even more than 20 years after the commercialization of red and green phosphorescence. This is due to blue, among the three primary colors, having the shortest wavelength and demanding the greatest energy.
LG Display has solved this issue by using a hybrid two-stack Tandem OLED structure, with blue fluorescence in the lower stack and blue phosphorescence in the upper stack. By combining the stability of fluorescence with the lower power consumption of phosphorescence, it consumes about 15% less power while maintaining a similar level of stability to existing OLED panels.
In particular, LG Display is the first to succeed in reaching the commercialization stage of blue phosphorescent OLED panels, where performance evaluation, optical characteristics, and processability on actual mass production lines should all be confirmed. The company has already completed commercialization verification with UDC.
LG Display has independently filed patents for its hybrid blue phosphorescent OLED technology in both South Korea and the United States.
The company will showcase a blue phosphorescent OLED panel featuring two-stack Tandem technology at SID Display Week 2025, the world’s largest display event, in San Jose, California from May 11th (local time).
At the show, LG Display will be unveiling a blue phosphorescent OLED panel featuring two-stack Tandem technology applied to a small and medium-sized panel that can be applied to IT devices such as smartphones and tablets. As more and more products require high definition and high efficiency such as AI PCs and AR/VR devices, the application of blue phosphorescence technology is expected to expand rapidly.
“The successful commercialization of blue phosphorescence technology, which has been called the final piece of the ‘dream OLED’ puzzle, will become an innovative milestone towards the next generation of OLED,” said Soo-young Yoon, CTO and Executive Vice President of LG Display. “We expect to secure a leading position in the future display market through blue phosphorescence technology.”
Based on LG Display’s IP here’s what we think the configurations might be… 

​LG Display (LPL) reported 1Q sales of 6.06 trillion won (~$4.24b US), down 22.6% q/q but up 15% y/y.  Operating profit was 33.5 billion won ($23.4m US), making it the 2nd profitable (operating) quarter in a row and the first time in 8 years that the company produced a profit in the 1st quarter, typically a weak quarter for panel sales.  The operating profit far exceeded expectations (loss of 30.7b won) with the outperformamce based on pre-tariff pull-in orders for both TVs and mobile displays.  As LG Display is ending large panel LCD TV panel production, the pull-ins (WOLED TV panels) caused the company’s percentage of OLED revenue to increase from 47% to 55% in 1Q.  Shipment area increased 1% y/y, but as the company closed the sale of its Guangzhou, China LCD panel fab at the end of the quarter, expectations are for a ~20% drop in shipment area in 2Q.  The offset to the shipment area decrease is a roughly 20% increase in selling price/area, as the less profitable LCD fab panel pricing will fall away in 2Q.
While the press focused on the company’s return to profitability in what is usually a weak quarter, we do note that company did report a net loss, although down considerably from the previous quarter.  The sale of the company’s Guangzhou large panel LCD fab to Chinastar (pvt) will improve profitability as (2023) the Guangzhou fab carried a 4.5% net margin.  The proceeds ($1.416b US) will, in part, be used to lower the company’s debt, although the payment schedule has not be revealed (The comment was “…a substantial amount will be received in 1H…”
The Q&A was, as expected, focused on tariff questions, which have little to do with LG Display as they do not ship displays directly to the US, but the company did state that they have not seen any major change in plans from customers and have not seen any increases in component price or any difficulty with availability.  That said, they did point to two display growth drivers that were part of expectations for the 2025 year, the end of Windows™ 10 and an overall replacement cycle for IT products, both of which they indicated have been super ceded by tariff questions.  There was little specific detail about plans for products other than the generic ‘watch carefully and continue to focus on profitability’, although in this environment, we did not expect much detail.
All in it was a relatively benign call with better than expected operating profit, but laden with caveats about the potential for volatility as the US trade situation develops.  Other than very general comments, there was little said about how much of the Guangzhou proceeds will be used to reduce debt, although management did reiterate that their earlier 2025 spending plans (low to mid 2 trillion won) plans were still valid (2.2 t won last year).  We give credit to management for sticking to a strict cost reduction program and getting close to actual net profitability, although we would have liked to hear more about their actual plans for each product segment, rather than the vanilla commentary on the call.

Samsung Display’s (pvt) QD/OLED display technology has faced some significant challenges.  Developed to bring Samsung Display into the large panel OLED business, which has been dominated by LG Display’s (LPL) WOLED panels, there seemed to be some skepticism from SDC’s parent Samsung Electronics (005930.KS).  We expect some of that skepticism came from low initial yields for QD/OLED, with Samsung needing a reliable source of high volume production before committing to the technology, but SDC persevered and refined production processes to more normalized yields.  Samsung Electronics adopted the technology in 2022 with 55” and 65” TV models, their first large panel OLED offerings since abandoning large panel OLED technology in 2013 and has maintained QD/OLED’s presence with additional sizes since then.  However with relatively limited production capabilities (~750,000 TV sets/year assuming 75% yield), Samsung seems to still be wary of relying solely on QD/OLED technology for its large panel OLED line and has purchased WOLED panels from LG Display to augment its large panel OLED offerings.
Quality does not seem an issue, in fact QD/OLED has been lauded for its color purity, color volume and higher peak brightness than WOLED displays, but despite these positive points parent Samsung still does not seem to have jumped into the QD/OLED pool deep-end and is offering both QD/OLED and WOLED (from LGD) to TV consumers, in some cases without disclosing which technology they are getting.  That said,  it seems that QD/OLED has found a home, and one that Samsung Electronics  seems to be in sync with; monitors, high-end monitors in particular.  Gamers, who look for high quality reproduction and rapid response time have been impressed with Samsung Display’s QD/OLED monitor product and a number of monitor brands have taken to QD/OLED for their flagship gaming monitors.
A quick look at Amazon (AMZN) or Best Buy (BBY) shows just under a dozen brands with at least one QD/OLED monitor offering, with sizes ranging from 27” to 49” and prices ranging from $589 to $1,285.  Considering that you can buy a 27” LCD monitor for under $100 and a 27” OLED monitor for under $500, QD/OLED monitors are certainly considered high-end, with most labeled ‘gaming monitors’ specifically.  Companies like MSI (2377.TT) and ASUS (2357.TT) offer quite a few QD/OLED models, along with more standard OLED and LCD models, while Samsung, maintains the lead, recently releasing the first 27” QD/OLED gaming monitor with a 500 Hz refresh rate (that unusually high refresh rate is particularly attractive to gamers who thrive on being able to see rapid screen movements without lag).  With this new high refresh rate QD/OLED monitor and other recent 27” QD/OLED entries, QD/OLED is expected to increase its share of the 27” OLED monitor market from 32% last year to 47% this year.
While OLED monitors overall are still a small part of the general monitor market, roughly between 1.4 and 1.5m units out of between 150m and 155m, over the last few years, QD/OLED has become the standard bearer for high-end gaming monitors, and their share of the OLED monitor market is expected to increase from 68% last year to 73% this year.  With  only one 30,000 sheet/month QD/OLED fab, SDC can either produce ~700,000 QD/OLED TVs or ~3m+ monitor panels.  With large panel OLED (TV) growth relatively slow and OLED monitor growth increasing, the likely higher per unit profitability on monitors than on TVs, it would seem that QD/OLED has found a new home.  With considerable room for QD/OLED technology improvement that can widen the gap between WOLED and QD/OLED, it seems a more comfortable home than the technology battles that rage between LCD, Mini-LED, QD, and WOLED in the TV space

​Samsung Display (pvt) has committed to OLED in a big way, ending its many years of large panel LCD production.  The company’s OLED focus has made it the leader in RGB panel production for smartphones, but as OLED became dominant in the small panel market SDC realized that it could not maintain it singular dominance in that space as competition from China increased.  To that end, SDC is building RGB Gen 8.6 capacity specifically designed for the production of larger OLED panels for IT products, such as tablets, monitors, and notebooks.  There are a number of manufacturing challenges that make this expansion more than just adding capacity as the deposition equipment has to be specially designed and processes have to be modified to make such a change, but as is typical of SDC, they are willing to take the risk to become the leader.
China’s leading panel producer BOE (200725.CH) understands that while it continues to produce large panel LCD displays, it must compete directly with SDC in this emerging space and has begun construction of its own Gen 8.6 OLED for IT fab and Visionox (002387.CH), a smaller Chinese OLD producer has begun the planning for OLED for IT capacity.  This leaves one major panel producer, LG Display (LPL), with no announced plans for such expansion, despite its close relationship with Apple (AAPL), who is expected to drive OLED IT demand as it transitions its product line to OLED over the next few years.
LG Display already produces OLED for IT panels on a Gen 6 line and was the first producer to develop the tandem display structure that Apple uses for the iPad, but it does this production on a Gen 6 line, which makes it less efficient than a Gen 8.6 line would be.  This has caused considerable speculation about why LG Display has not committed to building a dedicated Gen 8.6 OLED for IT line to compete with rivals SDC and BOE.  Much of the speculation was based on LG Display’s financial situation, which has been strained over the last few quarters, but with the sale of the company’s LCD fab in China, the pressure has lessened, and the assumption has been that LGD would commit to the new fab early this year.
It seems that this will not be the case if a story out of South Korea is correct, as it indicates that LG Display is actually preparing to do just the opposite.  Instead of adding Gen 8.6 OLED capacity, or adding additional Gen 6 OLED for IT capacity, the information suggests that LGD is actually planning to reduce its existing OLED for IT capacity and convert it to additional Gen 6 OLED capacity to produce iPhones.  The motivation for the change would seem to be Apple, who has seen relatively weak demand for the OLED iPad, which has led to lower utilization rates for LGD at its OLED for IT fab.  In response the story says that LGD wants to convert some of its Gen 6 OLED for IT capacity to iPhone capacity, as it expects to increase3 its iPhone production for Apple this year by almost 17%. 
Such a change would not be cheap as the new iPhone OLED line is expected to cost ~$1.36b US, after LGD spent almost $2.6b US to build the Gen 6 OLED for IT line.  It would also indicate that LG Display does not believe that the demand for OLED IT products will grow as quickly as some predict (OLED penetration into the IT market is expected to reach 2.8% this year and 5.2% next year), essentially betting on iPhone growth and its own ability to capture additional iPhone production share from SDC.  Given LGD’s relationship with Apple, and the fact that Apple has likely financed a portion of LGD’s Gen 6 OLED for IT fab construction cost with pre-payments, Apple would have to sign off on the plan, a tacit agreement as to the potential for a weaker demand picture for OLED for IT going forward.
All in, this is a major decision for LG Display if the story is true, and one that LG Display has been unable or unwilling to make while others have committed.  If LGD decides to reduce OLED for IT and that market takes off it will fall far behind its rivals.  If it reduces OLED for IT capacity and OLED IT demand is less than predicted it will have bypassed months or years of low utilization at a very expensive fab.  No pressure…

Earlier this week we noted that LG Display (LPL) was shifting its OLED stack configuration from a 3-stack structure to a 4-stack structure.  As shown in the comparison below, LGD has removed the middle emitter stack, which was a combination of red, yellow/green, and green emitters, and added a full green stack and a full red stack.  In theory, this gives more control over stack output, allowing the individual color (RGB) peaks to be higher, leading to higher color volume[1], and narrower peaks for each color.  Typically, narrow peaks reduce the amount of adjacent color that the emitter produces, which allows for more energy to go to the precise color intended, without requiring more power.
We note that while the stack comparison simplifies the structure of the OLED displays to make them easier to understand, the complexity of these displays is considerable and the precise nature of the control necessary to produce each layer is quite daunting, as the layers are typically between 10nm and 80nm thick, depending on the type of layer and the material chosen.  We also note that stack engineers and scientists have a large number of materials to choose from for each layer, making the number of possible combinations astronomical.  As an example, below is a list of some of the materials that can be used for just the Hole Injection layer (you can’t get these at the local pharmacy), so it can be seen that with eight structural layer types and 17 layers, even this generic 3-stack model is incredibly complex.  Even limiting the number of choices to 5 materials for each structure, the number of possible combinations are over 390,000 and there are typically many more than 5 choices of materials for each structure.  While the layer-by-layer details for a 4-stack panel have not been disclosed by LG Display, we expect at least 5 more layers will be needed, adding to process time and cost.
MTDATA - 4,4',4''-Tris(N-carbazolyl)-triphenylamine
CuPc - Copper (II) phthalocyanine
TCTA - 4,4',4''-Tris(carbazol-9-yl) triphenylamine
HATCN - 2-(4-Biphenylyl)-5-(4-tert-butylphenyl)-1,3,4-oxadiazole
TDAPB - 4,4'-bis[N-(1-naphthyl)-N-phenylamino] biphenyl
PEDOT: PSS - Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(styrene sulfonate)
   
Panasonic (6752.JP) is the first TV brand to be using these new panels, and while they have not explicitly stated that the panels are from LG Display, it would be hard to imagine otherwise, but the company has not indicated when the three sizes (55”, 65”, 77”) will be released, other than some time in 2025, nor have they given price information, but we trust they are coming this year.  LG (066730.KS) has stated that their 2025 G5 OLED TV line will contain “Brightness Booster Ultimate” technology, and while they have not explicitly stated that those sets would be using the 4-stack OLED panels, we make the same assumption.  That said, LG’s G3 line contains 48”, 55”, 65”, 77”, 83”, and 97” models, so it is possible that some might not use the 4-stack panels this year.
Again, while this might seem a small matter to those outside of the display space, it will push forward the quality of OLED displays and intensify the competition between OLED and LCD (Mini-LED in particular).  Large panel OLED displays have been criticized for not being as bright as LCDs, so any increase in brightness increases the value of large panel OLED displays, making them a better choice for brands going forward.  Hopefully, the actuality of the 4-stack approach meets the promotion it will get in the TV space, especially with consumers later this year, making the added manufacturing cost worthwhile.
 


[1] Color volume is a measure of the display’s ability to reproduce a wide range of colors at various brightness levels, essentially a combination of hue (color), saturation (how much white is mixed in) and brightness (luminence), which is the intensity of the color.

The rivalry between South Korean panel producers (Samsung Display (pvt) and LG Display (LPL)) and Chinese panel producers has been ongoing for a number of years as Chinese producers have pushed South Korean producers out of the large panel LCD business.  As it became obvious that Chinese producers had the advantage of significant government construction and operating subsidies, South Korean producers began shifting from LCD display production to OLED production, a relatively new technology at the time.  While Chinese large panel producers eventually won the battle for LCD display domination, South Korean producers went on to establish OLED as a higher quality technology, particularly for small panel displays.  Not to be outdone, Chinese panel producers have been building OLED capacity to challenge South Korean dominance in the OLED space, and while there are a multitude of CE brands that use OLED displays, the top of that list is Apple (AAPL).
Apple’s transition from LCD to OLED starting with the iPhone X, released om November 3, 2017, is expected to continue for the next few years as they migrate much of their product line to OLED.  Samsung Display and LG Display have been the primary small panel OLED suppliers to Apple but are continuingly being challenged by China’s largest panel producer BOE (200725.CH), who has made some inroad with Apple, supplying replacement displays for earlier iPhones and as a 3rd supplier for some later models.  While BOE has had its own issues with Apple, they continue to challenge SDC and LGD, along with a number of smaller Chinese OLED producers, and SDC has gone to the US ITC alleging patent infringement, with BOE, and other Chinese OLED producers (Chinastar (pvt), Tianma (000050.CH), and Visionox (002387.CH)) responding by challenging the validity of those patents in US Patent Court.
As the ITC investigation continues (target date 3/17/25) the patent challenges also continue, and the US Patent Review Board has ruled on one of the 4 patents that Samsung claims were infringed upon.  The ‘683’ patent, filed by Samsung Display on 11/13/17 in the US and 3/6/12 in Korea makes 15 claims concerning OLED pixel structure, particularly Samsung’s ‘diamond’ pixel structure shown on the left side of  Figure 1.  The PTAB has decided that 10 of the 15 claims made in the original patent are not valid, while leaving 5 intact.  Samsung will have the opportunity to appeal that decision. 
Limiting the broad scope of a patent is not an unusual outcome in patent review cases, but narrowing the patent will also narrow the ITC’s investigation scope, making SDC’s case a bit harder, and could open one of the other patents included in the investigation to further scrutiny as it is essentially a continuation of the ‘683’ patent mentioned above.
All in, the validity of the ‘shape’ characteristics of the pixels (polygon, Octagon, or non-quadrilateral) as specified in the ‘683’ patent, remain in effect, which is a key point in terms of the infringement, but spacing between pixels, size, and arrangement, the other ‘683’ claims, are invalidated, reducing the points that SDC can cite in the ITC investigation.  We expect SDC will appeal the PTAB decision, but this ruling and any potential appeal will likely push out the final ITC decision and the battle for OLED supremacy will continue in both the consumer space and the courts for another year.  That’s how lawyers put their kids through college.

[Note: The US Patent Office considers a patent unpatentable when the difference between claimed subject matter and prior art would have been obvious at the time of invention by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which subject matter pertains, where ‘ordinary skill’ means a degree in electrical engineering, material science, physics, or similar disciplines, along with 2 years of professional experience working with display design, including OLED displays or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, or experience.]

​TV brands are notorius for aggressive marketing, and that sometimes leads to marketing that is on the edge of being deceptive.  Last year Samsung added a number of models to its OLED line that used a technology that was significantly different from Samsung’s own QD-OLED display technology.  These sets were, and still are, based on WOLED technology, and purchased from LG Display (LPL), who has been using that technology for years, while those based on Samsung’s QD/OLED technology function completely differently.  Samsung has said little about the fact that the company markets both technologies as OLED line, but does not specify which technologies are used in each of the company’s three OLED lines and various OLED TV sizes.  In fact, certain models and sizes can have different technologies based on the location where purchased, without the customer knowing which technology they are purchasing., and while Samsung says it guarentees the quality of all of its OLED TVs, if one is looking to purchase a QD/OLED Samsung TV, they could wind up with something else.
Of course, Samsung is certainly not the only one who plays these marketing games and with the announcements of new 2025 TV lines at CES, it seems that LG (066570.KS) has declided that product names do not necessarily mean what they seem.  LG has been marketing its high-end LCD TVs as ‘QNED TVs’ for a number of years, which implies that they are quantum dot enhanced (the Q in QNED), yet it seems that this years QNED TV lines are not quantum dot enhanced but rather use software to enhance color reproduction and contain no quantum dots.  Consumers, who assume that QNED still means quantum dot enhanced, will find no quantum dot films, bars, polarizers, or color converters in their new LG LCD TVs, despite the fact that they continue to be sold under the QNED name.
It seems that in November of last year Hansol (014680.KS), a Korean specialty chemical producer and supplier of quantum dots for displays to both South Korean display producers, filed a complaint with the South Korean FTC alleging that a number of TCL’s (000100.CH) LCD TV sets, which are labeled as ‘QD’ models, do not contain the elements necessary for quantum dots.  While TCL denies the claim, they are being investigated under false advertising statutes. 
All in, every time a TV brand tries to slip something past consumers, it erodes both individual brand trust and trust in the CE space overall, giving consumers another reason to hesitate when making purchases.  With a number of TV technologies available to consumers currently, decision-making has become far more difficult than just a few years ago, and brands that keep things simple for consumers will likely maintain a steady user base that will return in each cycle.  When we spend time in retail stores listening to consumers speak with salespersons about TV buying choices, it becomes evident that most are buying based on price, and are taking the word of the salesperson or something they read on the internet in terms of the technology, so even the hint that they might have made a bad decision once the set is home can cause the consumer to abandon that brand forever.  It is hard to imagine that a salesperson could not make a case for or against quantum dots, WOLED, QD-OLED, or Mini-LED when trying to close a sale, so it would seem that there is little point in trying to hide the facts from consumers, but that’s our opinion, not that of brand executives or marketing teams…

​TV brands are notorius for aggressive marketing, and that sometimes leads to marketing that is on the edge of being deceptive.  Last year Samsung added a number of models to its OLED line that used a technology that was significantly different from Samsung’s own QD-OLED display technology.  These sets were, and still are, based on WOLED technology, and purchased from LG Display (LPL), who has been using that technology for years, while those based on Samsung’s QD/OLED technology function completely differently.  Samsung has said little about the fact that the company markets both technologies as OLED line, but does not specify which technologies are used in each of the company’s three OLED lines and various OLED TV sizes.  In fact, certain models and sizes can have different technologies based on the location where purchased, without the customer knowing which technology they are purchasing., and while Samsung says it guarentees the quality of all of its OLED TVs, if one is looking to purchase a QD/OLED Samsung TV, they could wind up with something else.
Of course, Samsung is certainly not the only one who plays these marketing games and with the announcements of new 2025 TV lines at CES, it seems that LG (066570.KS) has declided that product names do not necessarily mean what they seem.  LG has been marketing its high-end LCD TVs as ‘QNED TVs’ for a number of years, which implies that they are quantum dot enhanced (the Q in QNED), yet it seems that this years QNED TV lines are not quantum dot enhanced but rather use software to enhance color reproduction and contain no quantum dots.  Consumers, who assume that QNED still means quantum dot enhanced, will find no quantum dot films, bars, polarizers, or color converters in their new LG LCD TVs, despite the fact that they continue to be sold under the QNED name.
It seems that in November of last year Hansol (014680.KS), a Korean specialty chemical producer and supplier of quantum dots for displays to both South Korean display producers, filed a complaint with the South Korean FTC alleging that a number of TCL’s (000100.CH) LCD TV sets, which are labeled as ‘QD’ models, do not contain the elements necessary for quantum dots.  While TCL denies the claim, they are being investigated under false advertising statutes. 
All in, every time a TV brand tries to slip something past consumers, it erodes both individual brand trust and trust in the CE space overall, giving consumers another reason to hesitate when making purchases.  With a number of TV technologies available to consumers currently, decision-making has become far more difficult than just a few years ago, and brands that keep things simple for consumers will likely maintain a steady user base that will return in each cycle.  When we spend time in retail stores listening to consumers speak with salespersons about TV buying choices, it becomes evident that most are buying based on price, and are taking the word of the salesperson or something they read on the internet in terms of the technology, so even the hint that they might have made a bad decision once the set is home can cause the consumer to abandon that brand forever.  It is hard to imagine that a salesperson could not make a case for or against quantum dots, WOLED, QD-OLED, or Mini-LED when trying to close a sale, so it would seem that there is little point in trying to hide the facts from consumers, but that’s our opinion, not that of brand executives or marketing teams…