Proof of Concept
Ink-jet printing for displays has come and gone a number of times. As far back as the 1990’s programs to adapt the technology to the display space had begun and companies like Kateeva (pvt), Tokyo Electron (8035.JP), and SEMES (pvt) were developing systems using IJP for display. At times there has been great hope for the technology, originally as a way to reduce emitter material costs and later as a tool for the encapsulation of OLED materials, but in only a few instances has IJP proved to be an effective competitor against more standard metal mask vacuum deposition systems. IJP does seem to have found a home at Samsung Display (pvt) where it is used to encapsulated OLED materials and to deposit quantum dot materials on SDC’s QD/OLED displays, but few producers have been successful enough with the technology to use it as a primary sub-pixel deposition system. In fact, the leader in the development of IJP technology for OLED, JOLED (defunct) went bankrupt in 2023 and sold its Gen 5.5 IJP line to Chinastar (pvt).
Chinastar has been using the equipment to produce what is the first (and only?) commercial IJP display product, a 21.6” display for the medical industry. Most recently Chinastar has shown both small (6.5”) and larger (14”) IJP displays and is now expected to begin offering 14” and 16” IJP notebook panels sometime in 1H 2026. Chinastar’s IJP line is rather small but given the relatively small size of the current display, the line has a maximum production level of 240,000 units/month (100% yield), likely far in excess of what Chinastar is able to sell, so capacity is not a current issue. That said, panel producers must look years into the future to decide whether to build out capacity and Chinastar is considering building a Gen 8.5 ink-jet fab to fill future demand.
There would be two key advantages to such a project. First, the Gen 5.5 fab currently being used (21.6” product) is rather inefficient, wasting 23% of the substrate with each production sheet. A Gen 8.5 IJP fab would bring that substrate efficiency up to ~93%, a substantial savings during high volume production. The Gen 5.5 fab can produce a maximum of ~240,000 21.6” displays each month (theoretical), while the Gen 8.5 IJP fab could produce ~800,000, so if Chinastar believes that IJP is enough of a differentiator to attract high volume customers, the Gen 8.6 fab would be needed.
It’s a tough decision given the importance of not only reducing the cost of production, but also exceeding the specs of competitive displays produced on more traditional deposition systems. If IJP is only an advantage for the producer, it’s a much harder sell than if it benefits both the producer and the customer, so there is still a lot for Chinastar to prove before they get enough customer feedback to justify spending a few billion on a new IJP fab.
Chinastar has been using the equipment to produce what is the first (and only?) commercial IJP display product, a 21.6” display for the medical industry. Most recently Chinastar has shown both small (6.5”) and larger (14”) IJP displays and is now expected to begin offering 14” and 16” IJP notebook panels sometime in 1H 2026. Chinastar’s IJP line is rather small but given the relatively small size of the current display, the line has a maximum production level of 240,000 units/month (100% yield), likely far in excess of what Chinastar is able to sell, so capacity is not a current issue. That said, panel producers must look years into the future to decide whether to build out capacity and Chinastar is considering building a Gen 8.5 ink-jet fab to fill future demand.
There would be two key advantages to such a project. First, the Gen 5.5 fab currently being used (21.6” product) is rather inefficient, wasting 23% of the substrate with each production sheet. A Gen 8.5 IJP fab would bring that substrate efficiency up to ~93%, a substantial savings during high volume production. The Gen 5.5 fab can produce a maximum of ~240,000 21.6” displays each month (theoretical), while the Gen 8.5 IJP fab could produce ~800,000, so if Chinastar believes that IJP is enough of a differentiator to attract high volume customers, the Gen 8.6 fab would be needed.
It’s a tough decision given the importance of not only reducing the cost of production, but also exceeding the specs of competitive displays produced on more traditional deposition systems. If IJP is only an advantage for the producer, it’s a much harder sell than if it benefits both the producer and the customer, so there is still a lot for Chinastar to prove before they get enough customer feedback to justify spending a few billion on a new IJP fab.
RSS Feed