Samsung Invalidates LG Patent
Back in March we noted that LG Display (LPL) had decided to trademark OLED.EX after the company unveiled its new TV line at CES, touting a 30% increase in brightness compared to conventional OLED displays. What made this possible was a change in the chemistry used by LGD, substituting an isotope of Hydrogen (deuterium) that has both a proton and a neutron in its nucleus, as opposed to just a proton, as is the case with ‘regular’ hydrogen. While this change is a yawn for most consumers, the bonds between molecules using deuterium rather than hydrogen, are stronger and the rate of reaction is slower than normal, which means a potentially longer life. In OLED displays, the current ‘push’ given to emitting materials determines their lifetime, with the tradeoff between brightness (more push) and lifetime a major concern for OLED display designers. By substituting deuterium for hydrogen, the materials can be driven harder, increasing brightness, while the lifetime remains the same, hence the 30% increase in brightness that LGD claims, similar to deuterium’s application in pharmaceuticals where it is used to extend drug lifetimes.
Deuterium has been used in the development of TADF (Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence) emitter materials but is currently expensive as it requires a more complex synthesis process, but when compared to the cost of alternatives that would increase OLED display brightness, such as dual OLED stacks, the material cost is more reasonable. However, there are few sources of deuterium, as the process for extracting it from water (1 in every 6700 water molecules is deuterium) requires considerable energy, which limits production, and while the demands of LG Display’s OLED TV business use relatively small amounts of the material, it remains another expensive materials in the OLED stack.
While the promotion of deuterium as a point of differentiation for LG Display’s OLED TVs continues, they are not the only ones interested in the material, and a joint venture between Samsung Display (pvt) and Japanese chemical supplier Hodogaya Chemical (4112.JP) seems to have thought enough about the potential use of deuterium to take LG Display’s patent for its use in display devices to court in South Korea in January of this year, asking the Intellectual Property Trial & Appeal Board to invalidate the IP. It seems that the court agreed with Samsung and Hodogaya and nullified a patent that specified the use of deuterium in an electroluminescent device that was filed by LGD and development partner Material Science (pvt), as sated in the IP Abstract below.
“The present invention has the effect that it has property including the low driving voltage, the luminous efficiency and longevity etc. as the organic compound which more specifically, becomes as the new organic compounds and the organic electroluminescent device including the same with the deuterated (Deuteration) and the organic electroluminescent device including this as the material of at least one organic layer high.”
IP litigation is extremely complex and in the case of organic materials, is burdened by the number o0f potential organic molecules that can be combined to create an emissive device, but when a patent is challenged, the burden of proof is on the litigant to prove that there was prior art, the patent was similar (not novel) to other IP, or a number of other qualifiers that might have been overlooked during the patent’s original application and approval. While we have a limited understanding of the nuance of the Korean judicial system, we believe that an appeal must be filed within two weeks of the invalidation notification, or for procedural issues, a filing must be made with the Supreme Court, but it would be rare that a ruling of this kind would prohibit the broad use of deuterium in display devices, but more likely limit its use to certain circumstances.
While LGD has filed tag-along patents in other countries, including the US and China, as the displays in question are produced in South Korea and China, the ruling will likely be challenged in those jurisdictions by SDC or others and defended by LGD, and will continue this litigation battle for years to come. We expect this will do little to change LG Display’s plans for adopting the deuterium process for its entire line, but will only serve to raise the total cost of materials a bit higher when litigation costs are factored in.
Deuterium has been used in the development of TADF (Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence) emitter materials but is currently expensive as it requires a more complex synthesis process, but when compared to the cost of alternatives that would increase OLED display brightness, such as dual OLED stacks, the material cost is more reasonable. However, there are few sources of deuterium, as the process for extracting it from water (1 in every 6700 water molecules is deuterium) requires considerable energy, which limits production, and while the demands of LG Display’s OLED TV business use relatively small amounts of the material, it remains another expensive materials in the OLED stack.
While the promotion of deuterium as a point of differentiation for LG Display’s OLED TVs continues, they are not the only ones interested in the material, and a joint venture between Samsung Display (pvt) and Japanese chemical supplier Hodogaya Chemical (4112.JP) seems to have thought enough about the potential use of deuterium to take LG Display’s patent for its use in display devices to court in South Korea in January of this year, asking the Intellectual Property Trial & Appeal Board to invalidate the IP. It seems that the court agreed with Samsung and Hodogaya and nullified a patent that specified the use of deuterium in an electroluminescent device that was filed by LGD and development partner Material Science (pvt), as sated in the IP Abstract below.
“The present invention has the effect that it has property including the low driving voltage, the luminous efficiency and longevity etc. as the organic compound which more specifically, becomes as the new organic compounds and the organic electroluminescent device including the same with the deuterated (Deuteration) and the organic electroluminescent device including this as the material of at least one organic layer high.”
IP litigation is extremely complex and in the case of organic materials, is burdened by the number o0f potential organic molecules that can be combined to create an emissive device, but when a patent is challenged, the burden of proof is on the litigant to prove that there was prior art, the patent was similar (not novel) to other IP, or a number of other qualifiers that might have been overlooked during the patent’s original application and approval. While we have a limited understanding of the nuance of the Korean judicial system, we believe that an appeal must be filed within two weeks of the invalidation notification, or for procedural issues, a filing must be made with the Supreme Court, but it would be rare that a ruling of this kind would prohibit the broad use of deuterium in display devices, but more likely limit its use to certain circumstances.
While LGD has filed tag-along patents in other countries, including the US and China, as the displays in question are produced in South Korea and China, the ruling will likely be challenged in those jurisdictions by SDC or others and defended by LGD, and will continue this litigation battle for years to come. We expect this will do little to change LG Display’s plans for adopting the deuterium process for its entire line, but will only serve to raise the total cost of materials a bit higher when litigation costs are factored in.
RSS Feed