Samsung v. BOE – Final (Sort of)
As we have noted, there is no love lost between Samsung Display (pvt) and Chinese display producer BOE (200725.CH). The two have been at odds for years with SDC trying to protect its OLED leadership status against BOE’s aggressive push to become one of Apple’s (AAPL) main display suppliers. While BOE’s relationship with Apple has had its ups and downs, SDC makes no bones about its feelings toward BOE and has taken the company to court a number of times over the years, usually concerning intellectual property issues or more general unfair trade practices. In one of the most recent cases, which was brought before the US International Trade Commission, a Final Initial Determination was made last week that leaves the next step up to the US President. Typically the presidential review is completed within 60 days at which point the president signs the order, leaving BOE 60 days in which to file an appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The Appeals Court can overturn the ITC ruling on either the merits or procedure, although they tend to follow the ITC’s factual findings. They make their review de novo, meaning without deference to the ITC’s interpretation of the law, so there is always some chance for a reversal concerning infringement or IP invalidation. An adverse ruling from the appeals court can also be appealed with a rehearing request or can even be appealed to the US Supreme Court if more than 4 Supreme Court judges choose to hear the case. At least for now, the decision initiates a limited exclusion order and a Cease & Desist during the Presidential review, along with a cash bond, so the devices in question can no longer be imported into the US.
While these cases seem to go on forever, we expect this one is finally getting near a close after more than two years of legal wrangling. While the courts have ruled in SDC’s favor thus far, they have not gone as far as forcing BOE to pay for the potential loss of business that Samsung Display alleges, with the court’s point being that no US company was directly hurt by BOE’s infringement. While certainly a win for SDC, it looks like the best they get out of the time and expense is forcing BOE to stop supplying certain displays to customers that sell in the US, a victory but almost a pyrrhic one.
Here's the ITC’s comment on the ruling: ”(“Respondents”) have violated subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in the importation into the United States, or in the sale of certain organic light-emitting diode display modules and components thereof by reason of misappropriation of trade secrets, the threat of which is to destroy or substantially injure a domestic industry or to prevent establishment of an industry in the United States.
The decision itself recommends: (1) a Limited Exclusion Order (“LEO”) with a standard certification provision after a Commission determination on imported products that are manufactured without the use of the misappropriated trade secrets; (2) a Cease-and-Desist Order (“CDO”) against each Respondent, both domestic and foreign; and (3) a bond of 100% during the Presidential Review Period (“PRP”). In other words, stop selling the infringing displays.
The Appeals Court can overturn the ITC ruling on either the merits or procedure, although they tend to follow the ITC’s factual findings. They make their review de novo, meaning without deference to the ITC’s interpretation of the law, so there is always some chance for a reversal concerning infringement or IP invalidation. An adverse ruling from the appeals court can also be appealed with a rehearing request or can even be appealed to the US Supreme Court if more than 4 Supreme Court judges choose to hear the case. At least for now, the decision initiates a limited exclusion order and a Cease & Desist during the Presidential review, along with a cash bond, so the devices in question can no longer be imported into the US.
While these cases seem to go on forever, we expect this one is finally getting near a close after more than two years of legal wrangling. While the courts have ruled in SDC’s favor thus far, they have not gone as far as forcing BOE to pay for the potential loss of business that Samsung Display alleges, with the court’s point being that no US company was directly hurt by BOE’s infringement. While certainly a win for SDC, it looks like the best they get out of the time and expense is forcing BOE to stop supplying certain displays to customers that sell in the US, a victory but almost a pyrrhic one.
Here's the ITC’s comment on the ruling: ”(“Respondents”) have violated subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in the importation into the United States, or in the sale of certain organic light-emitting diode display modules and components thereof by reason of misappropriation of trade secrets, the threat of which is to destroy or substantially injure a domestic industry or to prevent establishment of an industry in the United States.
The decision itself recommends: (1) a Limited Exclusion Order (“LEO”) with a standard certification provision after a Commission determination on imported products that are manufactured without the use of the misappropriated trade secrets; (2) a Cease-and-Desist Order (“CDO”) against each Respondent, both domestic and foreign; and (3) a bond of 100% during the Presidential Review Period (“PRP”). In other words, stop selling the infringing displays.
RSS Feed