It all began when Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (SDC) argued that multiple companies were importing or selling display modules that infringed its patents, allegedly violating Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. These AMOLED displays were being used by third parties to repair broken phones. Although numerous respondents were named initially, many either settled or were found in default, leaving only a few that continued to contest the case, among them BOE, Injured Gadgets, Wholesale Gadget Parts, and Phone LCD Parts.
| Date | Event |
| 2022-12-28 | SDC filed complaint against BOE at ITC |
| 2023-01-27 | ITC launched investigation into BOE’s alleged patent infringement |
| 2023-03-21 | BOE included as a respondent in the investigation |
| 2023-06-26 | SDC filed patent infringement lawsuit against BOE in East Texas Federal Court |
| 2023-10-31 | SDC initiated trade secret investigation against BOE at ITC |
| 2024-01-09 | ITC preliminary decision: “SDC not eligible for parties” |
| 2024-04-24 | ITC reconsidered and reversed its preliminary decision |
| 2024-07-03 | SDC withdrew infringement claim against ‘683 patent |
| 2024-11-15 | ITC preliminary decision: BOE infringed SDC patents, but rejected import ban |
| 2025-03-19 | ITC final decision: Confirmed BOE’s infringement but rejected SDC’s import ban request |
SDC initially asserted several patents, some of which were dropped or otherwise resolved over time, so that only a smaller set of patent claims remained in play. A key feature of Section 337 investigations is that the patent owner must demonstrate the existence of a domestic industry in the US based on the asserted patents. The requirements for meeting a domestic industry have two parts: a technical component, meaning the complainant’s US activities actually practice or use the technology of the patents at issue, and an economic component, meaning the complainant invests substantially or employs significant labor in the United States in ways that rely on those patents.
One of the main procedural disputes was whether SDC fully owned or controlled these patents. Respondents contended that SDC’s parent company, Samsung Electronics, retained broad licensing rights that undermined SDC’s ability to enforce the patents alone. Early in the process, an Administrative Law Judge agreed with that argument, but the Commission later vacated that ruling and instructed the judge to develop the record further. After an evidentiary hearing in July 2024, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that SDC had not shown sufficient US activities to meet the domestic industry test, even if certain patents were valid and potentially infringed.
The Commission, which is the final decision-maker at the ITC, then reviewed the judge’s findings. It affirmed the conclusion that SDC did not satisfy the domestic industry requirement and therefore issued a final determination of no violation. Without the necessary proof of a domestic industry, the ITC cannot halt imports even if evidence of patent infringement exists. The investigation thus ended with a decision against SDC, highlighting that success before the ITC requires both infringement and a strong showing of relevant American-based operations tied to the patents being enforced.
For companies without a direct manufacturing base in the US, this means they generally need to show other forms of substantial US activity related to the patent, such as major R&D efforts or serious licensing work (for example, investing in technology centers here or maintaining extensive US-based development agreements), to meet that domestic industry standard. If that cannot be established, the ITC cannot issue the import ban, forcing patent owners to rely on federal court litigation for remedies, an approach that provides monetary damages or possibly an injunction, but does not offer the ITC’s speedy exclusion order.
SDC’s most immediate legal option is to appeal the US ITC’s final decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Under ITC rules, complainants have 60 days to file an appeal when the Commission finds no violation. Since this determination was not favorable to SDC, there is no Presidential Review period that would otherwise come into play. If SDC does appeal, the Federal Circuit would review only the issues on which the ITC based its final determination, most notably, the conclusion that SDC did not meet the domestic industry requirement, even though some infringement was found.
| Patent Number | Brief Description |
| 7,414,599 | Pixel circuit of organic field light emitting display device |
| 9,330,593 | Stage circuit and OLED display device |
| 9,818,803 | Pixel array structure (Diamond Pixel Structure) |
| 10,854,683 | Pixel array structure (continuation of ‘803 patent) |
| 11,594,578 | Pixel array structure (continuation of ‘683 patent) |
Beyond a potential appeal, SDC is also pursuing parallel patent disputes in federal district court (specifically in the Eastern District of Texas). Federal court proceedings can yield monetary damages and, in some cases, injunctions, although they do not provide the fast-track exclusion orders available at the ITC. Separately, SDC may also consider whether it can bolster its US presence, such as more substantial research, development, or manufacturing activities, in order to meet the ITC’s domestic industry standard should it choose to file another Section 337 complaint in the future. Finally, there is an ongoing trade secret investigation against the same parties at the ITC, for which an initial ruling is expected imminently; the outcome of that separate matter could also influence SDC’s broader strategy. In ther meantime, people can rest a little easier if they break their phone screens.
