The display industry is watching closely as two of the world’s largest OLED manufacturers engage in an escalating legal war that threatens to disrupt supply chains, affect major smartphone brands, and determine the future competitive landscape of premium display technology.
The July 2025 ITC Ruling and Its Implications
Only a week ago, the U.S. International Trade Commission delivered a preliminary ruling that could fundamentally alter the global OLED supply chain. The ITC found that BOE and seven affiliated subsidiaries had misappropriated Samsung Display’s OLED trade secrets, violating Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act.
The implications are severe. If the ruling becomes final in November 2025, BOE would face a limited exclusion order barring it from importing OLED panels into the United States, effectively locking the Chinese display giant out of the American market. Additionally, a cease-and-desist order would force BOE to halt sales of any existing inventory in the U.S.
The stakes couldn’t be higher for Apple, which relies on BOE for approximately 20% of the OLED panels in its iPhone 16 series. Should the ban take effect, Apple would need to redirect these orders back to Samsung Display or LG Display, potentially increasing production costs and disrupting carefully orchestrated supply schedules.
Following the November decision, a mandatory 60-day presidential review period could theoretically allow the U.S. President to veto the ruling on public interest grounds. However, historical precedent suggests preliminary ITC rulings are rarely overturned.
Years of Escalating Competition
The current legal battle represents the culmination of years of intensifying competition between two companies with fundamentally different market positions and strategies.
BOE’s challenge to Samsung’s OLED dominance began in 2017-2019 with substantial investments in research and development and mass production capabilities, particularly at its Sichuan B11 fabrication facility. By 2019, BOE had begun supplying OLED panels to Huawei and other Chinese smartphone manufacturers, marking the first serious threat to Samsung Display’s near-monopoly in high-end OLED technology.
The real turning point came when BOE successfully penetrated Apple’s notoriously demanding supply chain. After multiple failed quality audits, BOE secured limited Apple contracts around 2021, initially for iPhone repair and replacement units. By 2022, the company had graduated to producing OLED panels for new iPhone models, fundamentally altering the supply dynamics that had previously given Samsung near-total control over iPhone displays.
Samsung Display’s response was swift and comprehensive. In October 2023, the company filed a trade secret complaint with the ITC, alleging that BOE had stolen proprietary OLED manufacturing processes. Simultaneously, Samsung pursued multiple patent infringement lawsuits in U.S. courts, launching a multi-front legal campaign designed to pressure its Chinese rival.
What followed was a series of legal moves and countermoves that highlight the sophisticated intellectual property strategies employed by both companies. In March 2025, Samsung achieved a partial victory when the ITC found that BOE had infringed three Samsung OLED patents. However, the commission declined to issue a ban because Samsung couldn’t prove the necessary “domestic industry” criteria for that specific case.
BOE’s response came in May 2025 with its first U.S. patent lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The Chinese company alleged that Samsung had infringed OLED encapsulation, pixel-driving circuits, and display control technologies in its Galaxy smartphones. The legal battle reached new heights in July 2025 when BOE filed a second lawsuit in Texas, this time targeting under-display camera technology and seeking triple damages plus a U.S. import ban on Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold5, Fold6, and S25 Ultra devices. Simultaneously, the ITC issued its preliminary trade-secret ruling favoring Samsung and recommending the U.S. import ban on BOE OLED panels.
Strategic Warfare
The legal strategies employed by both companies reflect their broader market positions and long-term objectives. Samsung Display’s approach centers on leveraging its substantial intellectual property portfolio to maintain market dominance. Having invested over a decade in OLED research and development and accumulated thousands of patents, Samsung views legal enforcement as essential to protecting its technological leadership and deterring competitors from entering premium supply chains.
The strategy also serves to maintain Samsung’s critical leverage over Apple. By weakening BOE’s position, Samsung preserves its status as Apple’s primary OLED supplier, protecting both revenue streams and negotiating power in future contracts. Samsung’s multi-front legal approach combines ITC trade-secret complaints with patent lawsuits and Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidation proceedings, creating maximum legal pressure on BOE across multiple venues.
BOE’s strategy reflects the company’s evolution from a domestic Chinese manufacturer to a global competitor seeking legitimacy in Western markets. The company’s patent countersuits utilize its own growing intellectual property portfolio to push back against Samsung, specifically targeting features in flagship Galaxy devices to force cross-licensing negotiations.
By filing lawsuits in Texas, known for its plaintiff-friendly courts, BOE sends a clear signal to Apple and other potential customers that it will vigorously defend its right to remain in global supply chains. This legal positioning is crucial for BOE’s ambitions beyond China, as defending its technology publicly helps establish credibility with Western original equipment manufacturers.
The outcome of this legal battle will have far-reaching implications for the global display industry and smartphone supply chains. Should Samsung succeed in finalizing the ITC ban, BOE would lose access to the U.S. market, effectively freezing its global ambitions with Apple and restoring Samsung and LG Display’s uncontested control over iPhone panel supply. This scenario could lead to increased OLED panel costs globally due to reduced competition and consolidated supply.
Conversely, if BOE’s Texas lawsuits gain traction and result in import restrictions on Samsung’s premium devices, the Korean company could face significant pressure to negotiate cross-licensing agreements rather than risk losing U.S. smartphone sales.
| Scenario | iPhone OLED Supply | Cost Impact | Market Share Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Samsung wins ITC ban | BOE removed from Apple’s chain; Samsung + LG take full control | Likely higher panel pricing due to reduced competition | Samsung regains >70% of iPhone OLED share |
| BOE wins Texas suits | Samsung faces U.S. sales bans on some Galaxy devices; pressured to negotiate | Could push cross-licensing, stabilizing BOE’s U.S. access | BOE maintains 20–25% share, stays in Apple chain |
| Settlement / Cross-licensing | Both companies retain market access; Apple keeps dual sourcing | Costs stabilize, but licensing fees absorbed in pricing | Balanced Samsung (~60%) / BOE (~25%) / LG (~15%) |
The next six months will likely determine whether this high-stakes rivalry concludes with a comprehensive settlement involving cross-licensing agreements, or whether one player loses significant ground in the crucial U.S. OLED market. The November 2025 ITC decision represents a critical inflection point. A final ruling in Samsung’s favor could reshape the global display supply chain for years to come, potentially consolidating power among established players and raising barriers for emerging competitors.
For the broader industry, this legal battle underscores the increasing importance of intellectual property strategy in technology sectors where innovation cycles are rapid and market positions can shift dramatically. As OLED technology continues to evolve and expand into new applications, the precedents set by this case will likely influence competitive dynamics well beyond the smartphone display market. The BOE-Samsung dispute ultimately represents more than a bilateral legal battle, it’s a defining moment for the global display industry’s competitive future.
