Since the start of the year, courts have issued a series of rulings recognizing organic light-emitting diode (OLED) patent rights. As the battle for technological supremacy in the global display market intensifies, patent disputes among corporations are also growing fiercer.
◇ Samsung, LG and SK… clear shift toward protecting OLED patent rights
On the 11th, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of Samsung Display in its patent infringement lawsuit against domestic equipment maker TOPTEC. The court found that TOPTEC infringed Samsung Display's patent and exported "3-dimensional (3D) lamination" equipment to China. If the ruling is finalized, TOPTEC and other defendants must pay Samsung Display about 390 million won in damages.
A ruling also recognized patent rights in a core materials field. On Feb. 14, the Supreme Court found valid LG Chem's patent for "deuterated compounds for electronic applications" in a final appeal filed by SFC, a joint venture between Samsung Display and Japanese chemical corporation Hodogaya, seeking to invalidate the patent. LG Chem was said to have sought hundreds of billions of won in damages from SFC in a separate infringement suit.
On Feb. 29, SFC won an OLED material patent lawsuit at the Seoul Central District Court against SK Group affiliate SK Materials JNC (SKMJ). The two companies fought over a patent for "blue dopant," a key OLED material. Blue dopant is a core organic emitting material that enables OLED displays to produce blue light. If the ruling is finalized, SKMJ must pay SFC 100 million won.
Recent rulings show that patent disputes are spreading across the value chain, including OLED equipment, emitting materials and core compounds. With courts repeatedly recognizing patent infringement or confirming the validity of patent registrations, observers say there is a clear shift toward protecting patent rights in OLED.
◇ Punitive damages expanded fivefold… sales suspension risk, too
As courts continue to recognize patent rights, corporations face greater legal burdens. Although damages in these cases were limited to the hundreds of millions of won, patent infringement awards can grow to the tens of billions of won depending on the sales tied to the disputed technology and whether intent is recognized.
The risk of punitive damages has also grown. In 2019, a system was introduced allowing damages of up to three times the loss if infringement of a patent or exclusive license is recognized as intentional. Starting in Aug. 2024, the cap on damages for intentional patent infringement was expanded to up to five times.
Hwang Eun-jung, an attorney at One Law Firm, said, "Punitive damages require multiple elements such as intent and a superior position between large and small or midsize companies, so cases recognized domestically are still relatively few," but added, "If it is recognized that a company intentionally infringed another's patent, the damages can rise sharply, so caution is needed."
If patent infringement is recognized, the risk extends beyond damages to restrictions on production and sales of the product. Under Article 126 of the Patent Act, a patent holder may seek to prohibit or prevent the infringing act and can also demand disposal of infringing goods and removal of facilities used for the infringement. The deeper the technology is embedded in specific processes or products—such as OLED equipment or materials—the greater the potential impact of litigation outcomes on operations.
◇ China's pursuit and rising wearable demand… fiercer race to secure patents
Industry officials cite intensifying competition in the OLED market as the backdrop for the recent escalation in legal battles. A lawyer at a major law firm said, "Following liquid crystal displays (LCDs), the technology gap with Chinese suppliers in OLEDs is narrowing quickly," and noted, "To exercise patent rights against Chinese suppliers, domestic corporations also need to clarify the scope and validity of their rights among themselves first."
The spread of next-generation wearables such as smart glasses is also cited as a factor fueling the OLED patent race. OLEDs are thin and light yet can deliver sharp picture quality, expanding their applications beyond smartphones and TVs to in-vehicle displays, Extended Reality (XR) devices and smart glasses. As buyers diversify, competition among corporations to lock down related technologies inevitably grows more intense.
In response, corporations are becoming more cautious from the earliest stages of patent filing about how to define the scope of their rights. They must secure novelty and inventive step—the core of patent recognition—while preventing competitors from filing similar patents or using design-around tactics by changing only some elements.
Kim Ye-ji, an attorney at Suan Law Firm and former member of the Samsung Electronics legal team, said, "The narrower the scope of a patent's rights, the higher the likelihood the patent will be recognized," but added, "If the scope is narrowed too much, there is a risk that a competitor can easily file a different patent by avoiding just that portion."