Since the start of the year, courts have been handing down back-to-back 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 have also grown fiercer.
◇Even Samsung, LG and SK… clear trend toward protecting OLED patent rights
On the 11th, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of Samsung Display in a patent infringement suit it filed against domestic equipment maker TOPTEC. The court found that TOPTEC infringed Samsung Display's patent and exported "three-dimensional (3D) lamination" equipment to China. If the ruling is finalized, TOPTEC, along with other defendants, must pay about 390 million won in damages to Samsung Display.
A ruling recognizing patent rights also came in the core materials sector. On Feb. 14, the Supreme Court held that a patent held by LG Chem for "deuterated compounds for electronic applications" is valid in an appeal over a patent invalidation suit filed by SFC, a joint venture between Samsung Display and the Japanese chemical corporation Hodogaya. Separately, LG Chem is said to have sought hundreds of billions of won in damages from SFC in an infringement suit.
On the 29th, SFC won an OLED material patent suit at the Seoul Central District Court against SK Group affiliate SK Materials JNC (SKMJ). The two companies disputed a patent for "blue dopant," a core OLED material. A blue dopant is a key organic light-emitting material that allows an OLED display to emit blue light. If the ruling is finalized, SKMJ must pay 100 million won to SFC.
The recent rulings show patent disputes spreading across the value chain, including OLED equipment, emissive materials and key compounds. As courts continue to recognize patent infringement or affirm the validity of patent registrations, many say a clear trend toward protecting patent rights is taking shape in the OLED sector.
◇Punitive damages expanded to fivefold… risk of sales suspension, too
As rulings recognizing patent rights continue, the legal burden on corporations is growing. In fact, damages in these cases amounted to only several hundred million won, but depending on the sales scale of the disputed technology and whether intent is recognized, awards in patent infringement suits can swell into the tens of billions of won.
The risk of punitive damages has also grown. In 2019, a system was introduced that allows damages of up to three times the loss if infringement of a patent right or an exclusive license is found to be 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 LLC, said, "Punitive damages are still rarely recognized in Korea because multiple requirements must be met, such as intent and a superior position between large and small or midsize companies." She added, "However, if intentional infringement of another company's patent is recognized, the damages can increase significantly, so caution is needed."
If patent infringement is recognized, the risk is not limited to damages; production and sales of the product may also be restricted. Under Article 126 of the Patent Act, a patentee may seek to prohibit or prevent infringement and may also demand destruction of infringing goods and removal of facilities used for infringement. For technologies embedded deeply in specific processes or products—such as OLED equipment or materials—the impact of litigation outcomes on business operations can be significant.
◇China's pursuit and growing wearable demand… fiercer race to secure patents
Industry officials cite intensifying competition in the OLED market as the backdrop for the recent escalation in lawsuits. An attorney at a major law firm said, "The technology gap with Chinese companies is narrowing rapidly in OLEDs, following liquid crystal displays (LCDs)," and noted, "To enforce patent rights against Chinese companies, domestic corporations first need to clarify the scope and validity of their rights among themselves."
The spread of next-generation wearable devices such as smart glasses is also cited as a factor stoking the OLED patent race. Because OLEDs are thin and light while delivering sharp image quality, their applications are expanding beyond smartphones and TVs to in-vehicle displays, Extended Reality (XR) devices and smart glasses. As demand sources diversify, competition among corporations to secure related technologies inevitably intensifies.
In response, corporations are becoming more cautious about how to set the scope of rights from the earliest stages of patent filing. While securing novelty and inventiveness—the core of patent recognition—they also need to prevent competitors from filing similar patents by changing only certain elements or from resorting to design-around tactics.
Kim Ye-ji, an attorney at Suan Law LLC and a former member of the Samsung Electronics legal team, said, "The narrower you set a patent's scope of rights, the higher the chance it will be recognized," and added, "But if you narrow the scope too much, there is a risk that competitors can easily file different patents by avoiding just that portion."