• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Patents

First Apple, Then Samsung, Now: LG Display

Submitted by Shannon Schoultz on October 27, 2012 – 12:01 AM62304 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F10%2F27%2Ffirst-apple-then-samsung-now-lg-display%2FFirst+Apple%2C+Then+Samsung%2C+Now%3A+LG+Display2012-10-27+04%3A01%3A37Shannon+Schoultzhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6230

2012 has proven to be the year of lawsuits for the world of technology – first Apple, then Samsung, and now LG Display. On Wednesday, September 26, 2012, LG Display Company filed a law suit against Samsung Electronics Company claiming they infringed its patents related to organic light- emitting diode (OLED) technology. Almost two months ago, Apple won over $1 billion dollars in its law suit with Samsung. Apple filed suit against Samsung after many of their technology items too closely resembled Apple’s products. And now – LG Display is following suit.

LG Display is the world’s largest LCD panel maker, just ahead of Samsung Electronics. Together, the two South Korean companies exceed 50% of the global LCD panel market. Seoul- based LG Display alleges that Samsung products, including the Galaxy S3 smartphone and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablet device, infringe LG’s patents. LG, in a suit filed with Seoul Central District Court, asked Samsung to stop violating its patents and sought monetary damages.

Samsung plans to file a countersuit if necessary, claiming the lawsuit is little more than a scheme by LG to overcome their own difficulties following its “systematic leak of Samsung’s OLED technologies.” In July, Samsung accused six LG Display employees, including two who used to work for Samsung, and five others of stealing OLED technology from it. While LG has publicly denied that the company or any of its employees were involved in the theft, Samsung maintains that the firm “systematically stole its display technology and poached Samsung employees.”

The two companies are each other’s biggest rivals in the race toward dominance in the display market. LG Display and Samsung are both vying for thinner and lighter OLED technology. OLED technology first emerged in car radios in the 1990s, but has since improved and is now used in cell phones, tablet computers, and televisions. In a generation controlled by cell phones and computers, having an edge in OLED technology is important for both companies. Samsung believes this law suit is just a scheme by LG, while LG filed the suit to protect their intellectual property rights and promote fair competition.

Samsung lawyers have had their hands full with Apple as of late and it appears their workload isn’t going to lighten up anytime soon. LG and Samsung are in for a lengthy legal battle.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Shannon Schoultz

Shannon Schoultz is a 1L at American University Washington College of Law. She is from Beech Island, South Carolina. She graduated from the University of South Carolina in May 2012 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Sport and Entertainment Management. She is interested in pursing a career in Sport and Entertainment Law. She enjoys watching SportsCenter and Law&Order SVU, and loves her Gamecocks & Cowboys.

Shannon Schoultz has written 6 posts for the IPB.

62304 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F10%2F27%2Ffirst-apple-then-samsung-now-lg-display%2FFirst+Apple%2C+Then+Samsung%2C+Now%3A+LG+Display2012-10-27+04%3A01%3A37Shannon+Schoultzhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6230 »

  • First Apple, Then Samsung, Now: LG Display – American University Intellectual Property Brief - Organic Electronics says:
    October 27, 2012 at 2:10 AM

    [...] more: First Apple, Then Samsung, Now: LG Display – American University Intellectual Property Brief Tags: apple, intelligencer, patents-related, property-brief, record-high, samsung, seattle-post, [...]

    Reply to this comment »
  • phone service says:
    March 11, 2013 at 8:43 PM

    I think law suits like this will have a long term effect on the way tech companies will make their products in the future. Hopefully it will be for the better.

    Reply to this comment »
  • pmp training courses says:
    April 17, 2013 at 5:27 AM

    can't believe that apple are keep on filing case against the other brands, they have different Operating system and the appearance has big difference.

    Reply to this comment »
  • SEO says:
    April 30, 2013 at 3:52 PM

    Hiya! I just want to give a huge thumbs up for the

    great info you have here on this post. I will likely be

    coming back to your weblog for more soon.

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Apple Wins Slide to Unlock Against Motorola Trial Wraps Up in Gucci’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against Guess Update: Charlie Sheen Files Applications to Trademark Two More Catch Phrases USPTO Attempts to Tackle Trademark Bullying Rooster sauce by any other name is not still Rooster sauce British Library Faces Issues With Orphan Works in Efforts to Digitize WIPO Agrees to Support South American IP Project A Threat to Breast Cancer Awareness A Precedent in the 'Bank' is Worth Two at the Supreme Court Media Producers Hate Digital Distribution's Players, When They Should Hate the Game
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License