The US International Trade Commission has recommended that Samsung Electronics be banned from selling some liquid crystal display television sets and computer monitors in the US as they infringe Sharp’s patents.
The ITC ruled that the South Korean company, the world’s largest flat-panel display maker, infringed four patents owned by its Japanese rival and should no longer sell infringing LCD devices in the US. Sharp said that the ruling “makes clear that the ITC has consistently supported its case”.
The dispute illustrates how Japanese corporations are increasingly taking more aggressive action to protect their intellectual property against Taiwanese and Korean rivals. Last year, a Texas jury ordered Samsung to pay Japan’s Pioneer $59m in damages in a dispute over plasma TV patents.
Samsung said it plans to ask an appeal court to put the decision on hold. “We have already developed various ways round [the Sharp patents] so there will be no problems in our business,” it said.
The ban is unlikely to take effect before Christmas. Barack Obama, the US president, who is visiting Japan and Korea this week, has 60 days to overturn the ban if he finds it is against the public interest, although Samsung must post a bond worth 100 per cent of its sales of affected products during that time.
The case is one of a series of disputes between the two groups – Sharp lost a similar case to Samsung in June – as they seek to strengthen their position in the market for LCD televisions. Samsung has a 19.9 per cent share of the US market. Vizio is the biggest vendor in the US with 20.5 per cent and Sharp is seventh with 5 per cent.
The ITC upheld its administrative law judge’s previous finding that Samsung infringed the Sharp patents. The four patents involve technology used to improve picture quality, response speed and viewing angle. They are of greatest importance in large LCD panels.
The commission said the public interest factors “do not preclude issuance” of an order banning Samsung’s sales of the disputed products. One reason is the wide availability of products from other companies that do not infringe the Sharp patents.
Lengthy tit-for-tat patent disputes are common in the technology sector, but they are often resolved by agreements to license each other’s patents.
