Samsung Sues BOE Again Over OLED Trade Secrets
Recently, Samsung (SSNLF) filed another lawsuit against BOE in a Texas court, accusing the Chinese display maker of stealing OLED trade secrets—including poaching key employees and obtaining equipment blueprints—to advance its 8.6-generation AMOLED production line in Chengdu and Micro OLED R&D. This marks Samsung’s third legal action against BOE in recent years.
Meanwhile, reports indicate that BOE just won a final ruling against Samsung at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) on March 19, 2025. The timing of Samsung’s new lawsuit—immediately after its defeat—highlights its growing urgency in the OLED competition with BOE.
Why Is Samsung Panicking?
According to Omdia, China captured 49.7% of the global OLED market in Q1 2024, while South Korea dropped to 49%. Analysts suggest 2025 could be the tipping point where China’s market share overtakes Korea’s decisively.
In terms of revenue, DSCC data shows Korean firms still dominate with 66% of OLED sales, while Chinese players like BOE, Visionox, Tianma, TCL CSOT, and EverDisplay share the remaining 34%. Though Chinese brands lag in premium pricing, their cost advantage is evident—average selling prices are roughly 25% lower than Korean rivals at similar volumes.
On the production front, three global 8.6G IT OLED lines are underway: Samsung’s (using Japan’s Canon evaporation gear), BOE’s (opting for Korean suppliers and domestic evaporation sources for cost savings), and Visionox’s (pioneering a mask-free deposition/lithography approach). Meanwhile, TCL CSOT’s inkjet-printed OLED line is set for trial production in 2025, offering a potential low-cost path for large-size OLEDs.
In Micro OLED, Samsung is a latecomer. Its serious push began in 2023 with the $218 million acquisition of eMagin. Reports note Samsung Display’s pilot lines in Cheonan (A1 for RGB, A2 for white OLED) are still fine-tuning equipment, targeting Apple’s next-gen Vision Pro by 2027.
By contrast, Chinese firms like BOE, Sitan Vision, Lakeside Optoelectronics, and SeeYa have already mass-produced 8-inch Micro OLED and are scaling 12-inch lines. China is now the global hub for Micro OLED R&D and production—a field it mastered for military applications as early as 2010. “For Samsung, a late entrant, to accuse BOE of stealing secrets is absurd,” industry experts remark.
With China rivaling or leading Korea in both IT OLED and Micro OLED—plus nearing dominance in traditional OLED—Samsung’s legal salvos reflect mounting pressure to slow BOE’s rise.
Why Sue in the U.S.?
“Samsung’s U.S. lawsuits were never just about patents—they’re leveraging America’s anti-China trade climate,” insiders note.
Another factor: Apple, Samsung Display’s top client, is based in the U.S. Winning there could block BOE’s access to premium markets. Yet analysts doubt Apple would cheer Samsung’s legal tactics. Historically, Apple diversified suppliers after Samsung once reserved OLED panels for its own phones. Today, it sources OLEDs from Samsung, LG, and BOE. “Past tensions and supply-chain diversification mean Apple won’t back Samsung’s legal gambit,” observers say.
Notably, BOE’s recent ITC victory proves U.S. courts won’t side with Samsung without solid evidence. This time, Samsung shifted tactics from patent claims to trade-secret theft—a harder case to prove, especially when alleged misconduct occurred outside the U.S. Experts suggest Samsung’s real goal may be to exploit BOE’s burden rather than win on merits.
“Had Samsung sued in China, where evidence and witnesses are readily available, it would’ve lost outright,” analysts add. “Picking U.S. courts three exposes its weak case.”
Lawsuits Can’t Stop China’s Display Ascent
Samsung’s legal barrage mirrors Korea’s OLED anxiety—not due to its decline, but China’s meteoric rise.
China’s display industry thrives on supply chains, scale, and talent. Korea, reliant on exports and hobbled by small domestic markets and agriculture protection-driven high costs (e.g., food prices inflating wages), faces structural hurdles.
“Strong fundamentals, leading players, and diversified innovation” define China’s display sector—a momentum no lawsuit or U.S. market shift can reverse.
Experts argue Korea must choose: confront China head-on or collaborate within its ecosystem. History suggests confrontation fails. Until Korea pivots, expect more legal skirmishes—but they won’t alter the industry’s inevitable trajectory.
Recently, Samsung (SSNLF) filed another lawsuit against BOE in a Texas court, accusing the Chinese display maker of stealing OLED trade secrets—including poaching key employees and obtaining equipment blueprints—to advance its 8.6-generation AMOLED production line in Chengdu and Micro OLED R&D. This marks Samsung’s third legal action against BOE in recent years.
Meanwhile, reports indicate that BOE just won a final ruling against Samsung at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) on March 19, 2025. The timing of Samsung’s new lawsuit—immediately after its defeat—highlights its growing urgency in the OLED competition with BOE.
Why Is Samsung Panicking?
According to Omdia, China captured 49.7% of the global OLED market in Q1 2024, while South Korea dropped to 49%. Analysts suggest 2025 could be the tipping point where China’s market share overtakes Korea’s decisively.
In terms of revenue, DSCC data shows Korean firms still dominate with 66% of OLED sales, while Chinese players like BOE, Visionox, Tianma, TCL CSOT, and EverDisplay share the remaining 34%. Though Chinese brands lag in premium pricing, their cost advantage is evident—average selling prices are roughly 25% lower than Korean rivals at similar volumes.
On the production front, three global 8.6G IT OLED lines are underway: Samsung’s (using Japan’s Canon evaporation gear), BOE’s (opting for Korean suppliers and domestic evaporation sources for cost savings), and Visionox’s (pioneering a mask-free deposition/lithography approach). Meanwhile, TCL CSOT’s inkjet-printed OLED line is set for trial production in 2025, offering a potential low-cost path for large-size OLEDs.
In Micro OLED, Samsung is a latecomer. Its serious push began in 2023 with the $218 million acquisition of eMagin. Reports note Samsung Display’s pilot lines in Cheonan (A1 for RGB, A2 for white OLED) are still fine-tuning equipment, targeting Apple’s next-gen Vision Pro by 2027.
By contrast, Chinese firms like BOE, Sitan Vision, Lakeside Optoelectronics, and SeeYa have already mass-produced 8-inch Micro OLED and are scaling 12-inch lines. China is now the global hub for Micro OLED R&D and production—a field it mastered for military applications as early as 2010. “For Samsung, a late entrant, to accuse BOE of stealing secrets is absurd,” industry experts remark.
With China rivaling or leading Korea in both IT OLED and Micro OLED—plus nearing dominance in traditional OLED—Samsung’s legal salvos reflect mounting pressure to slow BOE’s rise.
Why Sue in the U.S.?
“Samsung’s U.S. lawsuits were never just about patents—they’re leveraging America’s anti-China trade climate,” insiders note.
Another factor: Apple, Samsung Display’s top client, is based in the U.S. Winning there could block BOE’s access to premium markets. Yet analysts doubt Apple would cheer Samsung’s legal tactics. Historically, Apple diversified suppliers after Samsung once reserved OLED panels for its own phones. Today, it sources OLEDs from Samsung, LG, and BOE. “Past tensions and supply-chain diversification mean Apple won’t back Samsung’s legal gambit,” observers say.
Notably, BOE’s recent ITC victory proves U.S. courts won’t side with Samsung without solid evidence. This time, Samsung shifted tactics from patent claims to trade-secret theft—a harder case to prove, especially when alleged misconduct occurred outside the U.S. Experts suggest Samsung’s real goal may be to exploit BOE’s burden rather than win on merits.
“Had Samsung sued in China, where evidence and witnesses are readily available, it would’ve lost outright,” analysts add. “Picking U.S. courts three exposes its weak case.”
Lawsuits Can’t Stop China’s Display Ascent
Samsung’s legal barrage mirrors Korea’s OLED anxiety—not due to its decline, but China’s meteoric rise.
China’s display industry thrives on supply chains, scale, and talent. Korea, reliant on exports and hobbled by small domestic markets and agriculture protection-driven high costs (e.g., food prices inflating wages), faces structural hurdles.
“Strong fundamentals, leading players, and diversified innovation” define China’s display sector—a momentum no lawsuit or U.S. market shift can reverse.
Experts argue Korea must choose: confront China head-on or collaborate within its ecosystem. History suggests confrontation fails. Until Korea pivots, expect more legal skirmishes—but they won’t alter the industry’s inevitable trajectory.
