Notice2025-18459
Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 24, 2025
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission") has determined to review in part a final initial determination ("FID") issued by the presiding Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The Commission requests written submissions from the parties on the issues under review and from the parties, interested government agencies, and other interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 183 (Wednesday, September 24, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 24, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45959-45961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-18459]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1378]
Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules and
Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Review in
Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337;
Request for Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on
Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to review in part a final
initial determination (``FID'') issued by the presiding Administrative
Law Judge (``ALJ''), finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended. The Commission requests written submissions
from the parties on the issues under review and from the parties,
interested government agencies, and other interested persons on the
issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, under the schedule
set forth below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Namo Kim, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3459. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at <a href="https://edis.usitc.gov">https://edis.usitc.gov</a>. For help accessing EDIS, please email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bdedfd2c8a8d3fef7ebdbeee8f2eff8b5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e5b5a574d2d567b726e5e6b6d776a7d30797168">[email protected]</span></a>. General information concerning the Commission may
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at <a href="https://www.usitc.gov">https://www.usitc.gov</a>. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal
on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on December 6, 2023, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Display
Company, Ltd. of the Republic of Korea (``SDC''). 88 FR 84829 (Dec. 6,
2023). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) (``section
337''), in the importation into the United States, or in the sale of
certain organic light-emitting diode display modules and components
thereof by reason of misappropriation of trade secrets, the threat or
effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure a domestic
industry (``DI'') or to prevent the establishment of an industry in the
United States. Id. The Commission's notice of investigation named the
following as respondents: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. of Beijing,
China; Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. of Mianyang,
China; Ordos Yuansheng Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. of Inner Mongolia
Autonomous Region, China; Chengdu BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co.,
Ltd. of Chengdu, China; Chongqing BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co.,
Ltd. of Chongqing, China; Wuhan BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co.,
Ltd. of Wuhan, China; BMOT f/k/a Kunming BOE Display Technology of
Yunnan Dianzhong New Area, China; and BOE Technology America Inc. of
Santa Clara, California (collectively, ``Respondents''). Id. The Office
of Unfair Import Investigations (``OUII'') is participating in the
investigation. Id.
On June 17, 2025, the Commission amended the complaint and notice
of investigation to reflect the change in the name of respondent BMOT
to Yunnan Invensight Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. Order No. 63
(May 27, 2025); unreviewed by Notice (June 17, 2025).
On October 23, 2024, the ALJ granted in part SDC's motion in limine
1, precluding Respondents from introducing any argument or evidence
that the manufacturing processes for Respondents' micro-OLED products
materially differ from their main OLED lines. That same day, the ALJ
also granted in part SDC's motion for sanctions based on spoliation of
[[Page 45960]]
evidence, imposing certain non-monetary sanctions against Respondents
(collectively, ``the ALJ's Sanctions Orders'').
On July 11, 2025, the ALJ issued the FID finding a violation of
section 337. Specifically, the FID finds that Respondents
misappropriated the asserted trade secrets under the category of TS I,
TS II, TS IV, and TS VII, but that Respondents did not misappropriate
the asserted trade secret under the category TS III. The FID also finds
that the statute of limitations provision in the Defense Trade Secret
Act, 35 U.S.C. 1836(d), (``DTSA SOL'') is inapplicable to section 337
investigations and, even if applicable, Respondents failed to show that
the DTSA SOL would time-bar SDC's claims of trade secrets
misappropriation. Lastly, the FID finds that a DI exists, and that the
threat or effect of Respondents' trade secrets misappropriation is to
substantially injure that DI or to prevent the establishment of such an
industry in the United States.
The FID also includes a Recommended Determination (``RD'')
recommending, should the Commission find a violation of section 337,
that the Commission issue: (1) a limited exclusion order (``LEO'')
directed to Respondents' ``OLED display modules, OLED display panels,
and components of OLED display modules or panels'' manufactured using
the misappropriated trade secrets with a duration of 15 years and 0.5
months; and (2) cease-and-desist orders against any of Respondents
found to be in violation. The RD further recommends that the Commission
set a bond in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) during the
period of Presidential review. On August 11, 2025, the ALJ issued an
order correcting typographical errors in the FID and the recommended
duration of the LEO from 15 years and 0.5 months to 14 years and 8
months. Order No. 70 (Aug. 11, 2025).
On July 14, 2025, the Commission issued a post-RD notice seeking
submissions on public interest issues raised by the relief recommended
by the ALJ should the Commission find a violation. 90 FR 33395-96 (July
17, 2025). On August 11, 2025, Robert D. Atkins from Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation filed a statement in response to
the Federal Register notice in support of excluding imports of OLED
displays made by Respondents. On August 12, 2025, members of the House
of Representatives Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party
filed a statement in response to the Federal Register notice in support
of excluding imports of OLED displays made by Respondents. On the same
day, SDC filed a statement on the public interest pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.50, 19 CFR 210.50. Respondents did not file a
public interest statement, and no other submissions were received.
On July 25, 2025, Respondents petitioned for Commission review of
(1) the ALJ's Sanctions Orders, (2) the FID's findings with respect to
the DTSA SOL, (3) the FID's findings with respect to the existence of a
DI and injury or threat of injury thereto, and (4) the FID's findings
of trade secrets misappropriation. No other petitions were filed. On
August 4, 2025, SDC and OUII filed respective responses to Respondents'
petition.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the FID
and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to review
the FID in part as well as the ALJ's Sanctions Orders. Specifically,
the Commission has determined to review (1) the ALJ's Sanctions Orders,
(2) the FID's findings with respect to the applicability of the DTSA
SOL, and (3) the FID's findings with respect to the existence of a DI
and injury or threat of injury thereto and the prevention of the
establishment of such an industry in the United States. The Commission
has determined not to review the remainder of the FID.
In connection with its review, the Commission requests that the
parties brief their positions on the following questions with citations
to the existing evidentiary record:
1. Please explain whether and how much SDC, prior to filing the
complaint in this investigation, has invested in any OLED R&D and/or
manufacturing apart from eMagin Corp. (``eMagin'') and Samsung Display
America Lab (``SDAL'') either in the United States or globally.
2. How should the Commission define the DI for purposes of the
Commission's consideration of the nature and significance of the DI's
investments and whether an industry in the United States is
substantially injured or threatened with substantial injury? Should the
DI be defined as an industry for OLED displays or should it be two
industries comprised of micro-OLEDs and all other OLED displays? What
are the implications for the Commission's analysis and any potential
remedies based on how the U.S. industry is defined?
3. What are the realities of the marketplace that the Commission
should consider in analyzing whether the DI requirement is satisfied?
4. Please explain the nature and significance of each of eMagin's
and SDAL's DI investments in the context of SDC's domestic and global
OLED operations.
5. Please explain the causal nexus between Respondents' unfair acts
and the alleged actual or threatened injury with respect to eMagin and
SDAL specifically, rather than a nexus between the unfair acts and any
injury to SDC more generally. Should the Commission find actual or
threatened injury solely with respect to eMagin, please explain whether
and why such finding would support a violation of section 337 and, if
there is such a violation, whether the scope of the requested remedial
orders should be limited to micro-OLEDs.
6. Please explain the appropriate duration of any remedial orders,
should the Commission find a violation of section 337 and determine to
issue remedial orders based on the FID's findings that Respondents
misappropriated the asserted trade secrets under the category of TS I,
TS II, TS IV, and TS VII.
In answering the above briefing questions, the parties should
specifically point to where in their arguments before the ALJ and in
their petition for review or responses thereto where these issues were
addressed and the corresponding record evidence discussed. In seeking
briefing on these issues, the Commission will not excuse any party's
noncompliance with Commission rules and the ALJ's procedural
requirements, including requirements to present issues and arguments in
submissions to the ALJ and/or in petitions for Commission review. Any
such attempts will be regarded as waived. Additionally, the parties are
invited to brief only the discrete issues requested above. The parties
are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately presented
in the parties' existing filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the
statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, (1) an exclusion order that
could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into
the United States; and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result
in the respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in
unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly,
the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that
address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party
seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for
purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate
and provide information establishing that activities involving other
types of entry either are adversely
[[Page 45961]]
affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices
for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360,
USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (Dec. 1994).
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that
remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the
Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and
cease and desist orders would have on: (1) the public health and
welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.
production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those
that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The
Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions
that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context
of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade
Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve,
disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination. See
Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the
United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is
therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of
the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested
to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice.
Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any
other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on
the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such
submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on
remedy and bonding.
In the initial submission, Complainant is also requested to
identify the remedy sought and Complainant and OUII are requested to
submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration.
Complainant is further requested to provide the HTSUS subheadings under
which the accused products are imported, and to supply the
identification information for all known importers of the products at
issue in this investigation. All initial written submissions from the
parties and/or third parties/interested government agencies, and
proposed remedial orders from the parties must be filed no later than
close of business on September 25, 2025. All reply submissions must be
filed no later than the close of business on October 2, 2025. Opening
submissions from the parties are limited to 75 pages. Reply submissions
from the parties are limited to 45 pages. All submissions from third
parties and/or interested government agencies are limited to 10 pages.
No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document
electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19
CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number
(``Inv. No. 337-TA-1378'') in a prominent place on the cover page and/
or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
<a href="https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf">https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf</a>).
Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary,
(202) 205-2000.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document
with a header indicating that the document contains confidential
information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request
procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b)
& 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-
party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information
must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant
to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-
confidential version of the document must also be filed with the
Commission and served on any parties to the investigation within two
business days of any confidential filing. All information, including
confidential business information and documents for which confidential
treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes
of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the
Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding,
or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations
relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission
including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government
employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes.
All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.
All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection on EDIS.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on September
11, 2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: September 11, 2025.
Susan Orndoff,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2025-18459 Filed 9-23-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 24, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.