Notice2026-00099
Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Grant a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety Based on Settlement; Termination of the Investigation
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
January 8, 2026
Issuing agencies
International Trade Commission
Abstract
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission ("Commission") has determined to grant a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on settlement. The investigation is hereby terminated.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 721-722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-00099]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-1378]
Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules and
Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination To Grant a
Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety Based on
Settlement; Termination of the Investigation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission (``Commission'') has determined to grant a joint motion to
terminate the investigation in its entirety based on settlement. The
investigation is hereby terminated.
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#1451505d47275c7178645461677d60773a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="41040508127209242d310134322835226f262e37">[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
[[Page 722]]
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
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 found 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 found
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 found 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.
On September 11, 2025, the Commission issued a notice determining
to review the FID in part and requesting written submissions on the
issues under review, and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
90 FR 45959 (Sept. 24, 2025). Specifically, the Commission 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 determined not to review
the remainder of the FID.
On November 17, 2025, SDC and Respondents filed a joint motion to
stay and terminate the investigation based on settlement pursuant to
Commission Rule 210.21(b), 19 CFR 210.21(b). The motion included as an
attachment a confidential settlement agreement. The motion also stated
that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or
implied, between the parties, and that it is in the interest of the
public and administrative economy to grant the motion.
On November 25, 2025, SDC and Respondents filed a revised joint
motion. The revised motion includes as attachments the same
confidential settlement agreement included with the earlier filed
motion on November 17, 2025, as well as a redacted public version of
the settlement agreement. The revised motion likewise states that there
are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between
the parties, and that it is in the interest of the public and
administrative economy to grant the motion.
On November 28, 2025, OUII filed its response supporting the joint
motion to terminate the investigation, as revised. OUII states that the
settlement agreement appears to fully resolve the dispute between SDC
and Respondents concerning the subject matter of this investigation,
and the motion complies with the requirements of Commission Rule
210.21(b), 19 CFR 210.21(b). OUII also states that it is not aware of
any information that terminating this investigation would be contrary
to the public interest, and ``[t]he public interest generally favors
termination of an investigation when it will avoid needless litigation
and conserve public and private resources,'' as is the case here. OUII
response at 5.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the FID
and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to grant
the joint motion to terminate the investigation based on settlement.
The Commission has determined to take no position with respect to the
FID's findings under review. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d
1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The investigation is hereby terminated in
its entirety.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on January 5,
2026.
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: January 5, 2026.
Susan Orndoff,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2026-00099 Filed 1-7-26; 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 January 8, 2026.
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.