Rational view on the preliminary ITC ruling on BOE's OLED panels: It is not final, has limited impact, and the competition is complex.

Recently, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) made a preliminary ruling on the trade secret 337 investigation filed by South Korean Samsung Display against Beijing Optronics. Regarding this initial ruling, Beijing Optronics has already clearly stated that it will actively appeal and legally safeguard its own rights and interests. Regarding this, industry insiders analyzed that the current ITC preliminary ruling is only a preliminary result and is not the final verdict. The final ruling is expected to be announced in November this year, followed by a 60-day presidential review period. Moreover, even after the final ruling, both parties can still appeal to the US Circuit Court of Appeals, and the ultimate outcome remains to be determined. 
In recent years, in order to maintain its global position in the OLED market, Samsung Display of South Korea has launched several administrative investigations and lawsuits against its competitors, including the 337 investigation of US patents and the 337 investigation of trade secrets, etc. In response to the continuous pressure from Samsung, Chinese panel manufacturers have had successful cases in dealing with the 377 investigation. Previously, in the patent 377 investigation, Chinese panel manufacturers such as BOE actively intervened and responded, and ultimately the court ruled that BOE did not violate the relevant provisions of the 337 investigation. As analysts pointed out, for this trade secret 337 investigation, even if the final ruling upholds the initial ruling, the scope of the ruling will only or mainly focus on "the import of individual OLED display panels", and the impact on the actual shipment volume of BOE in the US and other markets is expected to be relatively limited in the short term. 
In response to Samsung's continuous escalation of disputes over the past two years, the emerging Chinese display enterprises are taking corresponding countermeasures, including filing multiple patent infringement lawsuits against Samsung in Chinese and American courts. During the same period of the ITC 337 investigation, BOE initiated multiple patent infringement accusations against Samsung's OLED products in the Chongqing court. Some of these cases have already been won by BOE in the first instance, and the court ruled that Samsung's involved models should be banned from sale in relevant channels in China. Additionally, in July 2025, BOE also initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Display in the Eastern District Federal Court of Texas, USA, accusing Samsung Display's OLED screens of infringing on four US patents of BOE. This lawsuit is a powerful counterattack by BOE against Samsung's recent continuous pressure tactics, aiming to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the enterprise through legal means. 
Currently, intellectual property disputes in business competition are a common occurrence in the global high-tech industry. True industrial competition is never determined by a single ban. The lawsuit between Samsung and BOE precisely reflects the profound impact brought about by the rapid development of China's OLED industry in recent years. Against this backdrop, we should be even more aware that healthy industrial competition must be rooted in continuous technological innovation and mutual respect for intellectual property rights. Over-reliance on unilateral restrictive measures not only fails to solve the fundamental problem but, in the long run, will ultimately be detrimental to the progress of the entire industry and harm the fundamental interests of consumers. Chinese enterprises should have confidence, actively respond to challenges, and safeguard their own rights and interests. At the same time, we expect all parties to return to the track of rational competition and cooperation, and jointly promote the healthy development of the display technology industry.