Defendant
1 case as defendant.
LG Display Co., Ltd. is a major public company headquartered in Seoul, South Korea, that manufactures and supplies display technologies. Originally founded as a joint venture between LG Electronics and Philips in 1999, it later became an independent company and is now publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (LPL) and the South Korean Stock Exchange (KRX: 034220). LG Electronics remains a major shareholder with a 37% stake. For the trailing twelve months ending in late 2025, the company reported revenues of approximately $18.1 billion. As of 2023, the company had over 70,000 employees.
As a leading global operating company, LG Display manufactures thin-film transistor liquid-crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels, Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) panels, and flexible displays. Its products are used in a wide range of consumer and commercial electronics, including televisions, monitors, laptops, mobile devices, and automotive displays. The company is a key supplier for major global brands like Apple and Sony. While historically a leader in LCD technology, LG Display has strategically shifted focus to its more advanced and higher-margin OLED technologies, including its proprietary WOLED for televisions and P-OLEDs for mobile and automotive applications.
The company's litigation profile reflects its status as a major technology manufacturer engaged in disputes with direct competitors. The provided data shows an even split, with one case as plaintiff and one as defendant, indicating a two-way litigant posture rather than that of a non-practicing entity. This is typical for large operating companies that both own and license extensive patent portfolios.
The tracked cases highlight a direct conflict with a rival display manufacturer, Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. The dispute spans multiple venues, with LG Display suing Tianma in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a popular jurisdiction for patent plaintiffs, and Tianma challenging an LG Display patent at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This pattern suggests a competitive dispute over display technology between two industry players.
Tianma filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging the '394 patent. The USPTO Director denied institution of the review, not on the merits, but because Tianma's standing was questioned due to its relationship with a state-owned Chinese enterprise, concluding it was not an eligible "person" to file an IPR.