Corning Incorporated v. HKC Corp et al.

This patent infringement litigation, initiated by Corning Incorporated, targets several prominent display manufacturers and their affiliates for allegedly infringing patents related to glass substrates for liquid crystal displays (LCDs). The case is currently before the International Trade Commission (ITC), with an Initial Determination finding a violation.

Parties and Roles:
The complainant, Corning Incorporated, is an American multinational technology company specializing in materials science, particularly in glass, ceramics, and advanced optics. Its business segments include display technologies, optical communications, environmental technologies, specialty materials, and life sciences. Corning is a leading manufacturer of precision glass for advanced displays, including the glass used in liquid crystal displays, and is known for products like Gorilla Glass.

The defendants, or respondents, in this investigation are primarily Chinese electronics and display manufacturing companies. HKC Corp. (also referred to as HKC Corporation Limited) is a global innovator in semiconductor display technologies, specializing in the R&D, manufacturing, and sales of advanced display panels and smart connected devices, including TV and IT display solutions. Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. (also referred to as IRICO DISPLAY DEVICES CO.,LTD.) is a China-based company engaged in the R&D, production, and sales of flat-panel display devices and their key materials, specifically substrate glass and display panels for televisions. Hisense USA Corporation is the U.S. headquarters of Hisense Group, a global consumer electronics and appliance manufacturer that offers TVs and home appliances. TCL Technology Group Corp. (also referred to as TCL) is a Chinese partially state-owned electronics company that develops, manufactures, and sells consumer electronics such as television sets and mobile phones, with a focus on semiconductor display industries. TTE, which in this context likely refers to an entity associated with TCL (as TCL once acquired Thomson's TV business and also uses the brand "TTE Technology Inc." for consumer electronics), is involved in the design, manufacturing, and distribution of televisions and provides IT services. The specific entity "Xianyang" without further corporate identification appears to be associated with Caihong Display Devices, which is headquartered in Xianyang, China. Hisense USA Corporation was previously terminated from the investigation based on a settlement.

Accused Products and Patents:
The accused products in the investigation are "certain glass substrates for liquid crystal displays, products containing the same, and methods for manufacturing the same." This includes glass substrates for LCDs, display panels containing these substrates, and electronic devices such as TVs, monitors, notebook and laptop computers, and tablets that incorporate these components.

The asserted patents are US Patent No. 8,642,491 and US Patent No. 8,640,498. US 8,642,491 generally relates to alkali-free, boroalumino silicate glasses exhibiting desirable physical and chemical properties for use as substrates in flat panel display devices, with an emphasis on improved fining (removal of gaseous inclusions) using environmentally friendly fining packages. US 8,640,498 is also directed to specific glass compositions used as substrates in flat panel displays, focusing on properties like density, chemical durability, and strain point, to enable efficient manufacturing processes like the fusion draw process while meeting display performance requirements.

Procedural Posture and Notability:
The case is an investigation before the International Trade Commission (ITC), case number 337-TA-1441, titled "Certain Glass Substrates for Liquid Crystal Displays, Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Manufacturing the Same II". Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Bryan F. Moore issued an Initial Determination finding a violation of Section 337 based on the infringement of Corning's patents. The ITC is a significant venue for patent infringement cases due to its ability to issue powerful injunctive relief, such as exclusion orders that block infringing products from entering the U.S. market, and cease-and-desist orders. Unlike federal district courts, the ITC cannot award monetary damages but offers a faster resolution process, typically concluding within 15-18 months from complaint to a final ruling. Furthermore, ITC cases are decided by experienced administrative law judges rather than juries, allowing for more technical arguments. This case is notable due to its focus on fundamental display technology—glass substrates—which are critical components in a vast array of consumer electronics. The involvement of major global display and electronics manufacturers from China highlights the intense competition and intellectual property disputes within the display industry and the strategic use of the ITC by operating companies like Corning to protect their domestic industry and market share.

The ITC investigation 337-TA-1441, "Corning Incorporated v. HKC Corp et al.", has seen several significant legal developments since its initiation.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Corning Incorporated filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) on January 31, 2025. A supplement was filed on February 3, 2025. The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 due to the importation and sale of certain glass substrates for liquid crystal displays and related products that infringe patents asserted by Corning. Corning requested a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
• Institution of Investigation: The USITC voted to institute the investigation (337-TA-1441) on March 3, 2025, and a notice of institution was published on March 7, 2025. The investigation concerns "Certain Glass Substrates for Liquid Crystal Displays, Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Manufacturing the Same II."
• Respondents: The initial respondents included HKC Corp, Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd., Hisense USA Corporation, TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., TTE Technology, Inc. d/b/a TCL America, VIZIO, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Xianyang CaiHong Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance & Terminations

• Target Date Set: On March 24, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order setting a 17-month target date of August 7, 2026, for completion of the investigation, with the final Initial Determination due no later than April 7, 2026. The Commission determined not to review this ID on April 11, 2025.
• Settlements and Terminations (Respondents):
  • HKC Corp. and HKC Overseas Ltd.: The investigation was terminated as to HKC Corporation Ltd. and HKC Overseas Ltd. based on settlement, with the Commission determining not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 24) on August 6, 2025.
  • VIZIO, Inc.: The investigation was terminated as to VIZIO, Inc. based on settlement, with the Commission determining not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 28) on September 30, 2025.
  • LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.: The investigation was terminated as to LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. based on settlement, with the Commission determining not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 29) on December 8, 2025.
  • Hisense USA Corporation: Corning and Hisense USA Corporation filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Hisense based on settlement on February 25, 2026. The ALJ granted this motion in an Initial Determination (Order No. 57) on March 24, 2026, which the Commission determined not to review on April 21, 2026.
• Partial Patent Termination: On December 22, 2025, the Commission determined not to review an ALJ's ID (Order No. 35) terminating the investigation as to U.S. Patent No. 7,851,394 and claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,642,491. This means only specific claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,642,491 and all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,640,498 remained at issue for the remaining respondents.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• A Markman hearing was held on June 22, 2025.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• An evidentiary hearing took place from January 6-8, 2026.
• Initial Determination (ID) on Violation: On April 6, 2026, ALJ Bryan F. Moore issued a final Initial Determination finding a violation of Section 337 based on infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,642,491 and 8,640,498. However, the ID also found that Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd.'s "616" formula glass substrate, used in its current main products, does not infringe the asserted patents, while its previously used "615" formula product (discontinued in 2024) was found to be infringing. The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and bond. The Commission published a notice requesting submissions on the public interest on April 10, 2026, with submissions due by May 8, 2026.

Final Disposition or Present Posture

• The case is currently pending before the Commission for review of the Initial Determination. The Commission's target date for a final determination in this case is August 6, 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• A search for IPR or PGR proceedings for patents US 8642491 and US 8640498 on the USPTO PTAB database did not immediately yield specific, active proceedings directly linked to the respondents in this ITC case at the time of this summary. Therefore, there is no readily available information on parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings and their effect on this litigation. It is noted that the protection periods for US 8,642,491 and US 8,640,498 are set to expire on October 7, 2026, and November 13, 2026, respectively.

Corning Incorporated is represented by attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP.

Here are the details for the counsel of record representing Corning Incorporated:

Firm: Covington & Burling LLP

Attorneys:

• While specific individual attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP are not listed as "lead counsel" in the provided snippets for this specific case, the firm is identified as the participant representative for Corning. In ITC investigations, firms typically deploy a team of attorneys. For example, in a related patent infringement case in Germany, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP represented Corning, alongside in-house counsel.

Corning Incorporated In-House Counsel:
Corning Incorporated has an in-house patent department with attorneys who oversee and manage their patent portfolios and litigation. While not directly listed as "counsel of record" in the ITC filing in the same way as external counsel, these individuals play a significant role in the overall litigation strategy and support. Some examples of Corning in-house patent attorneys include:

• Svetlana Short (Sr. Patent Atty, Sullivan Park, Patent Dept., Corning, NY)
• Ryan Dunigan (Attorney, Sullivan Park, Patent Dept., Corning, NY)
• Smit Kapadia (Attorney, Sullivan Park, Patent Dept., Corning, NY)
• Amy Lang (Attorney, Sullivan Park, Patent Dept., Corning, NY)
• Kathleen Barry (Attorney, Sullivan Park, Patent Dept., Corning, NY)

The following attorneys and firms represent the various defendants in Corning Incorporated v. HKC Corp et al. (337-TA-1441) before the International Trade Commission:

For Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. and Xianyang CaiHong Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.:

• Stephen Smith (Lead Attorney)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience: Led the Cooley intellectual property litigation team that secured a decisive victory for Caihong Display Devices, with the ALJ finding that Caihong's "616" glass did not infringe Corning's patents.
• Matthew Brigham (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Palo Alto
• Adam Pivovar (Partner)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, DC
• Sam Whitt (Associate)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, DC
• Cole Merritt (Associate)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, DC
• Matthew Ritter (Associate)
  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Washington, DC
• Wen Ming (Legal Counsel for Caihong)
  • Note: Explained Caihong's defense strategy regarding patent validity and non-infringement to the Economic Observer.

For HKC Corp. and HKC Overseas Ltd.:

• Deanna Tanner Okun (Lead Attorney)
  • Firm: Polsinelli PC
  • Experience: Known for practicing before the ITC.

For TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. and TTE Technology, Inc. d/b/a TCL North America:

• Donald R. McPhail (Lead Attorney)
  • Firm: Vanguard Crest PC; Merchant & Gould PC

For Hisense USA Corporation:

• Paul Christian Goulet (Lead Attorney)
  • Firm: FisherBroyles LLP
  • Note: Hisense USA Corporation was terminated from the investigation based on settlement.
• Wei Yuan
  • Firm: Not specified as lead counsel for Hisense in this ITC case, but appeared on behalf of Hisense USA Corporation in a separate district court case.
• Patrick J. McKeever
  • Firm: Not specified as lead counsel for Hisense in this ITC case, but appeared on behalf of Hisense USA Corporation in a separate district court case.

It is worth noting that some initial respondents, including VIZIO, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., were represented by Baker Botts L.L.P., but were later terminated from the investigation based on settlements.

The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) is also named as a party to this investigation.