US
U.S. International Trade
Commission Recognizes Samsung Display’s Patent Infringement Claims Against
China’s BOE
On March 19, 2025, the United States International
Trade Commission (ITC) acknowledged that some of patents held by Samsung
Display Co., Ltd. were infringed in its final determination regarding a patent
infringement case filed against China’s BOE (Beijing Dongfang Electronics).
(Background)
On February 3, 2023, the ITC initiated an
investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act based on a
complaint filed by Samsung Display. The complaint alleged that certain
active matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) display panels and
modules for mobile devices, along with their components, were being
imported and sold in the U.S., thereby infringing Samsung Display’s U.S.
patents.
(Key Details)
In its Final Determination, the ITC affirmed the
findings of the Initial Determination (ID), which had concluded that
Samsung Display’s patents had been infringed.
However,
the Commission did not impose an import ban because the so-called
"domestic industry" requirement—a necessary condition for
remedies under Section 337—was not satisfied.
(1) Patent Infringement
Investigations Conducted by the Quasi-Judicial ITC
∙ If a product imported into the United States is
believed to infringe a U.S.-registered patent, the patent holder may file a
patent infringement complaint with the ITC, a quasi-judicial federal agency
with independence under the executive branch.
∙ Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act authorizes the ITC to investigate
intellectual property rights violations, including patent infringement, and to
issue exclusion orders (preventing the importation of infringing products) or
cease and desist orders (prohibiting sales and distribution within the U.S.).
(2)
Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination (ID) Found Infringement of
Samsung Display’s Patent
On November 15, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) issued the Initial Determination (ID), finding that at least one of the
accused products infringed certain claims of Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent No.
9,818,803.
On November 29, 2024, Samsung Display petitioned the
ITC for a review of the Initial Determination.
(3)
Final Determination by the U.S. International Trade Commission
∙ On March 19, 2025, after reviewing the ALJ’s Initial
Determination, the ITC concluded the investigation with a Final Determination
confirming the infringement of Samsung Display’s patent.
∙ However, the Commission did not issue an import ban
because the “domestic industry” requirement under Section 337 of the U.S.
Tariff Act was not met.
(4) Appeals Process
Following the ITC’s Final Determination
∙ When the ITC issues a Final Determination of a
Section 337 violation, it is published in the Federal Register and subject to presidential review.
∙ A party adversely affected by the ITC’s Final
Determination may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(CAFC) within 60 days of the decision. If the Final Determination favors the
complainant, the respondent may also appeal to the CAFC within 60 days
following the presidential review period.
∙ In this case, since the determination was not
favorable to the complainant, an appeal may be filed with the CAFC within 60
days of the Final Determination.
 |
| gettyimagesbank.com |
< source of the post >
https://www.kiip.re.kr/board/trend/view.do?bd_gb=trend&bd_cd=1&bd_item=0&po_item_gb=US&po_no=23524
INTA (International Trademark Association)
International Trademark Association Issues
Statement on Deep Fakes (Digital Replicas)
∙ On February 26, 2025, the Board of
Directors of the International Trademark Association (INTA) adopted a
resolution titled Legislation on Deep Fakes
(Digital Replicas) and issued its position on the
matter.
(Key Points)
INTA expressed its views
to assist policymakers in addressing issues arising from digital replicas and
deep fakes, and in drafting legislation aimed at strengthening intellectual
property rights and consumer protection.
(1) Overview
∙ With recent advances in artificial
intelligence (AI), tools that allow for the unauthorized reproduction of individuals’
names, images, and likenesses—commonly referred to as "deep
fakes"—have become increasingly accessible.
∙ Deep fakes and AI-driven technologies can
cause significant, and often irreparable, harm to individuals’ names, voices,
and likenesses. These damages may not be adequately remedied through monetary
compensation.
∙ In the United States, Congress has been
actively considering various legislative proposals aimed at addressing specific
issues arising from the use of AI in connection with images, voices, and
likenesses.²
(2) INTA’s Key Opinions
∙ INTA does not support any specific
legislation regarding deep fakes but aims to outline policy principles that
enable collaboration with lawmakers.
∙ INTA supports enacting legal protections
against harm caused by the commercial use of digital replicas where such use is
likely to cause confusion, deception, or misrepresentation about the nature,
origin, or endorsement of a product, service, or commercial activity.
∙ INTA endorses legal mechanisms such as a rebuttable presumption or procedural tools to help
facilitate actions against unauthorized digital replicas.
∙ The association supports the implementation
of a notice and takedown framework for
addressing infringements caused by deep fakes and the creation of safe harbor provisions for online service providers.
∙ Service providers who receive notifications
of alleged infringement involving digital replicas should act promptly to
restrict or block access to the infringing material to the extent technically
and practically possible. However, such measures must also respect rights such
as freedom of expression and fair use.
 |
| gettyimagesbank.com |
1) The full text of the resolution is available
at https://www.inta.org/wp-content/uploads/public-files/advocacy/board-resolutions/20250226_INTA-Board-Resolution-Legislation-On-Deep-Fakes-Digital-Replicas.pdf
2) Examples of
legislative efforts include:
·
The
Nurture Originals, Foster
Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act proposed in both the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives,
·
The
No Artificial Intelligence
Fake Replicas and Unauthorized Duplications Act proposed in the
House,
·
And
the Preventing Abuse of
Digital Replicas Act, also proposed in the House.
< source of the post >
https://www.kiip.re.kr/board/trend/view.do?bd_gb=trend&bd_cd=1&bd_item=0&po_item_gb=IORG&po_no=23495
