Wednesday, November 27, 2013. Before yesterday’s trading commenced, Universal Display Corporation (“UDC;” NASDAQ: OLED) released an announcement of a new “collaboration” with Philips stating it was delighted with the “partnership with Philip.” Investors should agree that the below makes it blatantly obvious that UDC’s announcement was unnecessary and misleading; that it was intended to distract focus on the immediate negative significance of Friday’s groundbreaking court decision, which has a negative direct effect on its Samsung business. Otherwise the announcement is meaningless.
A representative for Philips Technologie Gmb, the subsidiary of HKoninklijke Philips NV in question, presented with UDC’s “collaboration” or “partnership” claims, confirmed that the entire matter merely relates to UDC’s indication of interest in become one of Philips existing phosphorescent materials suppliers.
Contrary to UDC’s investor centric promotion, UDC has no blocking or pioneering OLED patent.
UDC’s only OLED phosphorescent materials patents that make be remotely characterized as “blocking” were all consolidated into EP238, which were invalidating in its totality in a legal decision based on a “no invention” finding of fact that is not appealable. The legal standards used to make that “no invention” determination exist in the US and other major jurisdictions.
Philips just like Samsung Mobile Display Co., Ltd., Motorola, HTC, LG , Sony Ericsson, Nokia Fossil Anwell Technologies Limited, AU Optronics, Chimei Innolux Corporation, DuPont, Shearwater Research and other manufacturers of OLED display panel is free to manufacture OLED products without any UDC involvement or reliance on UDC’s phosphorescent materials.
UDC issued its “partnership” announcement under questionable circumstances suspiciously timed to create or justify aftermarket trading. UDC’s partnership claim is an obviously unnecessary exaggerated misuse of Phiilps that has unfortunately created a series of erroneous articles.