337 survey aimed at LED billion market worried universal exclusion order"

March 20th, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) on the light-emitting diode (LED) 337 investigation official filing, including 4 Chinese LED manufacturers, including the world's top 30 companies have received a complaint filed by ITC. These companies in the United States sold LED and laser products suspected of violating the United States Columbia University emeritus professor Gertrude Neumark Rothschild patent (Patent No.: 5252499). Although supable optoelectronics, photonics, optoelectronics and Jia Guangzhou Hongli Shenzhen Lei Chau enterprise scale is not too large, but for the China LED emerging industry, the "337 investigation" of shock wave can not be underestimated. SONY and other more than and 30 enterprises involved in the case according to the relevant data of national Ministry of commerce website, the enterprise can use section 337th of the US Tariff Act of 1930 to the United States International Trade Commission proposed to carry out the administrative investigation of imported products; if the findings are true, the violation of American industry can ask the U.S. government to take administrative measures to ban the import and sale of the products the United states. In recent years, the domestic enterprises suffered the United States, "337 investigation" of the rapid increase in the situation, the scope is also growing, the battery industry in the past few years have become the object of the "337 investigation". Today, in the field of international trade, more and more American companies use the 337 clause is not to prevent foreign patent infringement, but in order to foreign related enterprises in the u.s..

Relevant statistics show that the future of the LED market will be the largest area of the lighting market, if you can completely replace the fluorescent lamp, the potential market size will likely exceed $300 billion. Estimated that by 2010, China's LED industry output value will be more than 150 billion yuan.

The "337 investigation" is not a business application, involving the scope of the enterprise is also very large. However, it is worth noting that, despite the size of the Chinese enterprises involved is not too large, but if the adverse response to the entire domestic LED industry, will bring development variables.

For the more than 1 thousand and 700 domestic LED manufacturers and upstream chip manufacturers, the 4 companies being sued if convicted of infringement, that means ITC can issue a "general exclusion order", namely in the patent validity period, led Chinese production, and containing a light-emitting diode downstream products will be banned for exports to the United States, then the total amount of money involved may rise from the current $100 million to billions of dollars.

Reconciliation is the bottom line

Guangzhou Hongli photoelectron chairman Li Guoping said: "if the response is not good, we can only use the chip of a few companies in the future, for example, if the use of companies such as PHILPS chips, that costs will increase several times. "

According to the reporter, the main products are Guangzhou Hongli opto electronic energy-saving lamps, LED lamps, LED LED module, if ITC through 337 investigation procedure, finds its infringement of patents, the cost will rise sharply.

Previously, ITC has been with PHILPS, OSRAM, TOYOTA, CREE and arias (Nichia) and five of the world's largest LED companies settled the patent.

According to ITC's 337 procedural law, the United States generally can be divided into 337 stages of the investigation is generally divided into three stages, namely, the initial stage of the investigation of the administrative judge, the ruling Committee and the president.

Each of the 337 cases are by a committee of the administrative judge is responsible for the initial investigation, make a preliminary ruling tort (including the tortfeasor), then put forward to take relief measures.

The LED survey was officially filed on March 20th. For China's alleged enterprises, must reply within 20 days. Geng Bo, director of China's Semiconductor Industry Association, said that if Chinese companies do not respond within the prescribed period, will be considered as a waiver and lose, it will threaten the entire Chinese LED industry sales in the United states.

Some experts said that the written reply content must include admit or deny the allegations, and provide a brief explanation of the alleged facts; detailed defense facts; the product under investigation data and customs import tariff; surveyed the production capacity of the degree of importance of the American market; corresponding v. operating; the lawsuit of intellectual property rights is invalid or not execution of the product under investigation; intuitive description.

Shenzhen Lei Chau said, the company decided to go to court for the China LED industry, Chinese had jointly responding to the battery industry eventually won, and that it is responding to the bottom line with the United States parties reached a settlement.

In fact, although for some small Chinese enterprises, deal with the U.S. 337 investigation litigation costs is a large cost, but also face the ability to unite other enterprises responding to common problems, but Chinese enterprise successful examples have precedent. July 19, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission signed a formal document, decided to terminate the three companies in Shenzhen digital multimeter, the "337 survey". This is the battery, wood floor and lighter, Chinese enterprises in the 337 investigation in another win.

SONY joint venture

Li Guoping said, in effect of the U.S. 337 investigation, the company is currently operating has been some impact, a customer calls consulting firm, there is no infringement, "I am responsible to tell them that we have absolutely no infringement, otherwise we wouldn't spend several hundred million dollars to fight the lawsuit".

However, from the current point of view, although there have been two joint venture respondent, but the other two companies involved in the lawsuit is difficult to bear on the grounds of the cost of giving up the respondent. And other domestic enterprises on this