UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING
`DIODE DISPLAY MODULES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
` Inv. No. 337-TA-1378
`
`ORDER NO. 7:
`
`ADOPTED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`
`(January 8, 2024)
`
`On January 3, 2024, pursuant to Order No. 5, Complainant Samsung Display Company,
`
`Ltd. (“Samsung”), Respondents BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. of China, Mianyang BOE
`
`Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. of China, Ordos Yuansheng Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. of
`
`China, Chengdu BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd of China, Chongqing BOE
`
`Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. of China, Wuhan BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co.,
`
`Ltd. of China, BMOT f/k/a Kunming BOE Display Technology of China, and BOE Technology
`
`America Inc. of Santa Clara, CA (collectively, “Respondents” and, with Samsung, the “Private
`
`Parties”), with the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff” and with the Private Parties, “the
`
`Parties”) filed their Joint Proposed Procedural Schedule (“JPPS”). (Doc. ID 811388 (Jan. 3,
`
`2024).).
`
`The Parties’ Joint Proposed Procedural Schedule is Attachment A to the narrative for the
`
`JPPS. The Parties’ JPPS largely adopts the initial, Proposed Procedural Schedule that was sent
`
`to the Parties as Attachment A to Order No. 5. However, the Parties have asked for a change in
`
`the dates for the close of fact discovery and the close of expert discovery. The Parties have
`
`asked that the close of fact discovery be moved from May 13, 2024 to June 21, 2024 and that the
`
`close of expert discovery be moved from June 28, 2024 to August 20, 2024 respectively. (JPPS
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`at 2.). The Parties assert that there is ample room in the JPPS and in the initial Proposed
`
`Procedural Schedule for the modifications to the discovery dates. The Parties also agree that the
`
`changes to the discovery dates will not impact the dates for the evidentiary hearing (“Hearing”),
`
`and, therefore, there is good cause for the modifications. The modified dates will give the
`
`Parties more time to complete discovery. The Parties explained that they are concerned about
`
`potential delays associated with certain requests for foreign discovery that may be made through
`
`the Hague, and potential delays associated with obtaining approval for discovery, as many be
`
`required, from the Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (“MOTIE”). (Id.).
`
`Samsung also has requested a change in the date Chambers proposed for the Hearing
`
`from late October to November 13-15, and 18-19, 2024. Samsung asserts that trial in a related
`
`case, Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Display Co. Ltd. et al., No. 2:22-cv-
`
`00469-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“Polaris”), that is scheduled to begin on October 28, 2024, may conflict
`
`with the proposed Hearing in this Investigation which is scheduled to begin on October 23, 2024
`
`and last for five (5) days. (Id. at 1.). Respondents assert that Samsung has not shown good
`
`cause to move the Hearing date and that Samsung’s request is premature because no witnesses
`
`have been identified who would testify in both trials. Respondents also say that trial counsel for
`
`the two (2) cases are separate, and it is uncertain whether the Federal District Court trial will go
`
`forward as scheduled in October 2024. (Id. at 1-2.). Staff does not appear to have taken a
`
`position on a change in Hearing dates, or at least none is reported.
`
`Given the totality of circumstances, the potential discovery delays associated with foreign
`
`discovery through the Hague, and obtaining approval from MOTIE, justify modifying the
`
`Proposed Procedural Schedule, at least for the discovery deadline dates that the Parties have
`
`proposed, as identified above. Therefore, the Parties’ proposed modifications to the deadlines
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`for close of fact discovery and expert discovery are adopted. (See Attachment A hereto.).
`
`However, Samsung’s request to modify the dates for the Hearing appears to be
`
`premature. The Federal District Court Polaris case has been stayed pending the outcome of
`
`Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile
`
`Devices, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1351. Consequently, the currently
`
`scheduled start trial date of October 28, 2024 in the Polaris case is speculative. Moreover, as
`
`Respondents have pointed out, Samsung did not identify any witnesses whom it expects to call
`
`during the Hearing whom Samsung also expects to call in the Polaris case. Therefore,
`
`Samsung’s request to modify the proposed Hearing dates is denied at this time. However, the
`
`Parties may always request a change in the Hearing dates at a later time if that becomes
`
`necessary.
`
`The Adopted Procedural Schedule is Attachment A to this Order.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`